DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. V. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 15/826,744 (hereinafter "the '744 application"), fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, the claimed subject matter of "said data processing module continuously searches said gait-based biometric data to determine biomarkers for existing conditions of said users" from claim 1 is not supported or enabled in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph by the '744 application. That is, para [0096] of the specification as filed of the instant application provides support for this claim language and para [0096] is not present in the ‘744 application.
Accordingly, the priority date of the instant application is 11/30/20.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one sensor module comprising at least one sensor for gathering gait-based biometric data from said user, said at least one sensor module being in a single device having at least two sensors,” in claim 1, which corresponds to an insole with force sensors in it that detects force or pressure (see para [0025] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a data storage module,” in claim 1, which has no corresponding structure; and “a data processing module,” in claim 1, which has no corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claim 1, the claim term “data storage module” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim term is being treated as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found in the specification. Accordingly, there is a lack of written description of the corresponding structure. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject claim term amended out of the claim(s).
For claim 1, the claim term “data processing module” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim term is being treated as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found in the specification. Accordingly, there is a lack of written description of the corresponding structure. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject claim term amended out of the claim(s).
Dependent claim(s) 2-17 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 1, the claim term “having” (line 4) is ambiguous. “Transitional phrases such as ‘having’ must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended. See, e.g., Lampi Corp. v. American Power Products., 228 F.3d 1365, 1376, 56 USPQ2d 1445, 1453 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting MPEP 2111.03(IV)). Here, it is unclear whether “having” is intended to be open or closed claim language. The claim is examined as meaning that the claim language is open.
For claim 1, the claim language “data storage module” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim term is being treated as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found in the specification. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what structure the claim language is supposed to be limited by. The claim is examined as meaning any and all structures that are capable of performing the recited function.
For claim 1, the claim language “data processing module” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim term is being treated as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found in the specification. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what structure the claim language is supposed to be limited by. The claim is examined as meaning any and all structures that are capable of performing the recited function.
For claim 1, the claim language “said processing module continuously searches said gait-based biometric data to determine biomarkers for existing conditions of said users” is ambiguous. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and method steps is indefinite because the recited limitations is not directed to “a system for determining at least one change in a user’s condition,” but instead to a method. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The claim is being examined as said processing module configured to continuously search said gait-based biometric data to determine biomarkers for existing conditions of said users.
Dependent claim(s) 2-17 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “storing data relating to baseline data,” “said baseline data being derived from said gait-based biometric data gathered from said at least one sensor module when said user first uses said system,” “receiving data from said at least one sensor module,” “comparing characteristics of said baseline data with characteristics of said data received from said at least one sensor module,” “stores said gait-based biometric data from a plurality of users,” “continuously searches said gait-based biometric data to determine biomarkers for existing conditions of said users,” and “a change in said user’s condition is indicated when said characteristics of said data received from said at least one sensor module are not within predetermined limits of said characteristics of said baseline data.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “at least one sensor module comprising at least one sensor for gathering gait-based biometric data from said user, said at least one sensor module being in a single device having at least two sensors,” “a data storage module,” “a data processing module,” “at least one database in communication with said data processing module” and “said at least one sensor module comprises an insole for use with said user’s shoe.” However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are well-known, routine, and/or conventional as evidenced by para [0002] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0003643 to Muzaffar et al. and Alice v. CLS Corp. (which held that generic computer components do not otherwise transform patent-eligible subject matter into subject matter that is eligible). The terms “a data storage module,” “a data processing module,” and “at least one database in communication with said data processing module” are being interpreted as generic computer components. Therefore, these elements do not add significantly more and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 2-17 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas and/or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. Thus, claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0089280 to Gray et al. (hereinafter “Gray”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0261929 to Bastide et al. (hereinafter “Bastide”).
For claim 1, Gray discloses a system for determining at least one change in a user's condition (Abstract), said system comprising:
at least one sensor module (20) (Fig. 1) (para [0040]) comprising at least one sensor for gathering gait-based biometric data from said user (para [0042]), said at least one sensor module being in a single device having at least two sensors (para [0042]);
a data storage module (40) (Fig. 1) (para [0040]) for storing data relating to baseline data (para [0040]) (also see para [0064] and [0076]), said baseline data being derived from said gait-based biometric data gathered from said at least one sensor module when said user first uses said system (para [0040]) (also see para [0064] and [0076]);
a data processing module (30) (Fig. 1) (para [0040]) for receiving data from said at least one sensor module (para [0040]), said data processing module being for comparing characteristics of said baseline data with characteristics of said data received from said at least one sensor module (also see para [0064] and [0076]);
at least one database (60A, 60B, 60C, or 60D) (Fig. 8A) (para [0077]) in communication with said data processing module (as can be seen in Fig. 8A) (also see para [0041]), said at least one database stores said gait-based biometric data from a plurality of users (para [0008]); and
wherein
said at least one sensor module comprises an insole for use with said user's shoe (para [0042]);
a change in said user's condition is indicated when said characteristics of said data received from said at least one sensor module are not within predetermined limits of said characteristics of said baseline data (para [0040]) (also see para [0072]).
Gray does not expressly disclose said data processing module continuously searches said gait-based biometric data to determine biomarkers for existing conditions of said users.
However, Bastide teaches a data processing module (122) (Fig. 1) (para [0028]) (also see para [0057]) continuously searches gait-based (para [0013]) biometric data (para [0028], [0036], and [0038]-[0039]) ) to determine biomarkers for existing conditions (para [0013]) of users (para [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Gray to include said data processing module continuously searches said gait-based biometric data to determine biomarkers for existing conditions of said users, in view of the teachings of Bastide, because such a function is a suitable function to associate certain disease/conditions with biometric data for a group population so data from the sensor of Gray of an individual user can be compared against this group data to help diagnose any potential conditions of the individual user.
For claim 3, Gray further discloses wherein said at least one sensor is configured to detect and measure a force applied to said at least one sensor module by a foot of said user as said user is standing or walking (para [0042]).
For claim 4, Gray further discloses wherein said at least one sensor is configured to detect and measure pressure applied by said user's foot to said at least one sensor as said user is walking (para [0042]).
For claim 5, Gray further discloses wherein said at least one sensor is configured to detect a force applied to different areas of said at least one sensor module by said user's foot as said user is walking (para [0042]).
For claim 6, Gray further discloses wherein said at least one sensor comprises a plurality of sensors, each sensor being for detecting and measuring an amount of force applied to different areas of said sensor module by said user's foot (para [0042]).
For claim 7, Gray further discloses wherein said plurality of sensors transmits said gait-based biometric data to an external device (para [0042]).
For claim 8, Gray further discloses where data relating to said force applied to different areas of said at least one sensor module is compared by said data processing module to a plurality of models stored in said at least one database, each of said plurality of models being correlated to at least one of a range of disease related gait patterns (para [0008] and [0081]) (also see para [0002]).
For claim 12, Gray further discloses wherein said at least one database is further populated with patient data from at least one medical facility to thereby enable said data processing module to correlate said biomarkers with said existing conditions of said users (para [0122]).
For claim 17, Gray further discloses wherein said data processing module has an output comprising an indication that the user's condition has a status that is one of: regression, progression, abnormal, normal (para [0023], [0040], [0075], and [0079]), wherein said output is based on a comparison of characteristics of said baseline data with characteristics of said data received from said at least one sensor module (para [0023], [0040], [0075], and [0079]).
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Bastide, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0023719 to Alt et al. (hereinafter “Alt”).
For claim 2, Gray and Bastide do not expressly disclose wherein said data processing module derives a current kinematic chain model from said data received from said at least one sensor module; and said data processing module compares characteristics of said current kinematic chain model with characteristics of said base kinematic chain model.
However, Alt teaches wherein said data processing module derives a current kinematic chain model from said data received from said at least one sensor module (para [0041]) (also see para [0022], [0030]-[0031], and [0044]); and said data processing module compares characteristics of said current kinematic chain model with characteristics of said base kinematic chain model (para [0041]) (also see para [0022], [0030]-[0031], and [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Gray wherein said data processing module derives a current kinematic chain model from said data received from said at least one sensor module; and said data processing module compares characteristics of said current kinematic chain model with characteristics of said base kinematic chain model, in view of the teachings of Alt, because such a modification would be the combination of known elements, i.e., Alt’s kinematic chain models and processes with Gray monitoring of an individual’s gait, that would lead to the predictable result of modeling the kinematics of the joints and anatomy in Gray (using Alt’s data processes).
For claim 16, Gray and Bastide do not expressly disclose wherein said at least one database contains data relating to a base kinematic chain model specific to said user, said base kinematic chain model being derived from said baseline data.
However, Alt teaches wherein at least one database contains data relating to a base kinematic chain model specific to a user (para [0047]) (also see more generally para [0022], [0026], [0030]-[0031] [0041], [0044], [0065] and [0145]), said base kinematic chain model being derived from a baseline (para [0026] and [0085]) (also see para [0067]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Gray wherein said at least one database contains data relating to a base kinematic chain model specific to said user, said base kinematic chain model being derived from said baseline data, in view of the teachings of Alt, because such a modification would be the combination of known elements, i.e., Alt’s kinematic chain models and processes with Gray monitoring of an individual’s gait, that would lead to the predictable result of modeling the kinematics of the joints and anatomy in Gray (using Alt’s data processes).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Bastide, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0098032 to Desai.
For claim 9, Gray and Bastide do not expressly disclose wherein said data processing module employs machine learning techniques to mine said at least one database of gait-based biometric data for next biomarkers related to existing conditions of said users.
However, Desai teaches wherein said data processing module employs machine learning techniques to mine at least one database of biometric data for next biomarkers related to existing conditions of users (para [0028], [0042]-[0044]), [0064], [0067]-[0068], and/or [0086]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Gray wherein said data processing module employs machine learning techniques to mine said at least one database of gait-based biometric data for next biomarkers related to existing conditions of said users, in view of the teachings of Desai, for the obvious advantage of discovering causal relationships between biomarkers and conditions to be able to facilitate earlier stage disease identification to allow for earlier intervention and treatment.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Bastide, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0155035 to Mariani et al. (hereinafter “Mariani”).
For claim 10, Gray further disclose wherein said at least one database stores said gait-based biometric data from a plurality of users (para [0008]).
Gray and Bastide do not expressly disclose wherein said data processing module derives generalized population-based conclusions from said gait-based biometric data.
However, Mariani teaches wherein said data processing module derives generalized population-based conclusions from said gait-based biometric data (para [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Gray wherein said data processing module derives generalized population-based conclusions from said gait-based biometric data, in view of the teachings of Mariani, for the obvious advantage of tailoring insurance based on gait parameters of a population and their corresponding diagnoses so that the insurance companies know how much to charge for their insurance versus how much it will cost to treat the diagnoses.
For claim 11, Gray and Bastide do not expressly disclose wherein said generalized population-based conclusions are used for insurance purposes.
However, Mariani teaches wherein said generalized population-based conclusions are used for insurance purposes (para [0014]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Gray wherein said generalized population-based conclusions are used for insurance purposes, in view of the teachings of Mariani, for the obvious advantage of tailoring insurance based on gait parameters of a population and their corresponding diagnoses so that the insurance companies know how much to charge for their insurance versus how much it will cost to treat the diagnoses.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Bastide, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0378950 to Reiner and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0203573 to Mayer et al. (hereinafter “Mayer”).
For claim 13, Gray and Bastide do not expressly disclose wherein said at least one database is populated with patient data from records of at least one medication dispensing facility to thereby enable said data processing module to correlate said biomarkers with medications for said existing conditions of said users.
However, Reiner teaches wherein said at least one database is populated with patient data from records of at least one medication dispensing facility (para [0109], [0145], and [0309]).
Additionally, Mayer teaches correlating said biomarkers with medications for said existing conditions of said users (para [0054]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Gray wherein said at least one database is populated with patient data from records of at least one medication dispensing facility to thereby enable said data processing module to correlate said biomarkers with medications for said existing conditions of said users, in view of the teachings of Reiner and Mayer, for the obvious advantage of evaluating the effectiveness of a drug therapy.
For claim 14, Gray and Bastide do not expressly disclose wherein said at least one database is populated with pharmaceutical data from published records of at least one regulator to thereby enable said data processing module to correlate said biomarkers with known side effects of medications for said existing conditions of said users.
However, Reiner teaches wherein said at least one database is populated with pharmaceutical data from published records of at least one regulator (para [0089]-[0090]).
Additionally, Mayer teaches correlating said biomarkers with known side effects of medication for said existing conditions of said users (para [0042] and [0054]-[0056]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Gray wherein said at least one database is populated with pharmaceutical data from published records of at least one regulator to thereby enable said data processing module to correlate said biomarkers with known side effects of medication for said existing conditions of said users, in view of the teachings of Reiner and Mayer, for the obvious advantage of tracking side effects from drug therapy so that such therapy can be replaced by a different therapy for a certain patient or patient population.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Bastide, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,716,517 to McNair.
For claim 15, Gray and Bastide do not expressly disclose wherein said at least one database is populated with kinematic data from representative mathematical models to thereby enable said data processing module to correlate said biomarkers with skeletal or joint abnormalities for said existing conditions of said users.
However, McNair teaches correlating biomarkers with skeletal or joint abnormalities for existing conditions of users from kinematic data from representative math models (col. 7, lines 40-67).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Gray wherein said at least one database is populated with kinematic data from representative mathematical models to thereby enable said data processing module to correlate said biomarkers with skeletal or joint abnormalities for said existing conditions of said users, in view of the teachings of McNair, for the obvious advantage of diagnosing a skeletal or joint abnormality so that appropriate treatment may be taken.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights