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 .
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the application filed 2025 February 14.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 2/14/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made if a claim for foreign priority. However, certified copies of foreign priority documents have not been received as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
An English translation as well as a statement that the translation is accurate is required for the foreign priority document. See 37 CFR 1.55 (g)(3)(iii) & 37 CFR 1.55 (g)(4).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded
for the Indian application.
Claim Objection
Claim 4 is objected to due to a minor informality: sentence ending in a comma.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 11 recites the following:
“determining… a decision-making subsystem”
“generating… a survey generation subsystem”
“receiving… a user interaction subsystem”
“processing… a data processing subsystem”
“connecting… a remote assistant subsystem”
“allowing … a remote test triggering subsystem”
Claim 12 recites the following:
“obtaining … a consent data obtaining subsystem”
which are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ),
sixth paragraph. The limitations create a rebuttable presumption that the claim elements are to be treated under § 112(f) based on the use of the word “means” or generic place holder (underlined) with functional language (in italics). The presumption is not rebutted because the limitations do not recite sufficient structure in the claim to perform the functions. When § 112(f) is invoked the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations is restricted to the structure in the disclosure and its equivalents.
the following functional claim limitations:
Of claim 11 recites the following:
“receiving… a user interaction subsystem”
Of claim 12 recites the following:
“obtaining … a consent data obtaining subsystem”
recite non-specialized computer functions that can be accomplished by any general
purpose computer (e.g., any general purpose computer can receive, convert, and/or
display data, etc.), and as such an algorithm is not required to be described in the
specification to support an adequate disclosure of the limitations.
However, the following functional claim limitations:
Of claim 11 recites the following:
“determining… a decision-making subsystem”
“generating… a survey generation subsystem”
“processing… a data processing subsystem”
“connecting… a remote assistant subsystem”
“allowing … a remote test triggering subsystem”
recite specialized computer functions. A function performed by a programmed
computer requires both the computer and the algorithm that causes the computer to
perform the function. As such, a disclosure of an algorithm to perform these functions and to transform a general purpose computer into a programmed computer is required. Examiner notes that the specification is not clear in providing the specific algorithm and corresponding structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation of the function of the sorting mechanism.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s
interpretation of the corresponding structure/algorithm, applicant must identify the
corresponding structure/algorithm with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the
claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination
Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of
Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2.
Claims 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements “a decision-making subsystem”, “a survey generation subsystem”, “a data processing subsystem”, “a remote assistant subsystem”, and “a remote test triggering subsystem” are limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Programmed computer functions require a computer programmed with an “algorithm” to perform the function. Because “a decision-making subsystem”, “a survey generation subsystem”, “a data processing subsystem”, “a remote assistant subsystem”, and “a remote test triggering subsystem” relate to specific functions that must be performed by a special purpose computer, the supporting specification must specifically identify the structure (including an algorithm for specialized functions) that performs the claimed functions of the above-mentioned claim elements.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claims 1-12 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims contain the recitation of “a decision-making subsystem”, “a survey generation subsystem”, “a data processing subsystem”, “a remote assistant subsystem”, and “a remote test triggering subsystem.” However, applicant’s specification describes no particular manner in how exactly the decision-making subsystem determines a type of data to be collected, how a survey generation subsystem generates one or more queries, how the data processing subsystem processes data, how the remote assistant subsystem connects the one or more users with a healthcare professional, and how the remote test triggering subsystem allows the healthcare professional to trigger a medical screening test. MPEP 2161.01 notes, “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.” Accordingly, a rejection for lack of written description is necessary.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1-10) and a process (claims 11-12).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites steps of
a health kiosk unit comprises:
one or more embedded sensors configured to generate sensor data;
a plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads operatively positioned at diverse places in the health kiosk unit, configured to generate cardiac electrical activity data of the one or more users associated with a user profile;
one or more server units operatively connected to the health kiosk unit via a communication network;
one or more hardware processors operatively connected to the one or more server units;
a data repository unit operatively coupled to the one or more hardware processors, wherein the data repository unit comprises a plurality of subsystems in form of programmable instructions executable by the one or more hardware processors, wherein the plurality of subsystems comprise:
a decision-making subsystem configured with computer-implemented intelligent models to determine a type of data to be collected from the one or more users based on the user profile;
a survey generation subsystem configured to generate one or more queries for obtaining first data based on the determined type of data to be collected from the one or more users;
a user interaction subsystem configured to receive the first data from the one or more users associated with the user profile through a user interface for initiating personalised health-related interactions within the health kiosk system;
a data processing subsystem configured to process at least one of the: sensor data, cardiac electrical activity data and the first data for determining the one or more parameters of the one or more users associated with the user profile;
a remote assistant subsystem configured to connect the one or more users with a healthcare professional based on the one or more parameters for virtual assistance; and
a remote test triggering subsystem configured to allow the healthcare professional to trigger a medical screening test on the one or more users interacted with the health kiosk unit for managing the health of the one or more users based on dynamic extraction of the one or more parameters.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1.
These steps for managing health of users with a health kiosk system, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the italicized portions from managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people through organizing the activity around managing the health of the one or more users. This could be analogized to considering historical usage information while inputting data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance as organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements non-italicized portions identified above for claims 1 and 11, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as
recitation of a health kiosk unit comprises: one or more embedded sensors configured to generate sensor data; a plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads operatively positioned at diverse places in the health kiosk unit, configured to generate cardiac electrical activity data of the one or more users associated with a user profile; one or more server units operatively connected to the health kiosk unit via a communication network; one or more hardware processors operatively connected to the one or more server units; a data repository unit operatively coupled to the one or more hardware processors, wherein the data repository unit comprises a plurality of subsystems in form of programmable instructions executable by the one or more hardware processors; a decision-making subsystem; a survey generation subsystem; a user interaction subsystem; within the health kiosk system; a data processing subsystem; a remote assistant subsystem; a remote test triggering subsystem amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of receive the first data from the one or more users associated with the user profile amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving action performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Each of the above additional elements therefore only amounts to mere instructions to implement functions within the abstract idea using generic computer components or other machines within their ordinary capacity; and, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. These elements are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the above claims, as a whole, are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception in particular fields such as recitation of a health kiosk unit comprises: one or more embedded sensors configured to generate sensor data; one or more server units operatively connected to the health kiosk unit via a communication network; one or more hardware processors operatively connected to the one or more server units; a data repository unit operatively coupled to the one or more hardware processors, wherein the data repository unit comprises a plurality of subsystems in form of programmable instructions executable by the one or more hardware processors, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f); such as recitation of a plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads operatively positioned at diverse places in the health kiosk unit, configured to generate cardiac electrical activity data of the one or more users associated with a user profile; a decision-making subsystem; a survey generation subsystem; a user interaction subsystem; within the health kiosk system; a data processing subsystem; a remote assistant subsystem; a remote test triggering subsystem, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), MPEP 2106.05(f);
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as recitation of receive the first data from the one or more users associated with the user profile, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Step 2A Prong 1
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-10 and 12 reciting particular aspects for managing health of users with a health kiosk system such as
[Claims 2 & 12] wherein the plurality of subsystems comprise a consent data obtaining subsystem,
the consent data obtaining subsystem configured to obtain consent data from the one or more users to recommend optimised preferences,
the consent data enable the one or more users to manage and optimise data-sharing preferences for at least one of: telemedicine, research, and analysis;
[Claim 3] wherein the one or more embedded sensors comprise at least one of blood pressure sensors, body composition analysis sensors, temperature sensors, and oxygen saturation sensors;
[Claim 4] wherein the plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads is one of: three leads, six leads, and twelve leads operatively integrated into the health kiosk unit at the diverse places;
[Claim 5] wherein the six leads of the plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads positioned at diverse places comprise a left-palm placement, right-palm placement, left-hand wrist placement, right-hand wrist placement, left ankles placement, and right ankles placement;
[Claim 6] wherein the computer-implemented intelligent models comprises at least one of a: self-aware artificial intelligence model, large language model, supervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model, unsupervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model, deep learning model, simple and multimodal analytics including at least one of: regression models, Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs), and K-Nearest Neighbors Algorithm models;
[Claim 7] wherein the survey generation subsystem is configured to dynamically generate health-related queries based on the user's historical health data and ongoing health conditions;
[Claim 8] wherein the first data comprises at least one of: biographical information, health history data, user preferences, survey responses, choice selections for the consent data, and medical records;
[Claim 9] wherein the one or more parameters comprises at least one of a: blood pressure, body composition, body temperature, electrocardiogram (ECG) data, weight and height measurements, optical acuities data, electroencephalogram, Lung function test, urine test, oxygen saturation, Body Mass Index (BMI), blood glucose, and lipid profile;
[Claim 10] wherein the remote assistant subsystem configured with at least one of: audio conferencing capabilities and video conferencing capabilities for activating at least one of a: camera, and microphone embedded in the health kiosk unit;
these italicized portions are methods of organizing human activity since they merely describe types of data and determinations that can be performed by humans.
Step 2A Prong 2
Dependent claims 2-7, 10, and 12 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (the additional limitations in claims 2 & 12 (wherein the plurality of subsystems comprise a consent data obtaining subsystem); claim 3 (wherein the one or more embedded sensors comprise at least one of blood pressure sensors, body composition analysis sensors, temperature sensors, and oxygen saturation sensors); claim 4 (wherein the plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads is one of: three leads, six leads, and twelve leads operatively integrated into the health kiosk unit at the diverse places); claim 5 (six leads of the plurality of electrocardiogram (ECG) leads); claim 6 (wherein the computer-implemented intelligent models comprises at least one of a: self-aware artificial intelligence model, large language model, supervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model, unsupervised artificial intelligence and machine learning model, deep learning model, simple and multimodal analytics including at least one of: regression models, Gaussian Mixture Models (GMMs), and K-Nearest Neighbors Algorithm models); claim 7 (the survey generation subsystem); and, claim 10 (wherein the remote assistant subsystem configured with at least one of: audio conferencing capabilities and video conferencing capabilities for activating at least one of a: camera, and microphone embedded in the health kiosk unit) amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and, claims 2 & 12 (obtain consent data from the one or more users) amounts to mere data gathering since it does not add meaningful limitations to the receiving action performed, see MPEP 2106.05(g))). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Dependent claims 2-3, 7, 10, and 12 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 4-6 recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g., requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, see [0046] which discloses off-the-shelf processors, [0054] which discloses off-the-shelf memory types, [0064] which discloses off-the-shelf devices, and [0055] which discloses off-the-shelf LLMs. Dependent claims 2 & 12 recite additional subject matter which amounts to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). There is no indication that these additional elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Additionally, it is evident that the present claims monopolizes the judicial exception; “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). Therefore, in consideration of all the facts, the present invention is clearly not a patent-eligible invention under USC 101.
No Prior Art Rejection
Regarding claims 1-12, no prior art rejection is being presented at this time.
Prior Art Cited but Not Relied Upon
Patil, D., Mhatre, A., Chavre, S., & Paras, T. (2025). AI-ASSISTED TELEMEDICINE KIOSK FOR RURAL INDIA. JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE (ISSN NO: 1549-3636) VOLUME, 18.
This reference is relevant because it discloses an AI-assisted healthcare kiosk.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WINSTON FURTADO whose telephone number is (571)272-5349. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM EST.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/WINSTON R FURTADO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687