DETAILED ACTION
This office action is based on the claim set submitted and filed on 03/13/2025.
Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-12 are drawn to a system, Claim 13-22 are drawn to a method, and Claim 23 is drawn to an art of manufacturer, and of which are within the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine and a process). Claims 1-23 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the steps of the claim for the invention represents an abstract idea of a series of steps that recite a process for exchanging patient data. Using the patient unique ID to transfer data are steps that could have been performed by a human performing the steps exchanging patient data based on identified patient ID between device but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Independent Claim 1, and similarly claim 13, recites the steps of:
“a first patient monitoring device of said monitoring devices associated with the unique ID data, wherein the first patient monitoring device is configured with a first wireless data receiver and a first wireless data transmitter, and wherein the first patient monitoring device is adapted to monitor the medical data of the patient;
a second patient monitoring device of said monitoring devices configured with a second wireless data receiver and a second wireless data transmitter, wherein the first patient monitoring device is adapted to wirelessly transmit the unique ID data to the second patient monitoring device and wherein the second patient monitoring device is configured to wirelessly receive the unique ID data from the first patient monitoring device;
at least one database for storing the medical data associated with the unique ID;
at least one computing device in data communication with each of the first patient monitoring device, the second patient monitoring device, and the at least one database, wherein the at least one computing device is configured to execute a plurality of programmatic instructions that, when executed, cause the at least one computing device to:
receive the medical data monitored by the first patient monitoring device;
transmit the received medical data to the at least one database;
receive from the first patient monitoring device a request to transfer the medical data associated with the unique ID to the second patient monitoring device;
receive from the second patient monitoring device the unique ID; and
in response to receiving request to transfer the medical data from the first patient monitoring device and to receiving the unique ID from the second patient monitoring device, cause the medical data associated with the unique ID to be transmitted to the second patient monitoring device”.
Claim 23 similarly recite the steps of Claim 1 of:
A non-transient computer readable medium comprising a plurality of programmatic instructions that enable a transfer of medical data associated with a unique identity (ID) of a patient from a first patient monitoring device to a second patient monitoring device using at least one computing device remotely located from, and in data communication with, both the first patient monitoring device and the second patient monitoring device, wherein the medical data associated with the unique ID comprises physiological data of the patient monitored by the first patient monitoring device, and wherein executing the plurality of programmatic instructions causes:
the medical data associated with the unique ID to be transmitted from the first patient monitoring device to the at least one computing device;
the at least one computing device to receive the medical data from the first patient monitoring device;
the unique ID to be directly transmitted from the first patient monitoring device to the second patient monitoring device;
the second patient monitoring device to receive the unique ID;
the first patient monitoring device to transmit to the at least one computing device a request to transfer the medical data to the second patient monitoring device;
the second patient monitoring device to transmit to the at least one computing device the unique ID; and
the medical data associated with the unique ID to be transmitted to the second patient monitoring device from the at least one computing device”.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations by a human user/actor interacting with a computing system to transfer patient data between devices that constitute certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations encompass a user the ability to receive from a device patient data comprising unique ID, send the unique ID to a second device via a computing device and to receive from the second device medical data, which are steps that could be performed by a human actor interacting with other user(s) and/or a machine as such identifying an abstract idea. This abstract idea could have been performed by a human actor but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for configuring and tailoring a study protocol for a patient. If a claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) by a human actor but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim limitations recite an abstract idea. Any limitations not identified above as part of methods of organizing human activity are deemed "additional elements," and will be discussed in further detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas, linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements such as “processors, monitoring device, computing device, database, receiver/transmitter, non-transitory computer readable medium” and these hardware components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., general purpose computers/components implementing generic computer functions; applicant's specification makes no mention of any specific hardware) to perform the steps of the claim(s), i.e., “transmit[ting]/receive[ing]”, that amounts to no more than the words "apply it" with a computer because it appears to intend to do so, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and mere data gathering and outputting process that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(d). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, looking at the claim as a whole, individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception because as mentioned above, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, recited at a high level of generality, do not present improvements to another technology or technical field, nor do they affect an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, that amount to no more than mere instruction to perform the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). 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 conventional computer implementation and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-12 and 14-22 include all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 13, and therefore likewise incorporate the above-described abstract idea. While the depending claims add additional limitations, such as
As for claims 7, 10, 12, and 22, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers a performing the steps by a human actor exchanging patient data, which is a certain methods of organizing human activity, but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
As for claims 2-6, 8-9, 11, and 14-21 the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers a performing the steps by a human actor exchanging patient data, which is certain methods of organizing human activity, but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. The claims recite additional elements “monitoring device, near filed communication, database, computing device” that implement the identified abstract idea. These hardware components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., general purpose computers/components implementing generic computer functions; applicant's specification makes no mention of any specific hardware) to perform the steps of the claim(s), i.e., “transmit[ting]/transfer[ing], store[ing]”, that amounts to no more than the words "apply it" with a computer because it appears to intend to do so, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g. “monitoring injections...), to the abstract idea and does not affect the generation of the data object and as such amounts to insignificant extra and post/extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and mere data gathering and outputting process that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(d). 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. The additional elements amount to more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component and have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 13-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Al-Ali et al. (US 2024/0047061 A1- “Al-Ali”)
Regarding Claim 1, Al-Ali teaches a system adapted to transferring medical data associated with unique identity (ID) data of a patient between monitoring devices (Al-Ali: [Fig. 1A-B, 5A-B], [0027], [0031], [0125-0127], [0140-0141]), the system comprising:
a first patient monitoring device of said monitoring devices associated with the unique ID data, wherein the first patient monitoring device is configured with a first wireless data receiver and a first wireless data transmitter, and wherein the first patient monitoring device is adapted to monitor the medical data of the patient Al-Ali discloses a computing device (e.g., monitoring hub) where identification an physiological data that can be generated by sensors and/or received via plurality of monitoring hubs such as origin monitoring hub when transferring physiological monitoring where the identification data can include data that is associated with a user and can be used to identify the user such as the user unique ID (Al-Ali: [Fig. 1A-B, 5A-B], [0067], [0141], [0151], [0158-0160], [0165], [0186])
a second patient monitoring device of said monitoring devices configured with a second wireless data receiver and a second wireless data transmitter, wherein the first patient monitoring device is adapted to wirelessly transmit the unique ID data to the second patient monitoring device and wherein the second patient monitoring device is configured to wirelessly receive the unique ID data from the first patient monitoring device; Al-Ali discloses the monitoring hubs where identification data can be received by a monitoring hub such as destination monitoring hub when transferring physiological monitoring to receive the identification data associated with the user such as the user unique ID (Al-Ali: [Fig. 5A-B], [0141], [0151], [0157-0161], [0190], );
at least one database for storing the medical data associated with the unique ID Al-Ali discloses the collected patient data is stored in a database (Al-Ali: [0152-0153], [0164])
at least one computing device in data communication with each of the first patient monitoring device, the second patient monitoring device, and the at least one database, wherein the at least one computing device is configured to execute a plurality of programmatic instructions that (Al-Ali: [0152-0153], [0164]), when executed, cause the at least one computing device to:
receive the medical data monitored by the first patient monitoring device Al-Ali discloses the data generated by the sensors communicating with the origin monitoring hubs and transmit physiological data to the monitoring hub and server to stores it (Al-Ali: [Fig. 1A-B, 5A-B], [0141], [0067], [0151-0153])
transmit the received medical data to the at least one database (Al-Ali: [0152-0153])
receive from the first patient monitoring device a request to transfer the medical data associated with the unique ID to the second patient monitoring device Al-Ali discloses a request to transfer the patient data comprises patient ID along with physiological monitoring from origin monitoring hub to destination monitoring hub (Al-Ali: [Fig. 1A-B, 5A-B], [0141], [0151], [0158-0160], [0165], [0186])
receive from the second patient monitoring device the unique ID Al-Ali discloses receiving a match of identification data of the origin monitoring hub and destination monitoring hub (Al-Ali: [0141-0142], [0155], [0165], [0196]),
in response to receiving request to transfer the medical data from the first patient monitoring device and to receiving the unique ID from the second patient monitoring device, cause the medical data associated with the unique ID to be transmitted to the second patient monitoring device Al-Ali discloses upon determine a match of the identification data between the two hubs, perform the transfer to the destination hub (Al-Ali: [0155], [0165], [0199]).
Regarding Claim 2, Al-Ali teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, when the plurality of programmatic instructions are executed, at least one computing device is configured to refrain from transmitting the received medical data to the second patient monitoring device unless the at least one computing device first receives said request from the first patient monitoring device to transfer the medical data associated with the unique ID to the second patient monitoring device and receives said unique ID data from the second patient monitoring device (Al-Ali: [0142], [0155], [0165], [0196]).
Regarding Claim 3, Al-Ali teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first patient monitoring device is configured to wirelessly directly transmit the unique ID to the second patient monitoring device upon physical contact with the second patient monitoring device (Al-Ali: [0141-0142], [0155], [0165], [0188-0189], [0191-0197]).
Regarding Claim 4, Al-Ali teaches the system of claim 3, wherein the first patient monitoring device is configured to only directly transmit the unique ID to the second patient monitoring device upon physical contact with the second patient monitoring device and not to transmit the medical data directly to the second patient monitoring device (Al-Ali: [0141-0142], [0155], [0165], [0188-0189], [0191-0197]).
Regarding Claim 5, Al-Ali teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first patient monitoring device is configured to wirelessly directly transmit, and the second patient monitoring device is configured to wirelessly directly receive, the unique ID using near field communication Al-Ali discloses the monitoring hubs may communicate with the server(s) via any combination of wireless communication protocols including near field communication (NFC) (Al-Ali: [0070], [0141-0142], [0149], [0191-0197]).
Regarding Claim 6, Al-Ali teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the first patient monitoring device and the second patient monitoring device are configured to activate near field communication only by physical contact between the first patient monitoring device and the second patient monitoring device (Al-Ali: [0070], [0141-0142], [0188-0189], [0191-0197]).
Regarding Claim 13, Al-Ali teaches a method for transferring medical data associated with a unique identity (ID) of a patient from a first patient monitoring device to a second patient monitoring device using at least one computing device remotely located from, and in data communication with, both the first patient monitoring device and the second patient monitoring device, wherein the medical data associated with the unique ID comprises physiological data of the patient monitored by the first patient monitoring device, said method comprising:
the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding Claim 14, Al-Ali teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising using the at least one computing device, causing the medical data to be stored in at least one database (Al-Ali: [0152-0153]).
Regarding Claim 15, Al-Ali teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising, using the at least one computing device, causing the medical data to be transmitted to the second patient monitoring device from the at least one database (Al-Ali: [0152-0153]).
Regarding Claim 16, Al-Ali teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the first patient monitoring device is not configured to, permitted to, or enabled to directly transmit the medical data to the second patient monitoring device (Al-Ali: [0142], [0155], [0165], [0196]).
Regarding Claim 17, Al-Ali teaches the method of claim 13, wherein causing the medical data to be transmitted to the second patient monitoring device using the at least one computing device only occurs after the at least one computing device receives said request from the first patient monitoring device to transfer the medical data to the second patient monitoring device and receives said unique ID data from the second patient monitoring device (Al-Ali: [0142], [0155], [0165], [0188-189], [0191-197]).
Regarding Claim 18-20, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claim 4-6, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding Claim 23, Al-Ali teaches a non-transient computer readable medium comprising a plurality of programmatic instructions that enable a transfer of medical data associated with a unique identity (ID) of a patient from a first patient monitoring device to a second patient monitoring device using at least one computing device remotely located from, and in data communication with, both the first patient monitoring device and the second patient monitoring device, wherein the medical data associated with the unique ID comprises physiological data of the patient monitored by the first patient monitoring device Al-Ali discloses a computing device (e.g., monitoring hub) may communicate with a remote server transferring based on a request monitored physiological and identification data that can be generated by sensors and/or received via plurality of monitoring hubs such as origin monitoring hub when transferring physiological monitoring where the identification data can include data that is associated with a user and can be used to identify the user such as the user unique ID (Al-Ali: [Fig. 1A-B, 5A-B], [0135], [0141], [0151], [0155], [0158-0160], [0165], [0310]), and wherein executing the plurality of programmatic instructions causes:
the medical data associated with the unique ID to be transmitted from the first patient monitoring device to the at least one computing device Al-Ali discloses transmit physiological data to origin monitoring hub, destination monitoring hub, and/or to the server(s) in real-time (Al-Ali: [Fig. 1A-B, 5A-B], [0141], [0152-153], [0165])
the at least one computing device to receive the medical data from the first patient monitoring device (Al-Ali: [Fig. 1A-B, 5A-B], [0152-153])
the unique ID to be directly transmitted from the first patient monitoring device to the second patient monitoring device Al-Ali discloses the monitoring hub can receive identification data via one or more wireless communication protocols such as near field communication (NFC) transmitting physiological data to origin monitoring hub and destination monitoring hub (Al-Ali: [Fig. 1A-B, 5A-B], [0152-153], [0155], [0165], [0195-0196])
the second patient monitoring device to receive the unique ID Al-Ali discloses the monitoring hub can receive identification data via one or more wireless communication protocols such as near field communication (NFC) (Al-Ali: [Fig. 1A-B, 5A-B], [0141-0142], [0155-0156], [0165], [0195-0196])
the first patient monitoring device to transmit to the at least one computing device a request to transfer the medical data to the second patient monitoring device Al-Ali discloses a request to transfer physiological monitoring from origin monitoring hub to destination monitoring hub (Al-Ali: [Fig. 1A-B, 4, 5A-B], [0141-0142], [0155-0156], [0165])
the second patient monitoring device to transmit to the at least one computing device the unique ID Al-Ali discloses transmit physiological data to origin monitoring hub, destination monitoring hub, and/or to the server(s) in real-time (Al-Ali: [Fig. 1A-B, 5A-B], [0141-0142], [0152-153], [0155-0156], [0165], [0195-0196])
the medical data associated with the unique ID to be transmitted to the second patient monitoring device from the at least one computing device (Al-Ali: [0155-0156], [0165], [0197-0199]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-12 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Ali et al. (US 2024/0047061 A1- “Al-Ali”) in view of White et al. (US 2021/0304881 A1– “White”)
Regarding Claim 7, Al-Ali teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the medical data associated with the unique ID comprises demographic data of the patient and physiological data of the patient Al-Ali teaches unique ID and physiological data (Al-Ali: [0141]). However, Al-Ali does not expressly disclose demographic data.
White teaches consolidating medical data from multiple devices where the data comprises demographic data (White: [0068], [0140], [0176], [0186]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Al-Ali incorporate demographic data, as taught by White which allow healthcare provider(s) to assess the overall state of care for the patient and make appropriate adjustments (White: [0059]).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Al-Ali and White teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the at least one computing device is adapted to transfer the demographic data associated with the unique ID to the second patient monitoring device only after the at least one computing device receives said request from the first patient monitoring device to transfer the medical data associated with the unique ID to the second patient monitoring device and receives said unique ID data from the second patient monitoring device (Al-Ali: [0152-0153], [0155-0156], [0165], [0195-0199]). White teaches demographic data (White: [0068], [0140], [0176], [0186]).
The motivations to combine the above-mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and incorporated herein.
Regarding Claim 9, Al-Ali teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first patient monitoring device is a multi-parameter patient monitor configured to monitor a plurality of patient parameters of a neonate patient, a pediatric patient or adult patient Al-Ali discloses plurality of patient parameters (Al-Ali: [Fig. 3A-B], [0146], [015 l-0152], [0277]). However, Al-Ali does not expressly teach type of patient such as adult, neonatal, pediatric.
White teaches parameters for different types of patients such as adult and pediatric (White: [0136]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Al-Ali incorporate patient type parameters, as taught by White which ease treatment documentation in specific situations and provide the relevant information for the type of patient (White, [0136-137]).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Al-Ali and White teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the plurality of patient parameters comprises one or more of ECG, heart rate, respirations, blood oxygenation, non-invasive blood pressure, invasive blood pressure, non-invasive temperature, invasive temperature, and cardiac output (Al-Ali: [0134], [0146], [0152], [0277]).
Regarding Claim 11, Al-Ali teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second patient monitoring device is a multi-parameter patient monitor configured to monitor a plurality of patient parameters of a neonate patient, a pediatric patient or adult patient Al-Ali discloses plurality of patient parameters (Al-Ali: [Fig. 3A-B], [0146], [015 l-0152], [0277]). However, Al-Ali does not expressly teach type of patient such as adult, neonatal, pediatric.
White teaches parameters for different types of patients such as adult and pediatric (White: [0136]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Al-Ali incorporate patient type parameters, as taught by White which ease treatment documentation in specific situations and provide the relevant information for the type of patient (White, [0136-137]).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Al-Ali and White teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of patient parameters comprises one or more of ECG, heart rate, respirations, blood oxygenation, non-invasive blood pressure, invasive blood pressure, non-invasive temperature, invasive temperature, and cardiac output (Al-Ali: [0134], [0146], [0152], [0277]).
Regarding Claims 21-22, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claim 9-10, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Prior Art Cited but not Applied
The following document(s) were found relevant to the disclosure but not applied:
US 2024/0387038 “Brough” discloses sharing patient data between and among devices sending a request for the patient identifier to a server for information.
US 2019/0173885 – “Kamath” discloses wireless communication of analyte data and receiving authorization to provide one of the partner devices with access to a set of configuration parameters.
US 2019/0036688 – “Wasily” discloses secure communication for medical devices by sending an application authentication request including device identifiers and the secure element public key to a server and obtaining a digital certificate that includes the secure element public key and the device identifiers.
US 2018/0338726 – “Yarger” discloses pairing a first and second wireless devices in a physiological condition management system via proximity to initiate generation of a secret key.
The references are relevant since it discloses a process for providing access and sharing patient unique identification and physiological data between devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAAELDIN ELSHAER whose telephone number is (571)272-8284. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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 Mamon.Obeid@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687