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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,295,740. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to systems and methods involving receiving ultrasound data of a subject obtained by a transducer array; identifying, by a processor in communication with the transducer array, an anatomical feature of the subject using the ultrasound data; computing, by the processor, a measure associated with the anatomical feature; determining, by the processor, if the measure satisfies a threshold; determining, by the processor, a change in an operating status of a therapeutic device based on if the measure satisfies the threshold, wherein the therapeutic device delivers a therapy to the subject; and outputting, by the processor, a control signal representative of the change in the operating status to the therapeutic device. In general, the instant claims are merely broader than, and thus anticipated by, the reference claims. In particular:
Claim 1 is suggested by reference claim 1.
Claim 2 is suggested by reference claim 2.
Claim 3 is suggested by reference claim 3.
Claims 4 - 5 are suggested by reference claim 4. The identification of an “attribute of the ultrasound data representative of the anatomical feature” is implicit to the identification of the anatomical feature using the ultrasound data.
Claim 6 is suggested by reference claim 5.
Claim 7 is suggested by reference claim 6.
Claim 8 is suggested by reference claim 7.
Claim 9 is suggested by reference claim 8.
Claim 10 is suggested by reference claim 9.
Claim 11 is suggested by reference claim 10.
Claim 12 is suggested by reference claim 11.
Claim 13 is suggested by reference claim 12.
Claim 14 is suggested by reference claim 16.
Claim 15 is suggested by reference claim 17.
Claim 16 is suggested by reference claim 18.
Claim 17 is suggested by reference claim 14. The identification of an “attribute of the ultrasound data representative of the anatomical feature” is implicit to the identification of the anatomical feature using the ultrasound data.
Claim 18 is suggested by reference claim 19.
Claim 19 is suggested by reference claim 20.
Claim 20 is suggested by reference claim 21.
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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., mental-process type abstract ideas) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is directed to a one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a system.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites “identify an anatomical feature of the subject using the ultrasound data; compute a measure associated with the anatomical feature; determine if the measure satisfies a threshold; determine a change in an operating status of the therapeutic device based on if the measure satisfies the threshold”. These limitations, as drafted, amount to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites the additional element of ‘transducer array configured to obtain ultrasound data’. However, this element is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than a generic structures for extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering). See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim also recites a processor to perform the abstract idea. However, this limitation is merely an instruction to implement the abstract ideas on a processor. It has long been held that a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer is not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim also recites that the processor is ‘in communication with the transducer array and a therapeutic device’, which merely links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim also recites “output, to the therapeutic device, a control signal representative of the change in the operating status”. However, this limitation amounts to mere extra-solution activity (i.e., data output). See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(g). In light of the above, the recited additional elements do not appear, either individually or as a whole, to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional elements amount to a generic hardware structure for data gathering, instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer, linking the judicial exception to an environment or field of use, and/or extra-solution activity. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 14:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is directed to a one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a method.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites ‘identifying an anatomical feature of the subject using the ultrasound data; computing a measure associated with the anatomical feature; determining if the measure satisfies a threshold; determining a change in an operating status of a therapeutic device based on if the measure satisfies the threshold’. These limitations, as drafted, amount to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites the additional element of ‘receiving ultrasound data of a subject obtained by a transducer array’. However, this element is mere extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering). See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim also recites a processor to perform the abstract idea. However, this limitation is merely an instruction to implement the abstract ideas on a processor. It has long been held that a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer is not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim also recites that the processor is ‘in communication with the transducer array and a therapeutic device for delivering therapy’, which merely links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim also recites ‘outputting to the therapeutic device, a control signal representative of the change in the operating status’. However, this limitation amounts to mere extra-solution activity (i.e., data output). See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(g). In light of the above, the recited additional elements do not appear, either individually or as a whole, to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional elements amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer, linking the judicial exception to an environment or field of use, and/or extra-solution activity. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2 - 3 and 15 - 16 recite additional limitations directed towards the nature of the status of the therapeutic device. Claims 5 - 7 recite additional limitations directed towards the nature of the anatomical feature and the measure. Claim 13 recites that the transducer array is coupled to a TTE probe, TEE probe, and/or the wearable patch. Claim 8 recites additional limitations directed towards the nature of the therapeutic device, which is notably not part of the claimed system. These limitations merely link the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment or field of use, and thus when considered separately and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or result in the claims amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 4 and 17 recite additional non-limiting elements that characterize the identifying the anatomical feature as ‘identifying an attribute of the ultrasound data representative of the anatomical feature’, which is implicit to the previously recited features. Thus when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or result in the claims amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 9 - 10 and 18 recite additional limitations directed towards determining ‘if the measure is outside of a predefined criteria’. These limitations, as drafted, amount to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process-type abstract idea. The claims further recite outputting an alert to a user based on determining if the measure is outside of the predefined criteria. Claim 10 recites that the alert is a graphical representation of the alert to the display. However, these limitations amount to mere extra-solution activity (i.e., data output). Thus when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or result in the claims amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 11 - 12 and 19 - 20 recite additional limitations directed towards determining the change in the operating status further based on the therapy data or vital sign data. These are merely further details of the abstract idea, and do not preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. The claims recite additional limitations directed towards receiving the therapy data or vital sign data, which are mere extra-solution activity. Thus, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or result in the claims amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1 - 4, 6, and 8 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gifford et al. (US 2018/0177486, of record).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Gifford shows a system comprising a transducer array (“…external ultrasound system …ultrasound image …”, [0147]; ultrasound map, [0148]) configured to obtain ultrasound data of a subject, and a processor (processor, [0147]) in communication with the transducer array and a therapeutic device (“closed-loop control … different therapeutic interventional systems,” [0165]; “… IVC monitor and the therapeutic device…communicate …”, [0173]) that is configured to deliver a therapy to the subject. The processor is configured to implement a method comprising:
identifying an anatomical feature of the subject using the ultrasound data and computing a measure associated with the anatomical feature (“…IVC dimensions … identify the IVC…”, [0147]);
determining if the measure satisfies a threshold (reference diameter, [0021]; [0027]);
determining a change in an operating status of a therapeutic device based on if the measure satisfies the threshold (“sensor/monitor … increasing or decreasing dosage of the IV diuretics as necessary … safety shut-off, interrupting delivery of diuretics once the IVC status reaches the appropriate level”, [0166]; “sensor data …used to control other external devices to effect a therapeutic outcome”, [0072]; “coordinate sensed physiologic data and required intervention”, [0173]; “… modify a treatment algorithm… modify the actions of a therapeutic device …”, [0176] - [0177]); and
outputting a control signal representative of the change in the operating status to the therapeutic device (“… increasing or decreasing dosage of the IV diuretics as necessary … interrupting delivery of diuretics”, [0166]; “…control other external devices to effect a therapeutic outcome”, [0072]; “coordinate sensed physiologic data and required intervention”, [0173]; “… modify a treatment algorithm… modify the actions of a therapeutic device …”, [0176] - [0177]).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Gifford discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Gifford further shows the operating status of the therapeutic device comprises an on/off status of the therapeutic device and turning the therapeutic device on or off (“… safety shut-off, interrupting delivery of diuretics once the IVC status reaches the appropriate level …,” [0166]).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Gifford discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Gifford further shows increasing or decreasing a value of an adjustable parameter (“… increasing or decreasing dosage of the IV diuretics as necessary …,” [0166]).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Gifford discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Gifford further shows that identifying the anatomical feature of the subject based on the ultrasound data comprises identifying an attribute of the ultrasound data representative of the anatomical feature, as a matter of basic logic. For example, the “attributes” of the ultrasound data are used to identify the IVC ([0147]).
Regarding claim 6, Gifford discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Gifford further shows that the anatomical feature comprises an inferior vena cava and the measure comprises a diameter of the inferior vena cava ([0021]; [0027]; IVC dimension, [0147]).
Regarding claim 8, Gifford discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Gifford further shows that the therapeutic device comprises at least a dialysis machine (feedback to dialysis machines, [0200]; [0202] - [0207]).
Regarding claims 9 - 10 and 18, Gifford discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Gifford further shows determining if the measure is outside of a predefined criteria, and outputting an alert to a user based on determining if the measure is outside of the predefined criteria (“whether to set off an alarm or transmit a notification to the patient or health professional”, [0163]. The predefined criteria are whatever generates the alarm) wherein the alert comprises a graphical representation on a display (graphical representations, [0198]).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Gifford discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Gifford further shows the processor is configured to receive therapy data from the therapeutic device, and the processor determining the change in the operating status of the therapeutic device is further based on the therapy data (“IVC monitor and the therapeutic device … communicate as necessary to coordinate sensed physiologic data and required intervention”, [0173] and fig. 43 showing bi-directional communication. The “change in the operating status” is understood to be based on the received data, lacking any limiting features of the claimed ‘basis’).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Gifford discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Gifford further shows the processor is in communication with a vital sign monitoring device; the processor is configured to receive vital sign data from the vital sign monitoring device; and the processor determining the change in the operating status of the therapeutic device is further based on the vital sign data (“… additional data related to heart failure include a respiratory rate monitor, cardiac rhythm monitor, arterial or venous blood pressure monitor, blood oxygen saturation sensor, or cardiac output monitor”, [0164]; [0162] - [0164]).
Regarding claim 13, Gifford discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Gifford further shows the transducer array is coupled to a wearable patch (“wearable detection system 3300 includes ultrasound probe 3303 that may be fastened in place on the patient via strap 3306 and buckle 3309”, [0146] and fig, 33).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gifford in view of Jiang et al. ("Use of lung ultrasonography to determine the accuracy of clinically estimated dry weight in chronic hemodialysis patients", INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, AKADEMIAI, vol. 49, no. 12, October 2017, pages 2223-2230; of record).
Regarding claim 5, Gifford discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above.
Gifford is not specific to the anatomical feature being pulmonary edema, and the measure comprises a quantity of the B-lines.
Jiang discloses using ultrasound to determine adequacy of fluid removal in hemodialysis. Jiang teaches an anatomical feature that is pulmonary edema, and a measure comprising a quantity of the B-lines (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Gifford to have the anatomical feature be pulmonary edema, and the measure comprise a quantity of the B-lines, as taught by Jiang, in order to provide accurate information regarding changes in pulmonary fluid content, and provide a valuable tool for recognizing the adequacy of fluid removal, as suggested by Jiang (abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gifford in view of Baron (US 2014/0366878, of record).
Regarding claim 7, Gifford discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above.
Gifford is not specific to the anatomical feature being a right or left ventricle, and the measure comprising a volume of the right or left ventricle.
Baron discloses a medical console. Baron teaches an anatomical feature that is a right or left ventricle, and a measure comprising a volume of the right or left ventricle (“… video image showing the cross section of the left ventricle of the heart, the left ventricle volume can be estimated …”, [0171]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Gifford to have the anatomical feature be a left ventricle, and the measure comprise a volume of the right or left ventricle, as taught by Baron, in order to estimate cardiac output, as suggested by Baron ([0171]), using the ultrasound device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting
Applicant’s comments are acknowledged. The rejections are maintained for reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues on page 7 that a “person cannot mentally process ultrasound echo signals to identify anatomical features.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees at least because a person can look consider data derived from the ultrasound signals, for example an image, and mentally identify anatomical feature therein.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the claimed ‘output’ of the “control signal changes how the therapeutic device operates and therefore it changes the therapy the patient receives”, and is not extra-solution activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the mere act of output does not change the therapy. In contrast, the use of the control signal by the therapy device to affect treatment is what would, if claimed, ‘change the therapy’.
Applicant argues on page 8 that the transducer array and processor form a “specific configuration of medical hardware”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The transducer array is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than a generic structure for extra-solution activity The processor to perform the abstract idea amounts to merely an instruction to implement the abstract ideas on a processor.
Applicant argues on page 9 that the invention improves another technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because the purported improvement is not reflected in the claims. The claimed system does not provide closed loop control. In contrast, the claimed system merely outputs a signal, which is extra-solution activity.
Applicant argues on page 10 that the claimed combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
The argument is moot because the rejections have not asserted that the claimed combination is well-understood, routine, or conventional.
The rejections are therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant argues on page 11 that Gifford’s portable, external ultrasound system is a ‘monitoring-only system’ and “monitors IVC dimensions without implanted elements”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s reasoning. While the external ultrasound system uses an external monitor instead of an implantable monitor, Gifford explains at least in [0165] that the embodiments are directed to closed-loop control of different therapeutic interventional systems. Applicant appears to assert that Gifford
excludes the embodiment that uses an external ultrasound system for the monitoring from Gifford’s disclosure that the monitoring techniques are for closed-loop control of different therapeutic interventional systems, where there does not appear to be any such suggestion in the reference. In contrast, the external and internal monitoring techniques would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to merely be simple alternatives, easily selected form as desired for the patient’s needs.
Applicant argues on page 12 that [0166] and [0206] mentions only implantable elements and do not mention external ultrasound.
This is not persuasive because [0166] and [0206] do not state that the closed-loop control of different therapeutic interventional systems is provided only by internal monitoring. In contrast, at least [0147] and [0165] - [0166], in light of the disclosure as a whole, would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to disclose that the external ultrasound system may alternatively be used to achieve the monitoring that is used for the closed-loop control of different therapeutic interventional systems.
Applicant argues on page 12 that Gifford also does not disclose or suggest the closed-loop therapy embodiments use an external ultrasound system.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons explained above.
Applicant argues on page 12 that Gifford also does not disclose “how the external ultrasound system in one part of Gifford controls a therapeutic device in a separate, unconnected part of Gifford”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons explained above. Those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the external ultrasound system is not disembodied from the remainder of the system, but is instead used to closed-loop control different therapeutic interventional systems ([0165] - [0166]).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are premised upon those discussed above, and are similarly unpersuasive.
The rejections are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIE R DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571)272-2714. 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.
/AMELIE R DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights