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 .
Priority
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application: The claims filed 4/22/2025, recite, at least, the limitation “the differential diagnosis mapping database includes disease data and medical data related to said disease data in a delimited text format” in at least each of the independent claims. There does not appear to be any drawing or any discussion in the specification of this formatting feature. Additionally, various dependent claims (for example, claims 2-6 and 9 (and respective similar claims for other independent claims) expand upon or utilize the delimited text format and, similar to above, these claims do recite subject matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application. For example, claims 3 and 4 indicate what the delimited text format is (comma, tab, semicolon, pipe), formatted in either natural language sentences or keyword lists; all of which do not appear to have any support in the prior-filed application; claims 5 and 6 discusses the transformation of the table into the delimited text format.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/649,066, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. In particular the respective independent claims discuss particular formatting of the data where that formatting types is not discussed in the parent (prior-filed) application including “…said disease data in a delimited text format”. Additionally claims 2-6 and 9 (and respective similar claims for other independent claims) expand upon or utilize the delimited text format and thus also recite limitations that do not appear to be supported or enabled by the prior-filed application.
For example, claims 3 and 4 indicate what the delimited text format is (comma, tab, semicolon, pipe), formatted in either natural language sentences or keyword lists; all of which do not appear to have any support in the prior-filed application; claims 5 and 6 discusses the transformation of the table into the delimited text format.
Additionally, claims 7 and 8 recite subject matter associated with deep learning model and prompt which do not appear to be supported or enabled in a prior-filed application (15/356,933) of the parent application (18/649,066), which claims benefit to the ‘933 application.
For purposes of compact prosecution, since the claims are being treated as though priority is for a continuation-in-part.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Discussion of the limitation associated with the delimited text format in claims 1-6 and 9; including the particular delimited formats (semicolon, tab, comma, et cetera) as well as the delimited format including keywords lists of natural language sentences.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8, 11, 19, 22, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “concerns” in claims 11, 22, and 33 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “concerns” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how the system knows the preferences or interests of the patient and what data the patient is most concerned about versus other data.
Claims 8, 19, and 30 recites the limitation "the deep learning model" in the body of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 8, 19, and 30 depend directly on their respective independent claims (claims 1, 12, and 23); where the respective independent claims make no mention of any learning model. The Examiner notes that claims 7, 18, and 29 are the first claims to introduce using “a deep learning model”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is construing claims 8, 19, and 30 to depend upon claims 7, 18, and 29 in order to provide antecedent basis to the claim terminology.
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 1-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to claim 1, this claim recites:
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations which are drawn towards an abstract idea:
A method of generating a high probability differential medical diagnosis, comprising:
connecting the first medical data and said second medical data with a differential diagnosis mapping database (recites mental process steps of evaluating/comparisons and making a connection/decision/judgement between two data sets such as identifying the relevant/desired data),
isolating all disease data common to said differential diagnosis mapping database associated with said first medical data and said second medical data (recites mental process steps of matching/evaluation and marking/remembering which data meets the criteria, possibly with use of an aid such as pencil/paper similar to finding the intersection between two sets).
As seen from above, the identified limitations recite concepts associated with an abstract idea and thus the respective claim recites a judicial exception (see 2106.04(a)) and thus requires further analysis as discussed below.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The following limitations have been identified as being additional elements as discussed below.
collecting first medical data from a patient; collecting second medical data from the patient (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database includes disease data and medical data related to said disease data in a delimited text format (recites field of use limitations describing the meaning of the data in the database as well as the intended format, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
generating a listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and second medical data; and arranging said isolated common disease data in said generated listing in a ranked order, wherein the position in said ranked listing is based upon the number of times said disease data is associated with said first medical data and said second medical data (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of sorting/filtering data into desired and undesired while also sorting information based on how often it appears, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, as seen from the above discussion, the identified limitations did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements relate to receiving information and sorting information at a high-level of generality as well as describing the intended meaning of the data.
Step 2B:
Below is the analysis of the claims:
collecting first medical data from a patient; collecting second medical data from the patient (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(d));
wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database includes disease data and medical data related to said disease data in a delimited text format (recites field of use limitations describing the meaning of the data in the database as well as the intended format, see MPEP 2106.05(h));
generating a listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and second medical data; and arranging said isolated common disease data in said generated listing in a ranked order, wherein the position in said ranked listing is based upon the number of times said disease data is associated with said first medical data and said second medical data (recites well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of sorting/filtering data into desired and undesired while also sorting information based on how often it appears, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as seen from above, the respective claim elements taken individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When taken as a whole (in combination), the claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements provide a generic recitation of some means (such as a computer) as a tool to help implement the abstract idea as well as limitations discussing retrieving and sorting information at a high-level of generality.
With regard to claim 2, this claim recites wherein the listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data is in a form of a delimited text format (recites field of use limitations describing the particular data format for the data that is to be used, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 3, this claim recites wherein the delimited text format comprises comma-delimited values, formatted in natural language sentences or keyword lists (recites field of use limitations describing the particular data format for the data that is to be used, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 4, wherein the delimited text format comprises at least one of semicolon-delimited values, tab-delimited values, or pipe-delimited values, formatted in natural language sentences or keyword lists (recites field of use limitations describing the particular data format for the data that is to be used, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With regard to claim 5, this claim recites wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database is formed in a table format (recites field of use limitations describing the particular data format for the data that is to be used, see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and transformed into a delimited text format (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of sorting information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of sorting/organizing information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 6, wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database is transformed into a delimited text format or linear format without losing semantic mapping between disease data and medical data related to said disease data (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of sorting information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of sorting/organizing information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 7, this claim recites wherein the high probability differential medical diagnosis is generated by using a deep learning model (recites using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract, similar to merely applying the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With regard to claim 8, this claim recites formatting the listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data into a prompt for the deep learning model (recites using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract, similar to merely applying the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer; in particular, formatting the data at a high-level of generality so that the computer tool (model) can process the input data, see MPEP 2106.05(f));
and generating a ranked diagnosis of the isolated common disease by the deep learning model (recites using the computer as a tool to implement the abstract, similar to merely applying the abstract idea/judicial exception on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With regard to claim 9, this claim recites presenting the delimited text formatted listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data as at least in a natural language or a structured format (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of transmitting information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of transmitting information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 10, this claim recites ranking said isolated common disease data within said differential diagnosis medical database associated with said first medical data, whereby more prevalent disease data is ranked ahead of less prevalent disease data (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of sorting information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of sorting/organizing information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 11, this claim recites arranging said isolated common disease data in said generated listing in a ranked order, whereby the position in said ranked listing is based upon the medical data that concerns said patient more instead of the first medical data (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of sorting information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of sorting/organizing information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
With regard to claim 12, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1. The main difference between claims 1 and 12, is that claim 12 recites collection third medical data from the patient (recites insignificant extrasolution activity of receiving information which amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of mere data gathering/receiving information, see MPEP 2106.05(d)) and including the third data with the various operations discussed above. Due to their substantial similarities, claim 12 is rejected for substantially similar reasons as discussed above with regard to claim 1.
With regard to claims 13-22, these claims are substantially similar to claims 2-11 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
With regard to claim 23, this claim is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
With regard to claims 24-33, these claims are substantially similar to claims 2-11 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 12, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchosky [US 2002/0029157 A1] in view of Shimizu et al [US 2019/0018851 A1]; Furusho [US 6,643,644]; and Qiao [US 2009/0100042 A1].
With regard to claim 1, Marchosky teaches a method of generating a high probability differential medical diagnosis, comprising: collecting first medical data from a patient; collecting second medical data from the patient (see paragraphs [0025], [0037], [0068], [0167], and [0091]; the system can collect medical clinical data from a patient including receiving responses of a patient on whether they are experiencing particular symptoms/signs;
“In another embodiment, the diagnostic program may also be used by a health care professional in the same manner as it is utilized by a patient. Information may be input while a patient is being interviewed as well as from medical records and notes taken by a health care professional during an examination. The potential diagnoses list may then be displayed to the health care professional and also be approved by the health care professional for entry into the health care provider's medical and biographical record for the patient.”, para 91;
“Yet another aspect of the present invention is an automated medical diagnosis method in which a patient is asked a plurality of diagnostic questions relating to medical signs and symptoms requiring either a "yes" or a "no" response. The diagnostic questions and the potential responses are stored on a central computer connected to a global computer network and differentially weighted according to their relative importance in determining a medical diagnosis.”, para 25;
“…questions may be asked regarding health symptoms and the location of the symptoms being experienced by an individual”, para 167);
connecting said first medical data and said second medical data with a differential diagnosis mapping database, wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database includes disease data and medical data related to said disease data
“FIG. 5 is an illustration according to the invention, in a tabular form, that correlates the diagnostic questions, diagnostic codes, patient responses to diagnostic questions, and the value weighting assigned to different diseases for responses to the diagnostic questions. For identification purposes, individual cells are identified by column number and row number (column, row). The figure is merely one illustration of how diagnostic information may be processed and is not meant to be limiting as to the broad scope of manipulating the medical diagnostic information of the present invention”, para 84);
generating a listing
“After the potential diagnoses are weighted, a ranked list of diagnoses are presented that should include the correct diagnosis in a high percentage (e.g., at least 99%) of the occasions”, para 180);
Marchosky does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database includes disease data and medical data related to said disease data in a delimited text format;
isolating all disease data common to said differential diagnosis mapping database associated with said first medical data and said second medical data;
generating a listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data;
and arranging said isolated common disease data in said generated listing in a ranked order, wherein the position in said ranked listing is based upon the number of times said disease data is associated with said first medical data and said second medical data.
Shimizu teaches data in a delimited text format (see paragraphs [0046] and [0049]; the system can store various pieces of information in a structured-like manner using a delimited text format).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical analysis system of Marchosky by incorporating means store data in a different formats as taught by Shimizu in order to use widely-known and used data formats such as delimited text files to store various pieces of information thereby allowing for the simplicity and smaller size of a plaintext file while having data organized/structured in a particular manner so that the data can be easily interpreted when retrieved.
Marchosky in view of Shimizu teach wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database includes disease data and medical data related to said disease data in a delimited text format (see Shimizu, paragraphs [0046] and [0049]; Marchosky, paragraph [0084]; the data can be formatted in a delimited text format).
Marchosky in view of Shimizu do not appear to explicitly teach
isolating all disease data common to said differential diagnosis mapping database associated with said first medical data and said second medical data;
generating a listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data;
and arranging said isolated common disease data in said generated listing in a ranked order, wherein the position in said ranked listing is based upon the number of times said disease data is associated with said first medical data and said second medical data.
Furusho teaches isolating all data common to said data tables associated with said first data and said second data (see col 15, lines 5-12 and col 14, lines 30-35; the system can perform independent searches to form independent result sets that can be combined including the use of an AND that isolates all common results between the two sets;
“In this example, after the first result set is obtained based on the search conditions regarding the first specific information, independently thereof, a second result set is obtained based on the second search conditions regarding the second specific information”, col 14, lines 30-35;
“the result set A shown in FIG. 15 and the result set B shown in FIG. 16 are joined under AND conditions to obtain the desired search result set”, col 15, lines 5-12).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical analysis system of Marchosky in view of Shimizu by incorporating means to individually search attributes and combine them together to form a common result set as taught by Furusho in order to allow for parallel processing of information where multiple threads can execute searches on each independent input symptom with means to combine the respective results in a manner to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the medical analysis system by being able to filter out outlier disease causes and focus on diseases associated with the respective input symptoms.
Marchosky in view of Shimizu and Furusho teach isolating all disease data common to said differential diagnosis mapping database associated with said first medical data and said second medical data; generating a listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data (see Furusho, col 15, lines 5-12 and col 14, lines 30-35; see Marchosky, paragraphs [0091], [0099], [0157], and [0176]-[0180]; the system can connect the medical clinical data to a database that stores various disease and other medical clinical data and compare perform differential comparisons that will isolate the potential disease data for each symptom individually and combine the common ones together where the common diseases are the ones that are common to the user’s first and second and third medical data which also makes that data common to each other grouping of first and second, first and third, and second and third groupings);
arranging said isolated common disease data in said generated listing in a ranked order (see Marchosky, paragraph [0082]; “The diseases are preferably ranked by probability of being correct from the highest to the lowest score. At step 458, diseases and suggested therapies to treat the diseases are listed to the patient as probable diagnoses and treatments according to the overall weighted values for the diseases. The probability that the patient actually has a listed disease increases correspondingly to the overall weighted value for a disease. Thus, the disease with the greatest overall weighted value is the most probable diagnosis for the patient, and the disease with the smallest overall weighted value is the least probable diagnosis.”).
Marchosky in view of Shimizu and Furusho do not appear to explicitly teach arranging said isolated common disease data in said generated listing in a ranked order, wherein the position in said ranked listing is based upon the number of times said disease data is associated with said first medical data and said second medical data.
Qiao teaches arranging said
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical analysis system of Marchosky in view of Shimizu, and Furusho by incorporating means to help determine respective results based on how many times the received input is present in the results as taught by Qiao in order to help distinguish/rank results that are deemed more relevant based on the increased usage of the desired user terms/criteria since results with little usage of those terms/criteria are more likely to be less relevant to the user than other results that use their desired terms/criteria frequently.
Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao teach arranging said isolated common disease data in said generated listing in a ranked order, wherein the position in said ranked listing is based upon the number of times said disease data is associated with said first medical data and said second medical data (see Qiao, paragraph [0062] and [0064]; Furusho, col 15, lines 5-12 and col 14, lines 30-35; see Marchosky, paragraphs [0091], [0099], [0157], and [0176]-[0180]; the system can generate a ranked list of the candidate diseases/diagnosis that can take into account the description information of the diagnosis and the frequency of the user medical data/keywords/symptoms to determine which candidates are most likely or relevant to the user’s current situation/experiences).
Claims 12 and 23 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above. The main difference is that claim 12 recites additional steps to include third medical data; however, those steps mirror those of the functions used for the first and second medical data. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same mapping as claim 1 as discussed and explained above.
Claims 2-4, 9, 13-15, 20, 24-26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchosky [US 2002/0029157 A1] in view of Shimizu et al [US 2019/0018851 A1]; Furusho [US 6,643,644]; and Qiao [US 2009/0100042 A1] in further view of Rahija et al [US 2026/0010647 A1].
With regard to claim 2, Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao teaches listing of the disease data but does not appear to explicitly teach: wherein the listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data is in a form of a delimited text format.
Rahija teach wherein the listing
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical analysis system of Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao by utilizing a widely-used and known reporting format as taught by Rahija in order to present a list of results/output in a format that is widely-used and easily understood by various components of computing systems
Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao in further view of Rahija teach wherein the listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data is in a form of a delimited text format (see Rahija, paragraph [0060]; see Marchosky, paragraphs [0091], [0099], and [0180]; the system can perform differential comparisons that will isolate the potential disease data to ones that are common to the user’s first and second medical clinical data and be able to present/output them in a particular format such as delimited text format).
With regard to claim 3, Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao teach wherein the delimited text format comprises comma-delimited values (see Shimizu, paragraph [0049]; the delimiter is comma-delimited).
Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao do not appear to explicitly teach: formatted in natural language sentences or keyword lists.
Rahija teaches formatted in natural language sentences or keyword lists (see paragraph [0044]; the system can have a keyword list or enumerated set).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical analysis system of Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao by including reference tables that provide definitions of enumerated sets of values for the respective fields in the database as taught by Rahija in order to help prevent inaccurate or accidental/typographical information from being entered into the system while helping to maintain the integrity of the database system by restricting the entries for particular fields to only valid values.
With regard to claim 4, Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao teach delimited format including columns but do not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the delimited text format comprises at least one of semicolon-delimited values, tab-delimited values, or pipe-delimited values, formatted in natural language sentences or keyword lists.
Rahija teaches wherein the delimited text format comprises at least one of semicolon-delimited values, tab-delimited values, or pipe-delimited values, formatted in natural language sentences or keyword lists (see paragraphs [0060] and [0044]; the system can have a keyword list or enumerated set as well as use other delimited formats).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical analysis system of Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao by including reference tables that provide definitions of enumerated sets of values for the respective fields in the database as well as use alternative well-known delimiters as taught by Rahija in order to allow for delimited files to use a delimiter that the particular designer prefers instead of being limited to only one option and also use enumerated sets to help prevent inaccurate or accidental/typographical information from being entered into the system while helping to maintain the integrity of the database system by restricting the entries for particular fields to only valid values.
With regard to claim 9, Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao in further view of Rahija teach presenting the delimited text formatted listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data as at least in a natural language or a structured format (see Rahija, paragraph [0060]; see Marchosky, paragraphs [0091], [0099], and [0180]; the listing can include natural language and structured format).
With regard to claims 13-15 & 20 and claims 24-26 & 31, these claims are substantially similar to claims 2-4 & 9 respectively and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 5, 6, 16, 17, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchosky [US 2002/0029157 A1] in view of Shimizu et al [US 2019/0018851 A1]; Furusho [US 6,643,644]; and Qiao [US 2009/0100042 A1] in further view of Huetter et al [US 2022/0014584 A1].
With regard to claim 5, Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao teach all the claim limitations of claim 1.
Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database is formed in a table format and transformed into a delimited text format.
Huetter teaches database is formed in a table format and transformed into a delimited text format (see paragraphs [0068]-[0069]; the system has means to convert structured table data into a delimited text format).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the database system of Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao by including means to convert table data into delimited text format as taught by Huetter in order to allow the system to transform data from one widely-used format to another widely-used format as needed or desired thus allowing the system to have greater versatility on how the underlying data is stored or formatted as desired by the system administrators.
Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao in further view of Huetter teach wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database is formed in a table format and transformed into a delimited text format (see Huetter, paragraphs [0068]-[0069]; see Marchosky, paragraph [0084]; the system can have data in a table format that can be converted to other formats included delimited text formats).
With regard to claim 6, Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao in further view of Huetter teach wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database is transformed into a delimited text format or linear format without losing semantic mapping between disease data and medical data related to said disease data (see Huetter, paragraphs [0068]-[0069]; see Marchosky, paragraph [0084]; the system can have data in a table format that can be converted to other formats included delimited text formats where the respective relationships between various pieces of data can be maintained).
With regard to claims 16-17 and 27-28, these claims are substantially similar to claims 5-6 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 7, 8, 18, 19, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchosky [US 2002/0029157 A1] in view of Shimizu et al [US 2019/0018851 A1]; Furusho [US 6,643,644]; and Qiao [US 2009/0100042 A1] in further view of Rahija et al [US 2026/0010647 A1] in further view of Morris et al [US 2021/0335491 A1].
With regard to claim 7, Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao teach all the claim limitations of claim 1.
Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the high probability differential medical diagnosis is generated by using a deep learning model.
Morris teaches wherein the high probability differential medical diagnosis is generated by using a deep learning model (see paragraphs [0060]-[0065]; the system can utilize automatic means of determining probability or likelihood of a diagnosis by using machine learning or artificial intelligence).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automated medical diagnosis system of Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao by utilizing machine learning/artificial intelligence as taught by Morris in order to expand the versatility and flexibility of the system by incorporating means to be able to incorporate feedback and be able to improve the overall system processes continuously over time rather than a more static/rigid system that may, infrequently, get updates; thereby helping determine the appropriate diagnosis for patients sooner and more accurately.
With regard to claim 8, Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao in further view of Morris teach formatting the listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data into a prompt for the deep learning model; and generating a ranked diagnosis of the isolated common disease by the deep learning model (see Morris, paragraphs [0060]-[0065]; the system can utilize the deep learning model to be able to evaluate and ascertain rankings for the respective diagnoses).
With regard to claims 18-19 and 29-30, these claims are substantially similar to claims 5-6 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 10-11, 21-22, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marchosky [US 2002/0029157 A1] in view of Shimizu et al [US 2019/0018851 A1]; Furusho [US 6,643,644]; and Qiao [US 2009/0100042 A1] in further view of Iliff [US 2009/0007924 A1] (with Iliff [US 6,468,210] incorporated by reference at paragraph [0045] and hereinafter referred to as lliff'210 and lliff [US 5,724,968] incorporated by reference at paragraph [0096] and hereinafter Iliff'968).
With regard to claim 10, Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao do not appear to explicitly teach ranking said isolated common disease data within said differential diagnosis medical database associated with said first medical data, whereby more prevalent disease data is ranked ahead of less prevalent disease data.
Iliff teaches ranking said isolated common disease data within said differential diagnosis medical database associated with said first medical data, whereby more prevalent disease data is ranked ahead of less prevalent disease data (see Iliff ‘210, col 32, lines 4-25; col 8, lines 30-42; the system can rank the diseases including more prevalent diseases ranked ahead of less prevalent).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical analysis system of Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao by including means to rank/list the diagnosis based on prevalence as taught by Iliff in order to present diagnoses or diseases that are more common to the user’s/patient’s area that match their respective medical data/symptoms/signs versus presenting matching diseases that are rare or highly unlikely, thereby allowing results to be presented that are most likely correct with regards to what the patient/user is experiencing.
With regard to claim 11, Marchosky in view of Shimizu, Furusho, and Qiao in further view of Iliff teach arranging said isolated common disease data in said generated listing in a ranked order, whereby the position in said ranked listing is based upon the medical data that concerns said patient more instead of the first medical data (see Marchosky, paragraph [0093]; see Iliff ‘210, col 21, line 60 through col 22, line 3; col 32, lines 4-25; the system can incorporate pain severity level that indicates which symptom concerns the patient most where urgent and severe disease data can be ranked first ahead no matter the order from which the system receives the collected medical data of the user/patient).
With regard to claims 21-22 and claims 32-33, these claims are substantially similar to claims 10-11 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 1, 10-12, 21-23, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabir [US 9,536,051] in view of Shimizu et al [US 2019/0018851 A1].
With regard to claim 1, Kabir teaches a method of generating a high probability differential medical diagnosis, comprising: collecting first medical data from a patient; collecting second medical data from the patient (see claim 1; “providing a selection means whereby a first medical clinical data of a patient may be selected...; providing a second selection means whereby a second medical clinical data of said patient may be selected...;”; the system provides means for collecting/receiving data from the patient);
connecting said first medical data and said second medical data with a differential diagnosis mapping database, wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database includes disease data and medical data related to said disease data comparing said first medical clinical data and said second medical clinical data to a medical database whereby said medical database includes disease data and symptom data related to said disease data”);
isolating all disease data common to said differential diagnosis mapping database associated with said first medical data and said second medical data (see claim 1, “isolating disease data common to said first grouping and said second grouping;”);
generating a listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data; and arranging said isolated common disease data in said generated listing in a ranked order (see claim 1; “ranking said grouped disease data; illustrating a listing of said ranked grouped disease data;”; the system can generate a listing of the data and be able to arrange or rank the data appropriately),
wherein the position in said ranked listing is based upon the number of times said disease data is associated with said first medical data and said second medical data (see col 11, lines 31-38; “In a preferred embodiment, the present invention will be configured so that the diagnoses/diseases in the ranked and sorted high probability differential diagnosis list, such as list 30 of FIG. 4, will be ranked based upon the order of the potential diseases/diagnoses linked to the first input (e.g., the diseases linked to SSF1) in addition to number of times a particular disease/diagnosis is also linked to other inputs (SSFs) as illustrated in the analysis herein based upon Table 1.”).
Kabir does not appear to teach wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database includes disease data and medical data related to said disease data in a delimited text format.
Shimizu teaches data in a delimited text format (see paragraphs [0046] and [0049]; the system can store various pieces of information in a structured-like manner using a delimited text format).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical analysis system of Kabir by incorporating means store data in a different formats as taught by Shimizu in order to use widely-known and used data formats such as delimited text files to store various pieces of information thereby allowing for the simplicity and smaller size of a plaintext file while having data organized/structured in a particular manner so that the data can be easily interpreted when retrieved.
Kabir in view of Shimizu teach wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database includes disease data and medical data related to said disease data in a delimited text format (see Shimizu, paragraphs [0046] and [0049]; Kabir, claim 1 “comparing said first medical clinical data and said second medical clinical data to a medical database whereby said medical database includes disease data and symptom data related to said disease data”; the data can be formatted in a delimited text format).
Claims 12 and 23 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above. The main difference is that claim 12 recites additional steps to include third medical data; however, those steps mirror those of the functions used for the first and second medical data. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same mapping as claim 1 as discussed and explained above.
With regard to claim 10, Kabir in view of Shimizu teach ranking said isolated common disease data within said differential diagnosis medical database associated with said first medical data, whereby more prevalent disease data is ranked ahead of less prevalent disease data (see Kabir, claim 2).
With regard to claim 11, Kabir in view of Shimizu teach arranging said isolated common disease data in said generated listing in a ranked order, whereby the position in said ranked listing is based upon the medical data that concerns said patient more instead of the first medical data (see Kabir, claim 2; medical data that concerns the patient more, such as life threatening disease data can be ranked ahead of less life threatening data).
With regard to claims 21-22 and claims 32-33, these claims are substantially similar to claims 10-11 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 2-4, 9, 13-15, 20, 24-26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabir [US 9,536,051] in view of Shimizu et al [US 2019/0018851 A1] in further view of Rahija et al [US 2026/0010647 A1].
With regard to claim 2, Kabir in view of Shimizu teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kabir in view of Shimizu do not appear to explicitly teach listing of the disease data but does not appear to explicitly teach: wherein the listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data is in a form of a delimited text format.
Rahija teach wherein the listing
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical analysis system of Kabir in view of Shimizu by utilizing a widely-used and known reporting format as taught by Rahija in order to present a list of results/output in a format that is widely-used and easily understood by various components of computing systems
Kabir in view of Shimizu in further view of Rahija teach wherein the listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data is in a form of a delimited text format (see Rahija, paragraph [0060]; see Kabir, claim 1; the system can generate a listing of the data and be able to arrange or rank the data appropriately with the system can perform differential comparisons that will isolate the potential disease data to ones that are common to the user’s first and second medical clinical data and be able to present/output them in a particular format such as delimited text format).
With regard to claim 3, Kabir in view of Shimizu teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kabir in view of Shimizu teach wherein the delimited text format comprises comma-delimited values (see Shimizu, paragraph [0049]; the delimiter is comma-delimited).
Kabir in view of Shimizu do not appear to explicitly teach: formatted in natural language sentences or keyword lists.
Rahija teaches formatted in natural language sentences or keyword lists (see paragraph [0044]; the system can have a keyword list or enumerated set).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical analysis system of Kabir in view of Shimizu by including reference tables that provide definitions of enumerated sets of values for the respective fields in the database as taught by Rahija in order to help prevent inaccurate or accidental/typographical information from being entered into the system while helping to maintain the integrity of the database system by restricting the entries for particular fields to only valid values.
With regard to claim 4, Kabir in view of Shimizu teach all the claim limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kabir in view of Shimizu teach delimited format but do not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the delimited text format comprises at least one of semicolon-delimited values, tab-delimited values, or pipe-delimited values, formatted in natural language sentences or keyword lists.
Rahija teaches wherein the delimited text format comprises at least one of semicolon-delimited values, tab-delimited values, or pipe-delimited values, formatted in natural language sentences or keyword lists (see paragraphs [0060] and [0044]; the system can have a keyword list or enumerated set as well as use other delimited formats).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical analysis system of Kabir in view of Shimizu by including reference tables that provide definitions of enumerated sets of values for the respective fields in the database as well as use alternative well-known delimiters as taught by Rahija in order to allow for delimited files to use a delimiter that the particular designer prefers instead of being limited to only one option and also use enumerated sets to help prevent inaccurate or accidental/typographical information from being entered into the system while helping to maintain the integrity of the database system by restricting the entries for particular fields to only valid values.
With regard to claim 9, Kabir in view of Shimizu in further view of Rahija teach presenting the delimited text formatted listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data as at least in a natural language or a structured format (see Rahija, paragraph [0060]; Kabir, claim 1; the listing can include natural language and structured format).
With regard to claims 13-15 & 20 and claims 24-26 & 31, these claims are substantially similar to claims 2-4 & 9 respectively and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 5, 6, 16, 17, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabir [US 9,536,051] in view of Shimizu et al [US 2019/0018851 A1] in further view of Huetter et al [US 2022/0014584 A1].
With regard to claim 5, Kabir in view of Shimizu teach all the claim limitations of claim 1.
Kabir in view of Shimizu do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database is formed in a table format and transformed into a delimited text format.
Huetter teaches database is formed in a table format and transformed into a delimited text format (see paragraphs [0068]-[0069]; the system has means to convert structured table data into a delimited text format).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the database system of Kabir in view of Shimizu by including means to convert table data into delimited text format as taught by Huetter in order to allow the system to transform data from one widely-used format to another widely-used format as needed or desired thus allowing the system to have greater versatility on how the underlying data is stored or formatted as desired by the system administrators.
Kabir in view of Shimizu in further view of Huetter teach wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database is formed in a table format and transformed into a delimited text format (see Huetter, paragraphs [0068]-[0069]; see Kabir, col 12, lines 32-45; the system can have data in a table format that can be converted to other formats included delimited text formats).
With regard to claim 6, Kabir in view of Shimizu in further view of Huetter teach wherein the differential diagnosis mapping database is transformed into a delimited text format or linear format without losing semantic mapping between disease data and medical data related to said disease data (see Huetter, paragraphs [0068]-[0069]; see Kabir, col 12, lines 32-45; the system can have data in a table format that can be converted to other formats included delimited text formats where the respective relationships between various pieces of data can be maintained).
With regard to claims 16-17 and 27-28, these claims are substantially similar to claims 5-6 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 7, 8, 18, 19, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabir [US 9,536,051] in view of Shimizu et al [US 2019/0018851 A1] in further view of Morris et al [US 2021/0335491 A1].
With regard to claim 7, Kabir in view of Shimizu teach all the claim limitations of claim 1.
Kabir in view of Shimizu do not appear to explicitly teach wherein the high probability differential medical diagnosis is generated by using a deep learning model.
Morris teaches wherein the high probability differential medical diagnosis is generated by using a deep learning model (see paragraphs [0060]-[0065]; the system can utilize automatic means of determining probability or likelihood of a diagnosis by using machine learning or artificial intelligence).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automated medical diagnosis system of Kabir in view of Shimizu by utilizing machine learning/artificial intelligence as taught by Morris in order to expand the versatility and flexibility of the system by incorporating means to be able to incorporate feedback and be able to improve the overall system processes continuously over time rather than a more static/rigid system that may, infrequently, get updates; thereby helping determine the appropriate diagnosis for patients sooner and more accurately.
With regard to claim 8, Kabir in view of Shimizu in further view of Morris teach formatting the listing of said isolated common disease data associated with said first medical data and said second medical data into a prompt for the deep learning model; and generating a ranked diagnosis of the isolated common disease by the deep learning model (see Morris, paragraphs [0060]-[0065]; the system can utilize the deep learning model to be able to evaluate and ascertain rankings for the respective diagnoses).
With regard to claims 18-19 and 29-30, these claims are substantially similar to claims 5-6 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
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 1-4, 9-15, 20-26, and 31-33 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,865 in view of Moran et al [US 2014/0249836 A1]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially similar to each other with the ‘865 patent having more limitations than the respective independent claim with one exception further discussed below. The only limitation not explicitly taught by the ‘865 patent with respect to the independent claims is that the respective data is “in a delimited text format” with respect to the mapping database (see Moran, claim 4; many different open-source and widely-used formats can be used).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the medical analysis system of Kabir by including reference tables that provide definitions of enumerated sets of values for the respective fields in the database as well as use alternative well-known delimiters as taught by Moran in order to allow for delimited files to use a delimiter that the particular designer prefers instead of being limited to only one option and also use enumerated sets to help prevent inaccurate or accidental/typographical information from being entered into the system while helping to maintain the integrity of the database system by restricting the entries for particular fields to only valid values.
With regard to claims 2-4 and 9, these claims are also taught by Moran at claim 4 for illustrating the various delimited format types which includes natural language.
Claims 10-11 are substantially similar to claims 10-11 of the ‘865 patent and are rejected as such.
Claims 12-15 and 20-22 are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above with regard to claims 1-4 and 9-11.
Claims 23-26 and 31-33 are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above with regard to claims 1-4 and 9-11.
Claims 5, 6, 16, 17, 27, and 28 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,865 in view of Moran et al [US 2014/0249836 A1] in further view of Huetter et al [US 2022/0014584 A1].
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially similar to each other. In particular claims 5 and 6 relate to converting a table to a delimited text format which is taught by Huetter at paragraphs [0068]-[0069].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the database system of Kabir in view of Moran by including means to convert table data into delimited text format as taught by Huetter in order to allow the system to transform data from one widely-used format to another widely-used format as needed or desired thus allowing the system to have greater versatility on how the underlying data is stored or formatted as desired by the system administrators.
With regard to claims 16-17 and 27-28, these claims are substantially similar to claims 5-6 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Claims 7, 8, 18, 19, 29, and 30 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,972,865 in view of Moran et al [US 2014/0249836 A1] in further view of Morris et al [US 2021/0335491 A1].
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are substantially similar to each other. In particular claims 7 and 8 relate to usage of a deep learning model with the data being formatted for input into the model and the model providing a ranked listing which is taught by Morris at paragraphs [0060]-[0065] which shows that the system can utilize automatic means of determining probability or likelihood of a diagnosis by using machine learning or artificial intelligence.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the automated medical diagnosis system of Kabir in view of Moran by utilizing machine learning/artificial intelligence as taught by Morris in order to expand the versatility and flexibility of the system by incorporating means to be able to incorporate feedback and be able to improve the overall system processes continuously over time rather than a more static/rigid system that may, infrequently, get updates; thereby helping determine the appropriate diagnosis for patients sooner and more accurately.
With regard to claims 18-19 and 29-30, these claims are substantially similar to claims 7-8 and are rejected for similar reasons as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Moran et al [US 2014/0249836 A1] which teaches in claim 3 various open-sourced delimited files.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC S SOMERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 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, Ann Lo can be reached at 5712729767. 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.
/MARC S SOMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 1/23/2026