DETAILED ACTION
This office action is based on the claim set filed on 06/10/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 06/11/2025, 08/06/2025, and 12/22/2025 are in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “unit” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“disease determination part” in Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 19 has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “part” and functional language “i.e., configured to analyze a database of measurement data...” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
“status monitor part” in Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 19, has been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “part” and functional language “i.e., configured to monitor a status of the disease ...” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine and a process). Claims 1-20 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the steps of the claim for the invention represents an abstract idea of a series of steps that recite a process for monitoring a disease state. Collecting a location information of a user to estimate the user having a disease and monitor the disease stats in the location are steps that could have been performed by a human monitoring behavior by performing the steps but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Independent Claim 1 recites the steps of:
“a disease determination part configured to analyze a database of measurement data collected in association with information regarding a location of the patient and to determine the patient suspected of having the disease, the measurement data acquired by a plurality of specimen measurement apparatuses running the test on a specimen of the patient;
a status monitor part configured to monitor a status of the disease in an area determined based on the information regarding the location”.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations by a human user/actor interacting with a computing system to manage a patient behavior and monitor a disease status of the location of the patient that constitute certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations encompass a user the ability to obtain data associated with a location where a sick patient is located and monitor the status of the disease in the location, which are steps that could be performed by a human actor interacting with other user(s) and/or a machine as such identifying an abstract idea. This abstract idea could have been performed by a human actor but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for managing clinical trial data security. If a claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) by a human actor but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim limitations (in BOLD) recite an abstract idea. Any limitations not identified above as part of methods of organizing human activity are deemed "additional elements," and will be discussed in further detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas, linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements such as “database, disease determination part, status monitor part, specimen measurement apparatus” that are recited at a high level of generality and as a generic components that amount no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and a mere data gathering process that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(d). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, looking at the claim as a whole, individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception because as mentioned above, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, recited at a high level of generality, do not present improvements to another technology or technical field, nor do they affect an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, that amount to no more than mere instruction to perform the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-20, include all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and therefore likewise incorporate the above-described abstract idea. While the depending claims add additional limitations, such as
As for claims 2-20, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers a performing the steps by a human actor organizing patient and disease location data, which is a certain methods of organizing human activity, but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. The claims recite additional elements “processor(s), database, disease determination part, status monitor part, specimen measurement apparatus, software, interface, measurement unit, operating systems” that implement the identified abstract idea. These hardware components are recited in the claim(s) at a high level that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to perform the steps of the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f), merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and a mere data gathering process that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, the judicial exceptions recited in claims is/are not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Toyoda et al. (US 2015/0029508 A1- “Toyoda”)
Regarding Claim 1, Toyoda teaches a system operable to monitor one or more patients each suspected of having a disease based on a result of a test for assessing a condition of the patient Toyoda discloses a disease monitoring system include sample analyzing apparatus to obtain the presence or absence of a disease regarding each sample (Toyoda: [0006-0007]; a sample analyzing apparatus comprising a measurement unit configured to measure samples obtained from subjects, an obtaining unit configured to obtain the presence or absence of a disease regarding each sample, [0025]; disease monitoring system including the sample analyzing apparatus), the system comprising:
a disease determination part configured to analyze a database of measurement data collected in association with information regarding a location of the patient and to determine the patient suspected of having the disease, the measurement data acquired by a plurality of specimen measurement apparatuses running the test on a specimen of the patient Toyoda discloses sample collected at different locations and providing measurement information and location information and using the information for analyzing the information to derive presence and absence of disease and rate in association with location (Toyoda: [Fig. 5, 6A-B, 8A-B], [0050], [0060], [0088-0089], [0093]),
a status monitor part configured to monitor a status of the disease in an area determined based on the information regarding the location Toyoda discloses calculating rate of the disease based on the location information and displaying a map of number of cases in the location describing statue of the disease (Toyoda: [Fig. 8A-B, 12], [0053], [0091], [0102]; the receiving apparatus calculates the positive rates of the three major diseases for each district, ... the operator of the receiving apparatus can properly understand the infection states of the three major diseases).
Regarding Claim 2, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the disease determination part is configured to determine the patient suspected of having the disease based on the measurement data collected in the database located in a location different from the specimen measurement apparatus Toyoda discloses different location comprising an apparatus for analyzing and diagnosing a disease and stored on local hard disk and transmit disease information to a receiving apparatus in an external facility hard disk (Toyoda: [Fig. 5], [0028], [0031], [0047], [0049-0050], [0053]).
Regarding Claim 3, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the disease determination part is configured to determine the patient suspected of having the disease based on the measurement data collected in the database located in a location different from a medical facility in which the specimen is collected from the patient for the test Toyoda discloses different location comprising an apparatus for analyzing and diagnosing a disease and stored on local hard disk and transmit disease information to a receiving apparatus in an external facility hard disk (Toyoda: [Fig. 5], [0028], [0031], [0047], [0049-0050], [0053]).
Regarding Claim 4, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the disease determination part is configured to determine the patient suspected of having the disease based on the measurement data collected in the database via a communication network (Toyoda: [Fig. 2, 4], [0028]; the receiving apparatus and each base station are connected to the Internet network, and are configured to be able to perform communication with each other).
Regarding Claim 5, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the status monitor part is configured to identify the measurement data corresponding to the area based on a plurality of information regarding the location and monitor the status of the disease in the area Toyoda discloses test data corresponding to region/location information such as monitoring the disease state in the region/location (Toyoda: [Fig. 8A-B, 12], [0067-0068], [0089-0090], [0093]).
Regarding Claim 6, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the status monitor part is configured to change a range of the area to be monitored as a monitor of the status of the disease Toyoda discloses filtering data collected different range such as a geographical location, area, district, city (Toyoda: [Fig. 12], [0093]).
Regarding Claim7, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the disease determination part is configured to analyze the measurement data indicating the result of the test for assessing the condition of the patient and determine the patient suspected of having the disease Toyoda discloses performing by analyzing apparatus the measurement results of a patient sample to determine the presence or absence of major diseases [Fig. 6A-B, 7A-B], [0055]).
Regarding Claim 8, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the disease determination part is configured to analyze a part of information on the result of the test indicated in the measurement data and determine the patient suspected of having the disease Toyoda discloses analyzing sections of the test results such as determine date and time of the measurement and a presence or absence of a disease based on the test results (Toyoda: [Fig. 6A, 15A], [0055], [0057]).
Regarding Claim 9, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the disease determination part is configured to analyze a part of information correlating with the disease among the result of the test indicated in the measurement data and determine the patient suspected of having the disease Toyoda discloses analyzing the patient test results corresponding with the disease and measurement data to determine presence or absence of the disease (Toyoda: [Fig. 6A], [0051], [0057], [0074]).
Regarding Claim 10, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the disease determination part is configured to analyze data stored in at least one of a plurality of the databases collecting the measurement data and determine the patient suspected of having the disease Toyoda discloses data stored in different locations to store test results data to be analyzed of presence or absence of a disease and communicably connected to a plurality of bases stations (Toyoda: [Fig. 2, 4], [0044-0045], [0055], [0090]).
Regarding Claim 11, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the disease determination part is configured to determine the patient suspected of having the disease by analyzing data stored in at least one of a plurality of the databases collecting the measurement data, and the measurement data acquired in a predetermined region corresponding each of the plurality of the databases is collected in each of the plurality of the databases Toyoda discloses a plurality of base stations and each comprising analyzing apparatus, a specimen preparation unit, a WBC measurement unit a HGB measurement unit, a hard disk to store the presence or absence of different diseases in a predetermined region/location (Toyoda: [Fig. 4, 5, 8A, 12], [0033], [0053], [0055]).
Regarding Claim 12, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 1, wherein control software configured to control a measurement unit included in the specimen measurement apparatus;
data management software configured to manage data regarding the measurement unit that operates under control by the control software; Toyoda: [0033]; The CPU 101 executes computer programs stored in the memory 102 and the hard disk 16. Moreover, the CPU 101 controls components of the sample analyzing apparatus 1 and receives signals from components of the sample analyzing apparatus 1 to process them, [0044]; The CPU 101 executes this computer program to analyze the measurement data, [0047])
an interface configured to allow application software capable of being added to the system, to utilize the data, wherein a function of the system is expanded by the application software added to the system Toyoda discloses a display unit communicating with the CPU controlled by the computer program to display information associated with test results where the computer program perform new functions that can be added for analyzing the different diseases based on information collected and input (Toyoda: [0045], [0048], [0051], [0053], [0077]).
Regarding Claim 13, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the interface allows the application software to utilize the data, on the basis of a predetermined rule Toyoda discloses a computer program processing the data such as measurement data and display on screen according to instructions (Toyoda: [9A-B, 11A-B], [0045], [0069-0074], [0086-0088]).
Regarding Claim 14, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the application software includes a plurality of kinds of the application software that provide different functions, and the interface allows the plurality of kinds of the application software to utilize the data on the basis of a predetermined rule being in common with respect to the plurality of kinds of the application software Toyoda discloses the computer program providing a process for display data on a display unit based on instruction(s) defined (Toyoda: [Fig. 9B, 11B], [0045], [0047], [0086-0088]).
Regarding Claim 15, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the interface provides, in accordance with a request from the application software, a response corresponding to the request, to the application software Toyoda discloses the computer program receiving an input made [request] to provide on the display unit measurement data according to instructions (Toyoda: [Fig. 9B, 11B], [0045], [0047]).
Regarding Claim 16, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the interface allows, on the basis of a command created by the application software in accordance with a predetermined rule, the application software to utilize the data Toyoda discloses the display unit displays data based on signal(s) [command] from the CPU inputted from the receiving apparatus (Toyoda: [0047-0048]).
Regarding Claim 17, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the interface allows, on the basis of a command created by the application software in accordance with a predetermined rule, the application software to utilize at least one of the data regarding the measurement unit, the data regarding measurement operation by the measurement unit, the data regarding maintenance of the measurement unit, and the data regarding manipulation of the measurement unit Toyoda discloses the computer program controlling the CPU to execute data analyses based on request received as instruction to manipulate measurement such as selecting a instruction [rule] for presenting the different data (Toyoda: [Fig. 7A], [0053], [0061], [0063], [0085], [0088]).
Regarding Claim 20, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising one or more processors configured to execute disease estimation instructions to perform operations of the disease determination part and the status monitor part Toyoda discloses a CPU is connected to components of the sample analyzing apparatus via the interface and executes computer programs stored in the memory/hard disk that controls components of the sample analyzing apparatus and receives signals from components of the sample analyzing apparatus to process them where sample collected and using the information for analyzing disease and displaying number of cases in the location describing statue of the disease (Toyoda: [Fig. 2, 4], [0033], [0047]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyoda et al. (US 2015/0029508 A1- “Toyoda”) in view of Mishima et al. (US 2009/0259408 A1”- “Mishima”)
Regarding Claim 18, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the interface allows, on the basis of a command created by the application software in accordance with a predetermined rule, the application software to execute at least one of acquisition of the data, registration of the data, update of the data, and deletion of the data Toyoda discloses the computer program includes stored instruction(s) inputted on the display unit to instruct the displaying of the measurement data where the computer program executed by CPU to control receiving measurement data (Toyoda: [9B, 11B], [0033], [0044]).
However, Toyoda does not expressly disclose the program executes registration, update, and deletion of the data as underlined.
Mishima discloses analysis system comprising an application program providing functions such as recording, deleting, modifying, and acquiring measurement result data in the database (Mishima: [0203], [0208]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Toyoda incorporate the application program to execute registration, update, and deletion of the data, as taught by Mishima, improving efficiency of the application program (Mishima: [0188]).
Regarding Claim 19, Toyoda teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the interface allows, on the basis of a predetermined rule being in common with respect to a plurality of kinds of the application software that respectively operate on a plurality of kinds of operating systems, the plurality of kinds of the application software to utilize the data Toyoda discloses the computer program includes stored instruction(s) inputted on the display unit to instruct the displaying of the measurement data where the computer program executed by CPU to control receiving measurement data (Toyoda: [9B, 11B], [0033], [0044]).
However, Toyoda does not expressly disclose the rules being in common to plurality of kinds of the application software as underlined.
Mishima discloses a common logic module that is common to all apparatus models where the common module can be used in other application
programs (Mishima: [0073], [0075]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Toyoda incorporate a common rule for all application program to execute the data, as taught by Mishima, improving convenience and development efficiency (Mishima: [0075]).
Prior Art Cited but not Applied
The following document(s) were found relevant to the disclosure but not applied:
US 2023/0420088 “SCHMIDT” discloses samples are collected from patients and tested with the testing instruments, test results pass through the middleware and are analyzed in context with other data, such as patient history, testing instrument history, and test results from other tests of the sample, in order to determine whether a particular result is acceptable, whether retesting is needed, whether additional sample collection or testing is needed, and whether currently ordered testing is still necessary.
US 2022/0382259 “Fernando” discloses a system utilizes a laboratory data management system (LDMS), a medical data management system (MDMS) and external data sources and a set of predetermined rules which govern the operations of various operating systems.
US 2023/0141831 “CHUN” discloses managing respiratory infections conducting a respiratory infection test to a client who wants to the respiratory infection tests, receives the client's location information, and provides respiratory infection management information generated using the test result of the respiratory infection and client's location information for other clients so that it may minimize the spread of infection.
The references are relevant since it discloses analyzing a subject disease data and location data to monitor and manage disease in different locations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAAELDIN ELSHAER whose telephone number is (571)272-8284. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MAMON OBEID can be reached at Mamon.Obeid@USPTO.GOV. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights