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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 08/24/2026. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 16, 18-19 have been amended. Claims 5, 7, 15, 17 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-20 are presented for examination.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-20 are allowable over prior art because the prior art of record fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims, in particular: “processing the received audio data with the Al system to recognize spoken words, the recognized spoken words including a patient's name and a medical procedure to be performed; processing, by the Al system, the recognized spoken words to verify the timeout activity by determining whether the patient's name and the medical procedure to be performed match surgery data for the medical procedure event, before continuing the medical procedure event.” Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in independent claims 1, 11, claims 1, 11 are hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 16, 18-20 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claims 1, 11, through dependency, respectively.
However, the claims are still rejected under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8, 18 recites "processing the information in the database with the Al system to identify a template for the event, the template comprising an expected sequence of pre-selected steps of the event derived from the information relating to the plurality of past events; and processing the received event data with the Al system to determine whether the one or more critical activities identified in the event data conform to the expected sequence of pre-selected steps of the template.” However, Applicant has provided no disclosure of what the identified template is and how the processing actually works/functions to arrive at the desired solution.
The specification does not describe the claim limitations “identify a template for the event,” let alone “processing the information in the database with the Al system to identify a template for the event, the template comprising an expected sequence of pre-selected steps of the event derived from the information relating to the plurality of past events.” There is no specific description as to how the Al system processes the information in the database to identify a template for the event and how the Al system processes the received event data to determine whether the one or more critical activities identified in the event data conform to the expected sequence of pre-selected steps of the template. Any rule, instruction, algorithm, or model could potentially read on the as-claimed invention. The claimed “processing” amounts to a black box into which information is inputted and a result is received; however, there is no disclosure as to what occurs in the box. As such, the claimed invention lacks adequate written description. See: MPEP § 2161.01.
The Examiner prospectively notes that this written description rejection is not based on whether one skilled in the art would know how to program a computer to perform any form of processing using artificial intelligence to process the information in the database to identify a template for the event and how the Al system process the received event data to determine if the one or more critical activities identified in the event data substantially conform to the template (i.e., an enablement rejection), but rather is directed to the Applicant’s lack of specificity as to how the processing is specifically performed with respect to the Applicant’s claimed invention.
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 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., system). Claim 11 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method).
Independent claim 11 (which is representative of independent claim 1) recites…generate a record of one or more critical activities occurring during the event…receiving…the event data representative of the event from the at least one camera… the event data comprising video data and audio data associated with the video data; and…processing the received event data…to identify the one or more critical activities, the critical activities including a timeout activity initiating a medical procedure event; processing the received audio data…to recognize spoken words, the recognized spoken words including a patient's name and a medical procedure to be performed; processing…the recognized spoken words to verify the timeout activity by determining whether the patient's name and the medical procedure to be performed match surgery data for the medical procedure event, before continuing the medical procedure event; and providing the record of the one or more critical activities occurring during the event as an output...
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to analyze information and identify relevant data from the information (see specification paragraph ¶ 0003 describing generating “medical records…[by] the individual, therapist, surgeon, or other healthcare provider” as a human activity) in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps as indicated supra. That is, other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), the claim amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, 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 claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., at least one camera; a communications network; a computing system having one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing an artificial intelligence (AI) system). Claim 11 recites additional elements (i.e., a computing system having an artificial intelligence (AI) system, one or more processors, instructions stored on one or more non-transitory computer-readable media; at least one camera). Looking to the specifications, a computing system having one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions on a communications network is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0067-0073), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Furthermore, the “the artificial intelligence (AI) system” is described at a high level of generality, such that it is only used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the artificial intelligence functions and only recites the outcome of the abstract idea and does not include details about how the outcome is accomplished, and thus, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., artificial intelligence), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, the “at least one camera configured to capture video of an event and to generate event data representative thereof” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a computing system having one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions on a communications network) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “the artificial intelligence (AI) system” is described at a high level of generality, such that it is only used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the artificial intelligence functions and only recites the outcome of the abstract idea and does not include details about how the outcome is accomplished, and thus, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., artificial intelligence), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, the “at least one camera configured to capture video of an event and to generate event data representative thereof” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 16, 18-20 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 12-13, 16, 19-20 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 4, 14 further recites the additional elements of “one or more of predictive learning, machine learning, automated planning and scheduling, machine perception, computer vision and affective computing,” which is described at a high level of generality, such that it is only used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the artificial intelligence functions and only recites the outcome of the abstract idea and does not include details about how the outcome is accomplished, and thus, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 8, 18 further recites the additional elements of “a database,” which only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea groupings and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 08/24/2026.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 112(a) rejections, the amendments overcome the rejections because “paragraph [0026] describes the software being "configured to recognize main or pre-selected steps performed during the procedure" and analyzing the steps to determine "whether required steps were performed" and "the order of the required steps." Paragraph [0029] describes that procedures "would be noted in the database along with procedures with higher success rates, more efficient times, and high patient satisfaction," and that "[a]s a large data set is created, the information would be weighted to create an optimal procedure flow for each case," with the system responding "if a physician or support staff varies too far from predetermined steps in a procedure or missed a step." Paragraph [0045] describes creating "templates of video/audio diagnostic etc. so that is something falls outside the standards it would alert the physician, surgeon, reviewer." The specification uses the claim term "templates" itself.”
Regarding the 101 rejections,
“the operations recited by claims 1 and 11 as amended cannot be performed by a person, with or without the aid of a computer… Machine recognition of spoken words in captured audio data and automated matching of the recognized patient's name and medical procedure against stored surgery data are not rules or instructions that a person follows”; and
“The camera is not merely a tool applied to an existing process. The verification of the timeout activity conditions continuation of the medical procedure event itself, as recited by claims 1 and 11. This is a specific improvement over the prior documentation practice described in the specification, where medical records are based upon verbal documentation or time scripted documentation of an event, done after the event and done in a subjective nature, such that the accuracy of a patient's medical records and medical procedures or treatments are based on recollection and/or honesty by the healthcare provider. See, e.g., Specification, paragraph [0003]. The claimed system addresses this problem by verifying the timeout activity in real time before the medical procedure event continues. This analysis is consistent with USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 42, claim 1… Claims 1 and 11 as amended similarly recite a specific improvement over prior documentation systems by verifying the timeout activity before the medical procedure event continues, rather than relying on after-the-fact subjective dictation.”
Regarding the prior art rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations.
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and does not find them persuasive. Examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented by Applicant; however, any arguments inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
In response to Applicant’s argument that (a) regarding the 112(a) rejections, the amendments overcome the rejections because “paragraph [0026] describes the software being "configured to recognize main or pre-selected steps performed during the procedure" and analyzing the steps to determine "whether required steps were performed" and "the order of the required steps." Paragraph [0029] describes that procedures "would be noted in the database along with procedures with higher success rates, more efficient times, and high patient satisfaction," and that "[a]s a large data set is created, the information would be weighted to create an optimal procedure flow for each case," with the system responding "if a physician or support staff varies too far from predetermined steps in a procedure or missed a step." Paragraph [0045] describes creating "templates of video/audio diagnostic etc. so that is something falls outside the standards it would alert the physician, surgeon, reviewer." The specification uses the claim term "templates" itself”:
It is respectfully submitted that the rejection is directed to the Applicant’s lack of specificity as to how the processing is specifically performed with respect to the Applicant’s claimed invention. For example, how does the Al system process the information in the database to identify a template for the event? While “The software 122 may be further configured to analyze the steps to determine…ii) whether required steps were performed (or are being intraoperatively performed); iii) the order of the required steps (e.g., were the steps performed in the correct order); iv) whether a procedure was actually performed” (¶ 0026), the specification does not provide a specific description as to how the Al system processes the information in the database to identify the “required steps” (i.e., the claimed template) for the event and how the Al system processes the received event data to determine whether the one or more critical activities identified in the event data conform to the expected sequence of pre-selected steps of the template, as stated in Office Action dated 03/26/2026 and above. Any rule, instruction, algorithm, or model could potentially read on the as-claimed invention.
The specification describes “Procedures or visits with post-operative complication, excessive length, or low patient satisfaction would be noted in the database along with procedures with higher success rates, more efficient times, and high patient satisfaction. As a large data set is created, the information would be weighted to create an optimal procedure flow for each case” (¶ 0029). However, Applicant fails to specify how this supports the claim limitations of “identify a template for the event,” let alone “processing the information in the database with the Al system to identify a template for the event, the template comprising an expected sequence of pre-selected steps of the event derived from the information relating to the plurality of past events.”
Applicant argues “Paragraph [0045] describes creating "templates of video/audio diagnostic etc. so that is something falls outside the standards it would alert the physician, surgeon, reviewer." The specification uses the claim term "templates" itself.” However, mentioning the word does not equate to providing adequate written description for the associated claim limitation. ¶ 0045 to which Applicant refers discusses alleged “solutions/benefits” of the relevant technology, and not specific description as to how the Al system processes the information in the database to identify a template for the event and how the Al system processes the received event data to determine whether the one or more critical activities identified in the event data conform to the expected sequence of pre-selected steps of the template.
Thus, Examiner maintains the 112(a) rejections of claims 8, 18 of Office Action dated 04/22/2026, which have been updated to address Applicant’s amendments and remarks.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (b) regarding the 101 rejections,
“the operations recited by claims 1 and 11 as amended cannot be performed by a person, with or without the aid of a computer… Machine recognition of spoken words in captured audio data and automated matching of the recognized patient's name and medical procedure against stored surgery data are not rules or instructions that a person follows”:
It is respectfully submitted that Applicant argues “the operations recited by claims 1 and 11 as amended cannot be performed by a person, with or without the aid of a computer… Machine recognition of spoken words in captured audio data and automated matching of the recognized patient's name and medical procedure against stored surgery data are not rules or instructions that a person follows.” However, Applicant fails to specify how a person cannot "[process] the received audio data…to recognize spoken words" and "[process] the recognized spoken words to verify the timeout activity by determining whether the patient's name and the medical procedure to be performed match surgery data for the medical procedure event, before continuing the medical procedure event." A person can, with or without the aid of a computer, listen to a voice recording, recognize words in the recording, and determine whether the words match surgery data for verification purposes, which are rules or instructions to analyze information and identify relevant data from the information, which is the abstract idea of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The “the artificial intelligence (AI) system” is not interpreted as part of the abstract idea, but as an additional element to be interpreted in Step 2A, Prong Two, which is described at a high level of generality, such that it is only used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the artificial intelligence functions and only recites the outcome of the abstract idea and does not include details about how the outcome is accomplished, and thus, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., artificial intelligence), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
“The camera is not merely a tool applied to an existing process. The verification of the timeout activity conditions continuation of the medical procedure event itself, as recited by claims 1 and 11. This is a specific improvement over the prior documentation practice described in the specification, where medical records are based upon verbal documentation or time scripted documentation of an event, done after the event and done in a subjective nature, such that the accuracy of a patient's medical records and medical procedures or treatments are based on recollection and/or honesty by the healthcare provider. See, e.g., Specification, paragraph [0003]. The claimed system addresses this problem by verifying the timeout activity in real time before the medical procedure event continues. This analysis is consistent with USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 42, claim 1… Claims 1 and 11 as amended similarly recite a specific improvement over prior documentation systems by verifying the timeout activity before the medical procedure event continues, rather than relying on after-the-fact subjective dictation”:
Applicant argues “The camera is not merely a tool applied to an existing process.” However, Applicant fails to specify how “The camera is not merely a tool applied to an existing process.” Regardless, the “at least one camera configured to capture video of an event and to generate event data representative thereof” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., capturing and providing video and associated metadata), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Applicant argues “The verification of the timeout activity conditions continuation of the medical procedure event itself, as recited by claims 1 and 11. This is a specific improvement over the prior documentation practice described in the specification, where medical records are based upon verbal documentation or time scripted documentation of an event, done after the event and done in a subjective nature, such that the accuracy of a patient's medical records and medical procedures or treatments are based on recollection and/or honesty by the healthcare provider. See, e.g., Specification, paragraph [0003]. The claimed system addresses this problem by verifying the timeout activity in real time before the medical procedure event continues. This analysis is consistent with USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 42, claim 1… Claims 1 and 11 as amended similarly recite a specific improvement over prior documentation systems by verifying the timeout activity before the medical procedure event continues, rather than relying on after-the-fact subjective dictation.” However, “documentation practice…where medical records are based upon verbal documentation or time scripted documentation of an event, done after the event and done in a subjective nature, such that the accuracy of a patient's medical records and medical procedures or treatments are based on recollection and/or honesty by the healthcare provider” addresses administrative problems, and not a technical problem to any specific devices, technology, or computers for that matter, and thus, the claims do not provide a technical solution. For example, the computing system did not cause the argued problem and thus it is not a technical problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. Even if the claims provide the alleged improvements, any alleged benefits of the invention are at best, an improvement to the abstract idea of rules or instructions to analyze information and identify relevant data from the information. However, an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea and the claims do not provide a technical improvement.
Furthermore, the claims of the present invention are different from the claim limitations of those found eligible in Example 42. Even if the claim limitations of the present invention are similar to that of the claims found eligible (and they are not similar), the claimed inventions are fundamentally different in scope and should be interpreted based on the asserted fact patterns; other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes, as is the case with the claims of the present invention. Unlike the claims found eligible in Example 42, the claims of the present invention do not provide an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
Examiner cannot find any problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined, which per broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, is a well-known, general purpose computer. The computing system did not cause the argued problem and thus it is not a technical problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. While the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any technical improvement or any physical improvement to the computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Furthermore, the claim limitations to which Applicant refer as providing the alleged improvements (i.e., “verifying the timeout activity in real time before the medical procedure event continues”) are interpreted as part of the rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to analyze information and identify relevant data from the information in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra, which is the abstract idea and not additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2A, Prong Two. As stated previously above, even if the claims provide the alleged improvements, any alleged benefits of the invention are at best, an improvement to the abstract idea of rules or instructions to analyze information and identify relevant data from the information. However, an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea and the claims do not provide a technical improvement.
Thus, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, Examiner maintains the 101 rejections of claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-20, which have been updated to address Applicant’s remarks and to comply with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence in the above Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (c) regarding the prior art rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations:
It is respectfully submitted that the amendments have rendered the rejections moot and amended claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, 18-20 recite subject matter free of prior art because the prior art does not teach or disclose the amended features in the specific manner and combinations recited.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773.The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights