DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-16 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); Claims 17-20 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 update issued by the USPTO as now incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 12 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 12 recites:
12. A computer-based medical adherence system, comprising:
a sensor that senses a medication container or medication;
a sensor that senses physical gestures of a patient;
a database that stores patient related data;
a computer readable medium comprising stored instructions that when executed cause at least one processor to:
electronically store a patient treatment calendar;
cause a patient's electronic device to transmit an alert based upon an event logged onto the patient treatment calendar;
determine medication adherence by a patient by comparing detection of a medication container or medication to a medication-based event on the patient treatment calendar; and
comparing a physical gesture of the patient to a database of known physical gestures that indicate consumption of the medication;
store data collected from the sensor and the determination of medication adherence in the database;
transmit treatment based information to the patient's device; and
establish an electronic communication channel between the patient and a healthcare professional.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because storing treatment data, transmitting an alert, determining medication adherence by comparing events and gestures, storing adherence data, and sending treatment data are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (such as managing a patient’s adherence to a treatment regimen). Therefore, these limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP 210.04(a).
Accordingly, independent claim 12 and analogous independent claims 1 & 17 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, & 18-20 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 4 & 15 recites displaying an image, Claim 5 recites the type of alert sent, Claims 7 & 16 recites using predictive algorithms to determine adherence, Claims 8-9 recites permitting various parties to accessing data, Claims 18-19 recite determining that a mediation supply is depleting and requesting a refill, Claim 20 recites detecting patient adherence and sending an alert. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 12 and analogous independent claims 1 & 17, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
12. A computer-based medical adherence system, comprising:
a sensor that senses a medication container or medication;
a sensor that senses physical gestures of a patient;
a database that stores patient related data;
a computer readable medium comprising stored instructions that when executed cause at least one processor to:
electronically store a patient treatment calendar;
cause a patient's electronic device to transmit an alert based upon an event logged onto the patient treatment calendar;
determine medication adherence by a patient by comparing detection of a medication container or medication to a medication-based event on the patient treatment calendar; and
comparing a physical gesture of the patient to a database of known physical gestures that indicate consumption of the medication;
store data collected from the sensor and the determination of medication adherence in the database;
transmit treatment based information to the patient's device; and
establish an electronic communication channel between the patient and a healthcare professional.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of sensors collecting data, database storing data, computer readable medium, processor, electronic device, and establishing an electronic communication channel, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of collecting various data with sensors and establishing an electronic communication channel, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 12 and analogous independent claim 1 & 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 2-3, 6, 13-14: These claims recite various sensors collecting data and augmented reality circuitry for displaying an image and amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Claims 10, 18-19: These claims recite using an electronic communication channel for sending data and therefore merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., receiving and transmitting data)(see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and conventional activities as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 11: This claim recites using blockchain to store data and permit selective access to the data which amounts to mere instructions to apply the above-noted at least one abstract idea (Id.).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 12 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of sensors collecting data, database storing data, computer readable medium, processor, electronic device, and establishing an electronic communication channel, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitation of collecting various data with sensors and establishing an electronic communication channel, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of collecting various types of data (sensor, gesture, treatment, adherence data) which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined them to not be unconventional as they merely consist of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 6, & 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waugh et al (US Patent Publication 20160324727).
As per claim 1. Waugh discloses a computer-based medical adherence system, comprising:
a sensor that senses a medication container or medication (para. 97: sensor for detecting medication);
a database that stores patient related data; (para. 125: database);
a computer readable medium comprising stored instructions that when executed cause at least one processor to:
electronically store a patient treatment calendar (para. 107: mobile device scans and receives treatment schedule);
cause a patient's electronic device to transmit an alert based upon an event logged onto the patient treatment calendar (para. 107: alert transmitted based on treatment schedule);
determine medication adherence by a patient by comparing detection of a medication container or medication to an event logged on the patient treatment calendar (para. 68-70: system tracks adherence by detecting event);
store data collected from the sensor and from determination of medication adherence in the database (para. 69: system stores adherence event in memory)
transmit treatment-based information to the patient's device (para. 70: treatment info sent to patient device); and
establish an electronic communication channel between the patient and a healthcare professional (para. 71: channel established between patient and physician where alerts are sent to patient’s doctor).
As per claim 2, Waugh discloses a system wherein the system further comprises a device that is a mobile device, a wearable electronic device, a computing device, an automated personal assistant, or an artificial intelligence assistant for accessing the system (para. 107: mobile device).
As per Claim 5, Waugh discloses a system wherein the alert is an audio, visual, or vibrational alert (para. 65: audible alert).
As per Claim 6. Waugh discloses a system wherein the sensor comprises near field communication circuitry, radio frequency identification circuitry, a QR code scanner, a barcode scanner, an optical scanner, or a pressure-sensing scanner (para. 103, 121: barcode scanner)).
As per claim 8, Waugh discloses a computer-based medical adherence system wherein the computer readable medium is further configured to permit the healthcare professional to access data collected from the sensor (para. 77: healthcare practitioner can access patient medical record including sensor data).
As per claim 9. Waugh discloses a system wherein the computer readable medium is further configured to permit a pharmacy information system to receive data from and transmit data to the database (para. 77: healthcare practitioner can access patient medical record including sensor data).
As per claim 10, Waugh discloses a computer-based medical adherence system wherein the computer readable medium is further configured to establish an electronic communication channel between the patient and a pharmacy, a logistics carrier, or a freight carrier, (para. 77: healthcare practitioner, including a pharmacist, can access patient medical record including sensor data)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waugh et al (US Patent Publication US 2016/0324727) in view of Neagle (US Patent Publication US20180358117).
As per Claim 3, Waugh discloses the computer-based medical adherence system of claim 2, but does not expressly teach wherein the device comprises augmented reality circuitry that renders an augmented image on an existing object.
Neagle, however, teaches to using augmented reality/virtual reality to display an augmented image in a display (para. 38, 68).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Neagle with Waugh based on the motivation of control or reduce health-related expenses while improving patient care (Neagle – para. 4).
As per Claim 4, Waugh and Neagle teach the computer-based medical adherence system of claim 3. Waugh does not expressly teach wherein the augmented image is at least one of instructions for using medication, a food item to be ingested along with medication, or a notification from a third party.
Neagle, however, teaches to using augmented reality/virtual reality to display an augmented image in a display and wherein the augmented data includes education material for the patient (para. 38, 68).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 3, and incorporated herein.
Claims 7 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waugh et al (US Patent Publication US 2016/0324727) in view of Luellen (US Patent Publication 20180308569).
As per claim 7, Waugh discloses the computer-based medical adherence system of claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the system further comprises a predictive analytics module, wherein the predictive analytics module is configured to use predictive algorithms to predict or project future medication adherence, and wherein the predictive analytics module is further configured to transmit and receive data from the database.
However, Luellen teaches to using an algorithm to analyze patient data and predict adherence using data from a database (para. 112).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Luellen with Waugh based on the motivation of addressing health challenges related to medication adherence, predicting and preventing medication non-adherence (Luellen – para. 18).
As per claim 17, Waugh teaches a computer-based method for determining medication adherence, the method comprising:
sensing, by a sensor, a medication container or medication (para. 97: sensor for detecting medication);
detecting, a time and location of sensing the medication container or the medication (para. 65, 97: time and position of medication detected);
accessing an electronic patient treatment calendar (para. 107: mobile device scans and receives treatment schedule);
determining medication adherence by comparing the sensed medication container or medication with a time and medication indicated on an event on the electronic patient calendar (para. 68-70: system tracks adherence by detecting event);
storing data collected from the sensor and determination of medication adherence in a database (para. 69: system stores adherence event in memory).
Waugh does not expressly teach to analyzing the data stored on the database with a predictive algorithm to predict and project future medication adherence.
However, Luellen teaches to using an algorithm to analyze patient data and predict adherence using data from a database (para. 112).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 7, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 18, Waugh and Luellen teach the computer-based method for determining medication adherence of claim 17. Waugh teaches the method further comprising: detecting, by a sensor, that a. medication supply is depleted; establishing an electronic communication channel between the patient and a pharmacy; and requesting, through the electronic communication channel, a refill of the medication supply (para. 96: system detects medication requires refill and sends a new order for refill via pharmacy management system).
As per claim 19, Waugh and Luellen teach the computer-based method for determining medication adherence of claim 17. Waugh teaches establishing an electronic communication channel between the patient and a logistics carrier or freight carrier; communicating with the logistics carrier or freight carrier, through the electronic communication channel, to manage a time and a place of delivery of the medication supply (para. 96: system manages communication with pharmacy management system to set up new order and delivery of medication)
As per claim 20, Waugh and Luellen teach the computer-based method for determining medication adherence of claim 17. Waugh teaches determining that the patient is not adherent based on an event logged on the electronic patient treatment calendar; and causing a patient's device to transmit an audio, visual, or vibrational alert (para. 65: audible alert based on lack of adherence event).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waugh et al (US Patent Publication US 20160324727) in view of Raduchel et al (US Patent Publication 20170161439).
As per claim 11, Waugh discloses the computer-based medical adherence system of claim 10. Waugh teaches computer readable medium is further configured to selectively permit access to the data by the healthcare professional, the pharmacy, the logistics carrier, or the freight carrier (para. 77: various parties can access patient record data stored in database).
Waugh does not expressly teach wherein the computer readable medium is further configured to store and separate data into a block of a blockchain, and wherein the computer readable medium is further configured to selectively permit access to the data contained in the block.
However, Raduchel teaches wherein the computer readable medium is further configured to store and separate data into a block of a blockchain, and wherein the computer readable medium is further configured to selectively permit access to the data contained in the block by the healthcare professional, the pharmacy, the logistics carrier, or the freight carrier (paragraph 0041 ...an electronic device may serve as a... remotely accessible and secure electronic medical record proxy...aggregates from storage, separately-stored pieces of a user's medical record...Portions of records then may be separately stored in multiple locations...each portion may be stored at separate network locations with a respective error checking code...of a stored user identity with more than one stored component of a complete medical record, using a common key). Raduchel further explains ’’electronic medical record may be segmented and each segment stored at separate storage. To mitigate the risks of data breach...To counter data alteration/tampering, the segment also may include integrity check...a hash code...may be generated for the segment and...manner unknown to an intruder...data integrity may be confirmed only upon a successful comparison...Other integrity check codes may be applied as well” (paragraph 0061). Raduchel also teaches to allowing parties to access the data in the patient block database (para. 165).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Raduchel with Waugh based on the motivation of allowing for easy access and transfer of medical records between parties (Raduchel – para. 3).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waugh et al (US Patent Publication US 20160324727) in view of Orellano (US Patent 10,025,908).
As per claim 12, Waugh discloses a computer-based medical adherence system, comprising:
a sensor that senses a medication container or medication (para. 97: sensor for detecting medication);
a database that stores patient related data (para. 125: database)
a computer readable medium comprising stored instructions that when executed cause at least one processor to:
electronically store a patient treatment calendar para. 107: mobile device scans and receives treatment schedule;
cause a patient's electronic device to transmit an alert based upon an event logged onto the patient treatment calendar (para. 107: alert transmitted based on treatment schedule).
determine medication adherence by a patient by comparing detection of a medication container or medication to a medication-based event on the patient treatment calendar (para. 69: system stores adherence event in memory);
store data collected from the sensor and the determination of medication adherence in the database; (para. 110, 146: data from sensor and adherence event stored in record);
transmit treatment based information to the patient's device (para. 70: treatment info sent to patient device); and
establish an electronic communication channel between the patient and a healthcare professional (para. 71: channel established between patient and physician where alerts are sent to patient’s doctor).
Waugh does not expressly disclose: a sensor that senses physical gestures of a patient; and comparing a physical gesture of the patient to a database of known physical gestures that indicate consumption of the medication.
However Orellano teaches a sensor that senses physical gestures of a patient (col. 7, lines 4-17); and comparing a physical gesture of the patient to a database of known physical gestures that indicate consumption of the medication (col. 21, lines 19-46).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Orellano with Waugh based on the motivation of promote and verify patient medication adherence (Orellano – col. 1, lines 45-51).
As per claim 13, Waugh and Orellano teach the computer-based medical adherence system claim 12. Waugh does not expressly teach wherein the sensor that senses the physical gestures of the patient comprises a gyroscope, an accelerometer, or a magnetometer.
However Orellano teaches wherein the sensor that senses the physical gestures of the patient comprises a gyroscope (col. 7, lines 8-11).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 12, and incorporated herein.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waugh et al (US Patent Publication US 20160324727) in view of Orellano (US Patent 10,025,908) in view of Giap et al (US Patent Publication 20150306340).
As per claim 14, Waugh and Orellano teach the computer-based medical adherence system of claim 13, but do not expressly teach wherein the device further comprises augmented reality circuitry that renders an augmented image on an existing object.
Giap, however, teaches to wherein the device comprises augmented reality circuitry that renders an augmented image on an existing object (paragraphs 0016 and 0097).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Giap with Waugh and Orellano based on the motivation of monitors both the biometric and physical condition of a patient, and provides a virtual reality interface to that patient to improve the tolerance and efficacy of the medical treatment (Giap – para. 2).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waugh et al (US Patent Publication US 20160324727) in view of Orellano (US Patent 10,025,908) in view of Luellen (US Patent Publication 2018/0308569).
As per claim 16, Waugh and Orellano teach the computer-based medical adherence system of claim 12, but do not expressly teach wherein the system further comprises a predictive analytics module, wherein the predictive analytics module is configured to use predictive algorithms to predict or project future medication adherence, wherein the predictive analytics module is further configured transmit and receive data from the database.
However, Luellen teaches to using an algorithm to analyze patient data and predict adherence using data from a database (para. 112).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Luellen with Waugh & Orellano based on the motivation of addressing health challenges related to medication adherence, predicting and preventing medication non-adherence (Luellen – para. 18).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waugh et al (US Patent Publication US 2016/0324727) in view of Orellano (US Patent 10,025,908) in view of Neagle (US20180358117)
As per claim 15, Waugh and Orellano teach the computer-based medical adherence system of claim 13, but do not expressly teach wherein the augmented image is instructions for using medication, a food item to be ingested along with medication, or a notification from a third party.
Neagle, however, teaches to using augmented reality/virtual reality to display an augmented image in a display and wherein the augmented data includes education material for the patient (para. 38, 68).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Neagle with Waugh and Orellano based on the motivation of control or reduce health-related expenses while improving patient care (Neagle – para. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ortiz - US 20160210626: Secure processing of electronic payments; Fateh - US 20160239635: Monitoring adherence to a medication regimen using a sensor; Hanina - US 20150363570: Medication adherence monitoring system and method; Theurer - US 9641969: Wireless bridge hardware system for active RFID identification and location tracking.
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 18341962. All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
