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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action represents the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-33 are cancelled
Claims 34-53 are new
Claims 34-53 are pending
Priority
This Application claims priority to PCT Application PCT/IL2024/050349 filed 04 April 2024 and Foreign Application IL301954 04 April 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (lDS) submitted on 03 October 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has/have been fully considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected because it recites “a medca condition” in the preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 46 recites the term " temporal score of readiness". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term in the claim.
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 34-53 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.
Claims 34, 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a method and system, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of:
Claims 34, 50 (Claim 50 being representative)
receiving user-related data;
analyzing said user-related data for generating a user temporal profile, said user temporal profile comprises one or more temporal user scores, said temporal user scores comprises at least one of mental capacity score indicative of the capacity of the user for facing with or taking decision on a certain topic, and total pain score indicative of the total physical and mental pain that the user is experiencing;
selecting an interactive content option from a plurality of interactive content options based on said user temporal profile to improve at least one of said one or more temporal user scores, each of the plurality of interactive content options is associated with an effect on at least one of said one or more temporal user scores;
and outputting said interactive content option to the user or a secondary user,
as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for 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 interact with a user having a medical condition in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “receiving, analyzing, selecting and outputting” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a system implemented by a data processor (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the Claim 50 recites the additional element of a processing circuity that implements the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that Claim 34 is not tied to any particular technological environment and is thus purely directed to an abstact idea. The processing circuity is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processing circuity to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Claims 35-49,51-53 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 35 merely describe(s) recording and outputting data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 36 merely describe(s) the user interaction history data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 37 merely describe(s) the user interaction history data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 38 merely describe(s) updating weight factors, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 39 merely describe(s) user related data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 40 merely describe(s) user related data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 41 merely describe(s) the temporal user scores, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 42 merely describe(s) selecting interactive content options, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 43 merely describe(s) the plurality of interactive content options, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 44 merely describe(s) assigning weight factors, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 45 merely describe(s) assigning variance parameters, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 46 merely describe(s) interactive content options, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 47 merely describe(s) interactive content options, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 48 merely describe(s) receiving data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 49 merely describe(s) receiving data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 51 merely describe(s) an output unit, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 51also includes the additional element of “an output unit” merely represents saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicate that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application or significantly more.
Claim(s) 52 merely describe(s) processing circuitry, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 53 merely describe(s) non-transitory computer-readable medium, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 53 also includes the additional element of “non-transitory computer-readable medium” which is analyzed the same as the “processing circuitry” and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Examiner notes that the rejection will reference the translated documents (attached) corresponding to any foreign documents recited in the rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 34-37,39-45,47-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osborn et al (US Publication No. 20140065585) in view of Levy et al (US Publication No. 20210183481).
Regarding Claim 34
Obsorn teaches a method for interacting with a user having a medica condition, comprising:
receiving user-related data [Osborn at Para. 0043 teaches the collected data needed for a user life efficacy assessment may be stored in a life skills measurement database 220. The life skills measurement module 200 may then be used to assess the self-efficacy of the user's readiness to address a life stage transition by scoring certain life skill competencies based upon the collected user symptoms and other evidence of the user's life skills, emotional and mental health, and personality and then comparing the resulting user's scores with life skill baseline scores stored in a life stage baseline score database 210 that reflect baseline scores for various life skills that are predictive of success];
[ … ] … said temporal user scores comprises at least one of mental capacity score indicative of the capacity of the user for facing with or taking decision on a certain topic, and total pain score indicative of the total physical and mental pain that the user is experiencing [Osborn at Para. 0043 (self-efficacy interpreted as mental capacity)];
selecting an interactive content option from a plurality of interactive content options based on said user temporal profile to improve at least one of said one or more temporal user scores, each of the plurality of interactive content options is associated with an effect on at least one of said one or more temporal user scores [Osborn at Para. 0009 teaches select a first treatment program or a first training program for the first most likely diagnosis from a plurality of treatment and training programs stored in a database; using the selected first treatment program or first training program, interactively engage in at least one session with the user to improve the user's self-efficacy for life stage readiness];
and outputting said interactive content option to the user or a secondary user [Osborn at Para. 0119 teaches in step 440, his user interactively engages in a therapeutic treatment session which is based on their symptomology and the current therapeutic methodology that matches the user's personality. In step 450, then the user is then given the opportunity to rate that therapeutic treatment. In step 460, the module presents to the user a dialog screen that describes a real life scenario].
Obsorn does not teach analyzing said user-related data for generating a user temporal profile, said user temporal profile comprises one or more temporal user scores, … [ … ]
Levy teaches analyzing said user-related data for generating a user temporal profile, said user temporal profile comprises one or more temporal user scores [Levy at Para. 0104 teaches in one embodiment, at 306, user profile data is obtained and/or generated and a user profile is created for the user], … [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine mental capacity score of Osborn with the profile of Levy with the motivation to reduce the current user's anxiety level.
Regarding Claim 35
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 34,
Osborn/Levy further teach comprising recording a response of the user to said output interactive content option and updating at least one of said one or more temporal user scores [Osborn at Para. 0143 teaches as a user engages this or that particular treatment module, they can also note changes in their life efficacy score].
Regarding Claim 36
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 34,
Osborn/Levy further teach wherein said user-related data comprises user interaction history data; wherein said user interaction history data comprises recorded responses of the user to each output interactive content option [Levy at Para. 0135 teaches as described in detail above, with respect to monitoring the interactions of the user over time to generate historical user interaction data, in various embodiments, the interactions of the user with the current information presented through the user interface may be monitored through collection of user input data received through the user interface. The user input data collected may include, but is not limited to, data associated with click-stream input, textual input, touch input, gesture input, audio input, image input, video input, accelerometer input, and/or physiological input. In one embodiment, once the user input data is collected from the user, the user input data is processed and aggregated to generate current user interaction data];
wherein said user interaction history data comprises engagement profile of the user with each output interactive content option [Levy at Para. 0105 teaches the user profile may further contain data related to the user's individual sessions with the application, or data related to the user's interactions with the application over time];
wherein said engagement profile comprises recording of the physical engagement profile of the user with said interactive content option when said interactive content option is being presented on a touch screen [Levy at Para. 0108 teaches for example, the user may be presented with information on the screen of an electronic device, along with a variety of graphical user elements, which allow the user to scroll through the information, click on buttons associated with the information, and/or enter textual strings in response to the information. When the information is presented to the user on a device that includes a touch screen, the interaction may include touch-based interactions and/or gesture recognition].
Regarding Claim 37
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 36,
Osborn/Levy further teach wherein said user interaction history data comprises a plurality of data pieces, each associated with a different time stamp, wherein each data piece is assigned with a respective weight factor for affecting at least one temporal user scores [Levy at Para. 0235 teaches the one or more user interaction data vectors associated with the current user are then provided as input data to the one or more trained machine learning based mental state prediction models 642, resulting in the generation of current user mental state prediction data 646].
Regarding Claim 39
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 34,
Osborn/Levy further teach wherein said user related data comprises responses of said secondary user to the output interactive content option [Osborn at Para. 0053 teaches in step 133, the system determines if the treatment session in step 132 caused the user to have negative emotions based upon input from the user in step 132].
Regarding Claim 40
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 34,
Osborn/Levy further teach wherein said user related data comprises any one of: medical data, psychological data, social data and financial data [Osborn at Para. 0043 teaches the system 100 includes a life skills measurement program module 200 that can be interactively accessed by the user through conventional user interfaces so that the system 100 can collect user symptoms and other evidence of the user's emotional and mental health, life skills and personality].
Regarding Claim 41
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 34,
Osborn/Levy further teach wherein said one or more temporal user scores comprise at least one of the following: mental capacity score, medical burden score, total pain score, friends and family support score, tendency to share medical condition, tendency to share content, tendency to share financial challenges, tendency to consume services, tendency to create content, level of peace, level of control, urgency to create legacy, level of meaning, remaining time perception, level of fear of death, and home treatment trending score, readiness to change location of care [Osborn at Para. 0043 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 42
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 34,
Osborn/Levy further teach wherein said selecting comprises selecting an interactive content option that is associated with an effect on one or more desired temporal user scores [Osborn at Para. 0009 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 43
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 34,
Osborn/Levy further teach wherein said plurality of interactive content options comprise range-based interactive content options that are allowed for selection upon being in a defined range of one or more temporal user scores; wherein the method comprising updating the defined range of each of said range-based interactive content based on said user temporal profile [Osborn at Para. 0056 teaches if the user's individual LES score is less than the baseline score for a selected life skill, the system guides the user to a training or treatment module that will either offer training in the deficit life skill or offer therapeutic treatment for the syndrome or disorder in steps 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, respectively. The user may continue using the system and repeating the process until the user's scores are above the composite LES baseline score in step 240, in which case the user exits the system in step 260].
Regarding Claim 44
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 34,
Osborn/Levy further teach comprising assigning one or more interactive content option weight factors affecting each temporal user scores to at least one interactive content option [Osborn at Para. 0143 teaches the ranking/scoring module of the present invention takes the wealth of available therapeutic treatments, and then provides a means for the end users to report on their satisfaction with the treatment both with a score and by the frequency they engage this or that treatment or therapeutic methodology. Additionally the novel LES scoring system provides a means to measuring progress made in the following areas: self-management and goal setting, reduction in interruptions from disorders/diagnoses, improvement in attitude towards risk/reward and improvements in self-image. As a user engages this or that particular treatment module, they can also note changes in their life efficacy score];
wherein the method further comprising updating said interactive content option weight factors according to said user temporal profile [Levy at Para. 0147 teaches as one specific illustrative example, if a determination is made that the user is slightly more anxious than they usually are, minor actions may be taken to reduce the user's anxiety level, such as adjusting the content and/or presentation of the information that is being provided to the user through the user interface].
Regarding Claim 45
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 44,
Osborn/Levy further teach comprising assigning a variance parameter to at least one interactive content option, said variance parameter indicative of the variance of interactions of a population of users with said interactive content option; wherein said assigning one or more interactive content option weight factors comprises applying a variance function dependent on said variance parameter; wherein said variance function is further dependent on said user temporal profile.
The Examiner notes that the parameters have no functional relevance to the Claim and is non-functional descriptive information.
Regarding Claim 47
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 34,
Osborn/Levy further teach wherein said interactive content options comprise tasks for the user [Osborn at Para. 0047 teaches the system further may include a Journal to Life program module 800 that includes capabilities for periodically outputting reminders of goals, tasks, and milestones to the user's access device, such as a personal digital assistant for example, to reinforce the steps to be taken by the user following a treatment session to improve or maintain the user's life skill competencies and self-efficacy for a particular life stage transition].
Regarding Claim 48
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 34,
Osborn/Levy further teach comprising receiving general medical-related data indicative of medical statistics, wherein said selecting is further performed based on said general medical-related data [Osborn at Para. 0103 teaches a user enters the system 351 and provides the system with their current presenting emotional and physical symptoms and other evidence of the user's emotional and mental health as previously described. In step 331, the reverse engineer diagnosis module 300 develops a series of differential diagnoses based on the user's presenting symptoms and outputs a ranked set of differential diagnosis. In step 332, the module 400 first provides a treatment session for the highest scoring differential diagnosis].
Regarding Claim 50
Osborn teaches a system for interacting with a user having a medical condition, comprising:
at least one processing circuitry configured for [Osborn at Para. 0147 teaches examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with aspects include, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, hand-held or laptop computing devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, programmable consumer electronics, mobile telephones, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that include any of the above systems or devices, and the like]:
receiving user-related data [Osborn at Para. 0043 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
[ … ] … said temporal user scores comprises at least one of mental capacity score indicative of the capacity of the user for facing with or taking decision on a certain topic, and total pain score indicative of the total physical and mental pain that the user is experiencing [Osborn at Para. 0043 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
selecting an interactive content option from a plurality of interactive content options based on said user temporal profile to improve at least one of said one or more temporal user scores, each of the plurality of interactive content options is associated with an effect on at least one of said one or more temporal user scores [Osborn at Para. 0009 (see Claim 1 for explanation)];
and outputting said interactive content option to the user or a secondary user [Osborn at Para. 0119 (see Claim 1 for explanation)].
Osborn does not teach analyzing said user-related data for generating a user temporal profile, said user temporal profile comprises one or more temporal user scores, … [ … ]
Levy teaches analyzing said user-related data for generating a user temporal profile, said user temporal profile comprises one or more temporal user scores [Levy at Para. 0135 (see Claim 1 for explanation)], … [ … ]
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine mental capacity score of Osborn with the profile of Levy with the motivation to reduce the current user's anxiety level.
Regarding Claim 51
Osborn/Levy teaches the system of claim 50,
Osborn/Levy further teaches comprising an output unit for outputting said interactive content option to the user or a secondary user [Osborn at Para. 0147 (see Claim 50 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 52
Osborn/Levy teaches the system of claim 50,
Osborn/Levy further teaches wherein the at least one processing circuitry is configured to perform the method of claim 34 [Osborn at Para. 0147 (see Claim 50 for explanation)].
Regarding Claim 53
Osborn/Levy further teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause one or more processors to perform the method of claim 34 [Osborn at Para. 0146 teaches until required by processing system 10, the set of instructions may be stored as a computer program product in another computer memory, for example. Furthermore, the computer program product may also be stored at another computer and transmitted when desired to the user's workstation by a local area network or by an external communications network, such as the Internet or a wireless cellular network].
Claim 38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osborn, Levy as applied to claim 34, 50 above, and further in view of Kalmes et al (US Publication No. 20140149424).
Regarding Claim 38
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 37,
Osborn/Levy do not teach wherein the method comprising updating said respective weight factor assigned to each data piece based on the respective time stamp of said data piece; wherein said updating said respective weight factor comprises applying a time stamp-depended function to said respective weight factor.
Kalmes teaches wherein the method comprising updating said respective weight factor assigned to each data piece based on the respective time stamp of said data piece; wherein said updating said respective weight factor comprises applying a time stamp-depended function to said respective weight factor [Kalmes at Para. 0125 teaches in particular embodiments, the viewing history and preference data may be updated based on user input. For instance, a user may review aggregated data regarding the success of various types of content recommendations and then dynamically alter or adjust techniques such as those used to weight content by time-viewed or to transform the weighting values].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Osborn, Levy with the weights of Kalmes with the motivation to improve the efficacy of the recommendation process.
Claim 46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osborn, Levy as applied to claim 34, 50 above, and further in view of Vasudevan et al (US Publication No. 20210375437).
Regarding Claim 46
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 34,
Osborn/Levy further teach wherein said interactive content options comprise questions or questionnaires and recommendations for actions or for services [Osborn at Para. 0045 teaches the system also includes a dynamic treatment personalization program module 400 and associated database 402 containing treatment programs for treating various mental or emotional syndromes and disorders of a user and a life skills training program module 500 and associated database 502 of training programs for providing various life skills training to a user with various life skill deficits identified by the user assessment made by the life skills measurement module 200];
Osborn/Levy do not teach wherein said recommendations comprise palliative treatment suggestions;
wherein said palliative treatment suggestion is triggered following identification of reaching a threshold of the temporal score of readiness to change location of care.
Vasudevan teaches wherein said recommendations comprise palliative treatment suggestions [Vasudevan at Para. 0051 teaches the trained transition of care decision models are then utilized for processing a wide variety of received execution patient data as input and determining a respective historical decision model-derived transition of care decision score and an expert recommendation model-derived transition of care decision score for one or more patient; Vasudevan at Para. 0140 teaches it is further understood that, as used herein, the optimal or recommended “sites” and “services” are meant to be generic sites and services, whereas the recommended “provider” and/or “facility” is meant to be a specific provider of a given service and/or a specific facility of a site type. Example services include rehabilitation, physical therapy, psychiatric counseling, palliative care, etc., whereas example providers include specific practitioners, clinicians, medical groups, physical therapy providers, etc. Example sites include rehabilitation hospitals, hospices, the patient's home, a skilled nursing facility, hospital ward type, etc. Example of facilities include specific hospitals, medical centers, hospice locations, etc.];
wherein said palliative treatment suggestion is triggered following identification of reaching a threshold of the temporal score of readiness to change location of care [Vasudevan at Para. 0095 teaches the application 210 may include a number of configurable settings associated with triggering alerts or user notifications when a particular patient's transition of care decision intervention priority score or data corresponding to a particular patient's transition of care decision scores exceeds a threshold priority designation, e.g., high or highest priority designation (transition of care decision intervention priority score interpreted as temporal score of readiness to change location of care)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Osborn, Levy with the palliative treatment recommendation of Vasudevan with the motivation to improve patient outcomes and/or reduce total costs of care.
Claim 49 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Osborn, Levy as applied to claim 34, 50 above, and further in view of Jiao et al (US Publication No. 20170103469).
Regarding Claim 49
Osborn/Levy teach the method of claim 34,
Osborn/Levy does not teach comprising receiving location-related data indicative of data related to specific locations, wherein said selecting is further performed based on said location-related data.
Jiao teaches comprising receiving location-related data indicative of data related to specific locations, wherein said selecting is further performed based on said location-related data [Jiao at Para. 0067 teaches location data 227 and time data 228 can also be used by fielder 220 to interpret a user's schedule and choose appropriate schedule-related questions. For example, if the data show that a user commutes via a long subway ride every weekday, questions about exercise ideas for long commuters can be shown. If a user is detected in a restaurant, questions regarding healthy food choices can be shown, and if a user is in a grocery store, questions about vegetables, organic food, and nutrition can be shown].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Osborn, Levy with the location data of Jiao with the motivation to improve the user's mental or physiological health relating to the topic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
O’Keefe et al (US Publication No. 20220375600) discloses systems and methods for a care decision platform operable to facilitate shared decision making for care services and/or lifestyle choices related to aging.
Rothman et al (US Publication No. 20170124279) discloses systems and methods can support adaptive self-assessment for automated health scoring.
PILLAY et al (US Publication No. 20220139554) discloses a computer-implemented method for treating a medical condition via a digital therapeutic platform.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C EDOUARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730 - 430.
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 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 C EDOUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights