DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 34-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Richardson, McNeill, Agnew, and Cameron.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to the objection to Claim 34 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claim 34 has been withdrawn. However, due to amendments, a new objection to Claim 34 is made.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has asserted based on the amendments to the claims, the double patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 10, 463, 340 B2 (Also US Application 12/904,789) in view of Agnew should be withdrawn. However, U.S. Patent No. 10, 463, 340 B2 in view of Agnew, also discloses the subject matter of the amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 34, “wherein predetermined threshold amount is greater than a level corresponding to breathing sounds and less than a saturation level of a preamplifier” should read “wherein the predetermined threshold amount is greater than a level corresponding to breathing sounds and less than a saturation level of a preamplifier”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
(Examiner’s Note: In the following rejection, references made to “Column/page X, lines a-n” will be abbreviated to “X:a-n”).
Claims 34-36, 38-39 and 41-44 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Richardson et al (US 20070147639 A1, hereinafter Richardson) in view of McNeill et al (US 7457757 B1, hereinafter McNeill), Agnew et al (US 5862238 A, hereinafter Agnew) and Cameron (US 4924876 A, hereinafter Cameron).
Regarding Claim 34, Richardson discloses an acoustic sensing system (See Figs. 1, 3, and 10) the acoustic sensing system comprising:
an acoustic sensor (Element 102, Figs. 1 and 10) configured to generate an initial signal in response to detecting acoustic vibrations (“The microphone 102 transduces sound energy into an electrical signal”, [0038]) associated with a patient (“One aspect of the invention includes a hearing aid. The hearing aid includes a microphone to receive an input signal…”, Abstract); and
a processing circuitry (See Figs. 1 and 10) configured to:
receive the initial signal (See Figs. 1 and 10); and
determine a first portion of the initial signal that is above a predetermined threshold amount (“The graph 300A graphs a portion 302A of the signal that has an amplitude above the threshold of the digital automatic gain control”, [0051]; the disclosed threshold amount can be considered a predetermined threshold amount); and
compress a first portion of the initial signal (“As discussed hereinbefore, the digital automatic gain control will reduce the amplitude of the input signal in the portion 302A by adjusting the gain of the preamplifier”, [0051]) according to a first compression scheme (“The adjuster adjusts the gain based on the level of the envelope relative to a threshold”, [0013]), wherein a second portion of the initial signal that is below the predetermined threshold amount (“A portion 304A of the graph 300A has an amplitude below the threshold of the digital automatic gain control.”, [0051]) is not compressed (“the digital automatic gain control will increase the amplitude of the input signal in the portion 304A by adjusting the gain of the preamplifier”, [0051]);
wherein the front-end circuitry is configured to receive (“Multiplier 1010 combines digital compression recapture signal 1007 and digital output signal 116 to produce a digital signal 1020 that is fed to the digital signal processor”, [0077]) the compressed first portion (“Accordingly, the compressed portions of the signal are added back into the signal output from the input stage of a hearing aid”, [0015]) and the second portion instead of the initial signal (See Fig. 6; “If the difference is negative [i.e. is the second portion of the initial signal], the adjuster 538 increases the gain of the preamplifier 504”, [0062]; it can be seen in Fig. 6 that this signal is then fed through the process to element 516; “The analog signal enters a speaker 516. The speaker 516 reproduces sounds from the analog signal.”, [0056]).
Richardson discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein predetermined threshold amount is greater than a level corresponding to breathing sounds and less than a saturation level of a preamplifier; and
the first compression scheme selected from a plurality of dynamic range compression schemes to generate a first compressed portion, the first compression scheme selected to increase a dynamic range of front-end circuitry of the acoustic sensor.
However, Agnew, which is also directed towards an acoustic sensing system and compression of an audio signal (Abstract), teaches the predetermined threshold amount is less than a saturation level of a preamplifier (“In the preferred embodiment, the hearing aid preamplifier network includes an amplifier circuit having an adjustable gain and a gain control circuit connected in a feedback loop with the amplifier circuit. This configuration forms a gain compression feedback circuit which automatically adjusts the gain of the amplifier circuit so as to prevent the amplifier circuit from saturating. The gain control circuit is connected to an output of the amplifier circuit and is configured to automatically adjust the amplifier circuit gain when a voltage on the amplifier circuit output exceeds a predetermined threshold voltage. The predetermined threshold voltage is set to a value below a voltage where the preamplifier network amplifier circuit saturates”, 3:19-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing system of Richardson with Agnew wherein predetermined threshold amount is less than a saturation level of a preamplifier, because saturation makes the output signal distorted (Agnew, 1:51-52), and using the predetermined threshold amount of Agnew prevents this (Agnew, 3:19-32).
Cameron, which is also directed towards an acoustic sensing system (See Abstract) teaches modifying a compression circuit that allows breathing sounds to be heard (“The compressor is an integrated circuit developed for noise reduction in the telephone system. Its use here is not for noise reduction, but rather to make the quiet sounds louder and the loud sounds quieter, so that the gain can be high enough to hear very gentle breathing without the user being deafened by the explosive turbulence of a sneeze”, 1:62-68) wherein the compression scheme is intended to increase a dynamic range of front-end circuitry of the acoustic sensor (“The dynamic range is greatly increased by signal compression(6), which is followed by low-pass filtering (8)”, 2:23-24). The applicant’s specification discloses determining a first portion of the initial signal that is above a predetermined threshold amount, wherein predetermined threshold amount is greater than a level corresponding to breathing sounds and less than a saturation level of the preamplifier to also be for allowing breathing sounds to be heard wherein the first compression scheme is selected to increase a dynamic range of front-end circuitry of the acoustic sensor (“The compression scheme of FIGURE 5 advantageously allows for preserves resolution for quieter sounds while still allowing louder sounds to be processed”, [0098]; the Examiner notes the support for the claim limitation wherein predetermined threshold amount is greater than a level corresponding to breathing sounds comes from Fig. 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that by modifying the first portion of Richardson such that the predetermined threshold amount is greater than a level corresponding to breathing sounds and less than a saturation level of the preamplifier, said acoustic sensing system would be improved in the same way Cameron and the applicant’s specification teach (allowing quieter sounds to be heard while allowing louder sounds to still be processed, thus increasing a dynamic range of the acoustic sensor).
McNeil, which is also directed towards an acoustic sensing system (See Fig. 6) and compression of an audio signal (“This disclosure relates generally to the field of audio signal processing…”, 1:6-7), teaches the first compression scheme (See 6:5-32; multiple compressor parameters are disclosed, including compressor threshold level (6:5-8), compressor attack time (6:9-15), compressor release time (6:16-28), and selective attenuation of the compressor (6:29-32); an active set of compressor parameters at any given time point in the audio signal can be considered one compression scheme) being selected from a plurality of dynamic range compression schemes (See 6:5-37; each compressor parameter can be adjusted, including compressor threshold level (6:7-8), compressor attack time (6:13-15), compressor release time (6:20-21), and selective attenuation of the compressor (6:30-32); the examiner notes that a different compression scheme is created by every adjustment of each compression parameter, thereby selecting a new compression scheme from a plurality of possible compression schemes) to generate a first compressed portion (See Fig. 4), the first compression scheme selected to increase a dynamic range of front-end circuitry of the acoustic sensor (“A shorter release time will increase the speed by which the dynamic range is increased.”, 6:30-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensing system of Richardson with the selection of the first compression scheme from a plurality of dynamic range compression schemes, as taught by McNeill, because this allows degraded sound quality of incoming signals to be modified in real-time to increase intelligibility as variations occur in speech sound quality of the incoming signals (McNeill, Abstract; also see 6:5-32).
Regarding Claim 38, modified Richardson discloses the acoustic sensing system of Claim 34, further comprising a decompression module (“automatic gain control”, [0006]) configured to remove distortion effects introduced by the compression (“These discontinuous peaks of the portion 302B are indicative of distortion in the signal. This distortion arises from the amplitude modulation of the signal that is inhibited by the embodiments of the invention. A portion 304B of the graph 300B reflects the effort of the digital automatic gain control to increase the amplitude of the input signal. The portion 304B shows a gradual increase in the amplitude over time”, [0053]).
Regarding Claim 39, modified Richardson discloses the acoustic sensing system of Claim 34, wherein the front-end circuitry (“digital signal processor”, [0077]; element DSP in Figs. 1 and 10) is configured to produce an amplified signal (“After the signal is processed, the speaker transforms the electrical energy in the electrical signal to sound energy again”, [0004]) based on the first portion and the second portion (“FIG. 4 shows a graph 300B of an output signal in a sound system having a digital automatic gain control. The graph 300B graphs an output signal that is produced by a digital automatic gain control. This output signal is processed from the input signal as shown in the graph 300A of FIG. 3”, [0051]).
Regarding Claim 41, modified Richardson discloses the acoustic sensing system of Claim 34, wherein the front-end circuitry comprises the preamplifier (Element 504, Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 42, modified Richardson discloses the acoustic sensing system of Claim 34. Modified Richardson discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the first compression scheme comprises executing a logarithmic function. However, McNeill teaches wherein the first compression scheme comprises executing a logarithmic function (“As with the high pass filter 120 and low pass filter 115, there are several methods for implementing the expander 12d5 and compressor 130. These methods include, for example, the use of variable gain cells, multipliers, log amplifiers and modulators”, 6:33-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the sensing system of Richardson with the first compression scheme executing a logarithmic function, as taught by McNeill, because this allows degraded sound quality of incoming signals to be modified in real-time to increase intelligibility as variations occur in speech sound quality of the incoming signals (McNeill, Abstract; also see 6:5-32).
Regarding Claim 43, modified Richardson discloses the acoustic sensing system of Claim 34. Modified Richardson discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the first compression scheme comprises executing a linear function. However, McNeill teaches wherein the first compression scheme comprises executing a linear function (“As with the high pass filter 120 and low pass filter 115, there are several methods for implementing the expander 12d5 and compressor 130. These methods include, for example, the use of variable gain cells, multipliers, log amplifiers and modulators”, 6:33-37; variable gain cells can be linear). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the sensing system of Richardson with the first compression scheme executing a linear function, as taught by McNeill, because this allows degraded sound quality of incoming signals to be modified in real-time to increase intelligibility as variations occur in speech sound quality of the incoming signals (McNeill, Abstract; also see 6:5-32).
Regarding Claim 44, modified Richardson discloses the acoustic sensing system of Claim 43. Modified Richardson discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the linear function comprises a piece-wise linear function. However, McNeill teaches wherein the first compression scheme comprises executing a piece-wise linear function (“As with the high pass filter 120 and low pass filter 115, there are several methods for implementing the expander 12d5 and compressor 130. These methods include, for example, the use of variable gain cells, multipliers, log amplifiers and modulators”, 6:33-37; variable gain cells can be piece-wise linear). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the sensing system of Richardson with the first compression scheme executing a piece-wise linear function, as taught by McNeill, because this allows degraded sound quality of incoming signals to be modified in real-time to increase intelligibility as variations occur in speech sound quality of the incoming signals (McNeill, Abstract; also see 6:5-32).
Claims 37 and 40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Richardson in view of McNeill Agnew, and Cameron, and further in view of Westbrook et al (US 20020165462 A1, hereinafter Westbrook).
Regarding Claim 37, modified Richardson discloses the acoustic sensing system of Claim 34. Modified Richardson discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the first portion of the initial signal corresponds to a sound that is higher in volume than a breathing sound. However, Westbrook, which is also directed towards receiving signals from an acoustic sensor indicative of acoustic vibrations associated with the patient (Abstract), teaches wherein the first portion of the initial signal corresponds to a sound that is higher in volume than a breathing sound (“The system 12 also includes a microphone 32 that records snoring and breathing sounds”, [0058]; snoring sounds are higher in volume than breathing sounds). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the acoustic sensing system of Richardson, which the teaching of Westbrook, because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and one with ordinary skill in the art could have combined all the claimed elements by known methods, and the result would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 40, modified Richardson discloses the acoustic sensing system of Claim 34. Modified Richardson discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the second portion corresponds to a sound that is equal to or lower in volume than a breathing sound. However, Westbrook, which is also directed towards receiving signals from an acoustic sensor indicative of acoustic vibrations associated with the patient (Abstract), teaches wherein the second portion corresponds to a sound that is equal to or lower in volume than a breathing sound (“The system 12 also includes a microphone 32 that records snoring and breathing sounds”, [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the acoustic sensing system of Richardson, which the teaching of Westbrook, because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and one with ordinary skill in the art could have combined all the claimed elements by known methods, and the result would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 34 and 37-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 6-9, 18, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 463, 340 B2 (Also US Application 12/904,789) in view of Agnew.
Regarding the claims, US 10463340 B2 discloses:
16/600983
US 10463340 B2 (12/904789)
34. …an acoustic sensor configured to generate an initial signal in response to detecting acoustic vibrations associated with a patient; and
Claim 1. An acoustic sensor configured to non-invasively detect physiological acoustic vibrations indicative of one or more physiological parameters of a medical patient
a processing circuitry configured to:
receive the initial signal; and
(Claim 1) …front-end circuitry configured to receive an input signal that is based at least in part on the initial signal… and a compression module in communication with the front-end circuitry and configured to:
determine a first portion of the initial signal that is above a predetermined threshold amount, wherein the predetermined threshold amount is greater than a level corresponding to breathing sounds; and
(Claim 1) …the first portion of the initial signal having a magnitude of the amplitude that is greater than a predetermined threshold level, wherein the first compressed portion corresponds to a physiological sound louder than breathing
compress the first portion of the initial signal according to a first compression scheme selected from a plurality of dynamic range compression schemes to generate a first compressed portion, the first compression scheme selected to increase a dynamic range of front-end circuitry of the acoustic sensor,
(Claim 1) …a compression module in communication with the front-end circuitry and configured to: select a first compression scheme of a plurality of dynamic range compression schemes, wherein different dynamic range compression schemes of the plurality of dynamic range compression schemes correspond to different modifications to signals; compress a first portion of the initial signal according to the first compression scheme to generate a first compressed portion,
wherein a second portion of the initial signal that is below the predetermined threshold amount is not compressed;
(Claim 1) …a second portion of the initial signal remains uncompressed by the compression module, the second portion corresponding to a portion of the initial signal (Claim 1) …having a magnitude of the amplitude that is less than the predetermined threshold level,
wherein the front-end circuitry is configured to receive the first portion and the second portion instead of the initial signal.
(Claim 1) …provide the input signal to the front-end circuitry, wherein the input signal comprises at least the first compressed portion, the second portion, and the third compressed portion.
37. (Previously Presented) The acoustic sensing system of Claim 34, wherein the first portion of the initial signal corresponds to a sound that is higher in volume than a breathing sound.
(Claim 1) …wherein the first compressed portion corresponds to a physiological sound louder than breathing
38. (Currently Amended) The acoustic sensing system of Claim 34, further comprising a decompression module configured to remove distortion effects introduced by the compression.
Claim 24. The acoustic sensor of claim 1, further comprising a decompression module configured to modify the amplified signal to reduce an effect of the compression module on the amplified signal.
39. (Currently Amended) The acoustic sensing system of Claim 34, wherein the front-end circuitry is configured to produce an amplified signal based on the first portion and the second portion.
(Claim 18)… generating an amplified signal using front-end circuitry and in response to an input signal…
40. (Previously Presented) The acoustic sensing system of Claim 34, wherein the second portion corresponds to a sound that is equal to or lower in volume than a breathing sound.
(Claim 1) …wherein the second portion corresponds to a breathing sound
41. The acoustic sensing system of Claim 34, wherein the front-end circuitry comprises the preamplifier.
Claim 6. The acoustic sensor of claim 1, wherein the front-end circuitry comprises a preamplifier.
42. The acoustic sensing system of Claim 34, wherein the first compression scheme comprises executing a logarithmic function.
Claim 7. The acoustic sensor of claim 1, wherein the first compression scheme comprises executing a logarithmic function.
43. The acoustic sensing system of Claim 34, wherein the first compression scheme comprises executing a linear function.
Claim 8. The acoustic sensor of claim 1, wherein the first compression scheme comprises executing a linear function.
44. The acoustic sensing system of Claim 43, wherein the linear function comprises a piece-wise linear function.
Claim 9. The acoustic sensor of claim 8, wherein the linear function comprises a piece-wise linear function.
US 10463340 B2 discloses the claims except for expressly disclosing wherein is less than a saturation level of a preamplifier. However, Agnew, which is also directed towards an acoustic sensing system and compression of an audio signal (Abstract), teaches the predetermined threshold amount is less than a saturation level of a preamplifier (“In the preferred embodiment, the hearing aid preamplifier network includes an amplifier circuit having an adjustable gain and a gain control circuit connected in a feedback loop with the amplifier circuit. This configuration forms a gain compression feedback circuit which automatically adjusts the gain of the amplifier circuit so as to prevent the amplifier circuit from saturating. The gain control circuit is connected to an output of the amplifier circuit and is configured to automatically adjust the amplifier circuit gain when a voltage on the amplifier circuit output exceeds a predetermined threshold voltage. The predetermined threshold voltage is set to a value below a voltage where the preamplifier network amplifier circuit saturates”, 3:19-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Claim 1 of the instant application with the predetermined threshold amount less than a saturation level of a preamplifier of Agnew, because saturation makes the output signal distorted (Agnew, 1:51-52), and using the predetermined threshold amount of Agnew prevents this (Agnew, 3:19-32).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-2860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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 E. COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791