2DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 04/21/2026 has been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12-15 remain pending, claims 1-7 and 9 have been amended, and claims 10, 12-25 having been previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Claim objections
In light of the claim amendments filed 04/21/2026, the previous claim objections have been rendered moot and have been withdrawn. However, the amendments to claim 4, have introduced new objected to subject matter, see the new objection to claim 4 below.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
In light of the claim amendments filed 04/21/2026, the previously made specific claim rejections for claim 1, stand-alone rejections of claims 4-6, have been rendered moot and have been withdrawn
However, applicant has not amended the remainder of the rejected claims to address the outstanding issues under 112(b). Therefore, the claims remain rejected.
Further, the present amendments have introduced new clarity issues to the claims and have brought on new indefiniteness rejections outlined below.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that the arguments presented are unsupported by objective evidence. Applicant is reminded that arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, where applicant argues against each of the primary reference and the secondary reference alone for each separately allegedly failing to independently disclose each feature of the claims as argues on pages 8-10 od applicant’s response – applicant is reminded that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, the claims remain rejected and the rejection has been made final.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first emitter and the second emitter are configured to be positioned such that light emitted by the first emitter and the second emitter reaches the light sensor from different directions relative to the light sensor” should be amended to recite “the first emitter and the second emitter are configured to be positioned such that respective light emitted by each of the first emitter and the second emitter reaches the light sensor from different directions relative to the light sensor” should. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
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.
Claims 3, 5-7, and 9 are 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 3 recites “the emitter is in a cradle made into the surface of the nozzle, the cradle limiting the field of projection of the light emitter” lines 3-4, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the cradle in claim 3 is meant to refer to the cradle recited earlier in parent claim 1. If yes, it is also unclear if the walls of the concave depression of the cradle are configure the field of projection of the light emitter.
Claim 5 has been amended to recite “each additional emitter-and- sensor pair comprising a light emitter and a light sensor disposed together in a respective cradle made into the surface of the nozzle” in lines 8-10, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the respective cradle made into the surface of the nozzle is meant to refer to the cradle comprising a concave depression made into the surface of the nozzle recited in parent claim 1. It is also unclear if applicant meant that each additional emitter-and-sensor pair comprising an additional light emitter and an additional light sensor disposed together in an additional respective cradle, or if the light emitter and the light sensor in the additional emitter and sensor pair is meant to refer to the light emitter and light sensor as taught in parent claim 1.
Claim 6 is also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
Claim 6 has been amended to recite “each additional emitter-and-sensors group comprising a light emitter and two light sensors disposed in a respective cradle made into the surface of the nozzle; and any one of the two light sensors in any one of the emitter-and-sensors groups is configured to sense light emitted from a light emitter in another one of the emitter-and-sensors groups” in lines 12-15, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the two light sensors of each additional emitter-and-sensors group is inclusive or exclusive of the light sensor recited earlier in the claim and in parent claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the material filling up the sleeve" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim nor parent claim 1 does not prior recite a material filling up the sleeve.
Claim 9 has been amended to recites “…is absorptive of a frequency of the light which the light sensor detects” in lines 1-3, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if applicant meant to a frequency of light which the light-sensor detects. It is also appearing, although it is unclear if the wall in the present claim refers to the wall recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 9 is dependent via claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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(s) 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US20120116231, hereinafter “Liao”), in view of LeBoeuf et al. (US20210393146, hereafter “LeBoeuf”).
Regarding claim 1, Liao discloses an earpiece comprising:
a nozzle configured to be inserted into an ear canal (abstract, [0029], [0032] the earplug 10 includes housing 200 that is inserted into the ear canal);
a light emitter and a light-a sensor ([0045], FIG. 7, including a light source 50 and light receiver 70) spaced apart on the nozzle circumferentially ([0045], FIGS. 1, 7, circumferentially shaped housing 200, see FIG. 1, has light sensors and emitters spaces apart circumferentially as illustrated in FIG. 7);
the light sensor being in a cradle comprising a concave depression made into the surface of the nozzle ([0045], FIG. 7, see receiver 70 in groove 220 in FIG. 7); but does not explicitly disclose wherein walls of the concave depression of the cradle are configured to limit a field-of-view of the light-sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, LeBoeuf teaches wherein walls of the concave depression of the cradle are configured to limit a field-of-view* of the light-sensor ([0094], FIG. 12, the optical emitter 402 and detectors 404 may be isolated by an optical blocking material in respective cradles seen in FIG. 12 to prevent unwanted optical signals from triggering the optical detectors).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the earpiece disclosed by Liao with the walls of the concave depression of the cradle are configured to limit a field-of-view of the light-sensor as taught by LeBoeuf in order for the optical energy reaching the optical detector may contain a greater ratio of physiological information with respect to optical scatter ([0078] of LeBoeuf).
*For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been defined as outlined in by the applicant to mean the light sensor in the cradle as the cradle protects the sensor from detecting light which reaches the sensor from a predetermined, undesirable angle (see [0008] of the specification).
It should be noted, that the limitations of “the light sensor being in a cradle comprising a concave depression made into the surface of the nozzle” is considered a functional limitation of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Liao as modified, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Regarding claim 2, Liao substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Liao discloses wherein:
the nozzle further comprises a speaker ([0029], FIG. 1, the ear-plug type earphone produces sound using the plug head and front housing 200 is an audio housing, therefore, one of skill in the art of electrical arts, would understand that this earphone would include components known to produce sound).
Regarding claim 3, Liao, in view of LeBoeuf, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Liao discloses wherein:
the emitter is in a cradle made into the surface of the nozzle ([0045], FIG. 7, see emitter 50 in groove 220 in FIG. 7), and specifically, LeBoeuf discloses the cradle limiting the field of projection of the emitter ([0094], FIG. 12, the optical emitter 402 and detectors 404 may be isolated by an optical blocking material in respective cradles seen in FIG. 12 to prevent unwanted optical signals from triggering the optical detectors).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the earpiece disclosed by Liao with the cradle limiting the field of projection of the emitter as taught by LeBoeuf in order for the optical energy reaching the optical detector may contain a greater ratio of physiological information with respect to optical scatter ([0078] of LeBoeuf).
It should be noted, that the limitations of “the emitter is in a cradle made into the surface of the nozzle” and “the cradle limiting the field of projection of the emitter” are considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Liao as modified, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Regarding claim 7, Liao, in view of LeBoeuf, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Liao discloses further comprising:
an outer portion of the nozzle ([0030], FIGS. 1, 7, see outer portion of 200 being on the external side, at openings of the cradles 220); and
the outer surface of the sleeve is made of a material having the same refractive index* as the material filling up the sleeve ([0030], FIGS. 1, 7, the nozzle, both inner and outer portions are made of rigid plastic, therefore, they would have the same refractive index); and specifically, LeBoeuf discloses that the outer portion is a sleeve that is over the nozzle ([0010] sensor region of a monitoring apparatus includes a cover/sleeve that is detachably secured to the sensor region).
*The limitation has been interpreted as described in the specification to refer to a transparent material in [0085].
It should be noted, that the limitations of “a sleeve over the nozzle”, “the outer surface of the sleeve is made of a material having the same refractive index”, and “the material filling up the sleeve” are considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Liao as modified, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Claim(s) 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao, in view of LeBoeuf, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Wei et al. (US20160287108, hereafter “Wei”).
Regarding claim 4, Liao substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Liao discloses wherein:
the emitter is a first emitter ([0045] see first light emitter 50 of a plurality of emitters 50 in FIG. 7);
the earpiece further comprising a second emitter ([0045] see second light emitter 50 of a plurality of emitters 50 in FIG. 7);
the second emitter and the light sensor spaced apart on the nozzle circumferentially ([0045], FIGS. 1, 7, circumferentially shaped housing 200, see FIG. 1, has light sensors and emitters, including the second light emitter, spaced apart circumferentially as illustrated in FIG. 7); but does not explicitly disclose the first emitter and second emitter are configured to be positioned such that light emitted by the first emitter and the second emitter reaches the light sensor in from different directions relative to the light sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the nozzle is provided the first emitter and second emitter are configured to be positioned such that ([0039], 42, 44 in FIG. 6 are integrated units with more than one emitters and one detector) light emitted by the first emitter and the second emitter reaches the sensor in from different directions relative to the light sensor ([0039] more than one light channel is used to propagate light from one or more emitters to the one detector, therefore, as there is more than one channel, it is understood that the respective direction of light from each of the first emitter and the second emitter to the detector will be different).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the earpiece disclosed by Liao the nozzle is provided the first emitter and second emitter are configured to be positioned such that light emitted by the first emitter and the second emitter reaches the sensor in from different directions relative to the light sensor as taught by Wei in order to reducing or eliminating optical loss due to transmission through an air gap (abstract of Wei).
It should be noted, that the limitations of “the second emitter and the light sensor spaced apart on the nozzle circumferentially”, “the first emitter and the second emitter are configured to be positioned”, and “such that light emitted by first emitter and the second emitter reaches the light sensor in from different directions relative to the light sensor” are considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Liao as modified, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao, in view of LeBoeuf, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Nielsen et al. (US20090069645, hereafter “Nielsen”) and Wei.
Regarding claim 5, Liao substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Liao discloses further comprising:
the light emitter and the light sensor together forming an emitter-and-sensor pair (claim 12, the vital signs measurement device comprises a light emitter and a light measuring sensor received in the cradle); and
a plurality of additional emitter-and-sensor pairs, each additional emitter-and- sensor pair comprising a light emitter and a light sensor (FIG. 7, see plurality of cradles 220 formed toward the central longitudinal axis of the nozzle 200); but does not explicitly disclose an emitter-and-sensor pair disposed in the cradle, a light emitter and a light sensor disposed together in a respective cradle made into the surface of the nozzle nor the sensor in any one of the emitter-and-sensor pairs is configured to sense light emitted from an emitter in another one of the emitter-and-sensor pairs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nielsen teaches emitter-and-sensor pair disposed in the cradle ([0026], FIGS. 8-14, sensors 8 comprising an emitter and detector pair are located in radially spaced cradles located on the perimeter of the device);
a light emitter and a light sensor disposed together in a respective cradle made into the surface of the nozzle ([0026], FIGS. 8-14, sensors 8 comprising an emitter and detector pair are located in radially spaced cradles located on the perimeter of the device).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the earpiece disclosed by Liao with the emitter-and-sensor pair disposed in the cradle, the light emitter and a light sensor disposed together in a respective cradle made into the surface of the nozzle as taught by Nielsen in order to appropriate tissue within the ear canal with ideal force and pressure to ensure close coupling of sensors with tissue but without causing decreased perfusion or blanching of the tissue ([0027] of Nielsen ).
Liao does not explicitly disclose the sensor in any one of the emitter-and-sensor pairs is configured to sense light emitted from an emitter in another one of the emitter-and-sensor pairs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wei teaches the sensor in any one of the emitter-and-sensor pairs is configured to sense light emitted from an emitter in another one of the emitter-and-sensor pairs ([0039] more than one light channel is used to propagate light from one or more emitters to the one detector, therefore, as there is more than one channel, it is understood that the respective direction of light from each of the first emitter and the second emitter to the detector will be different).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the earpiece disclosed by Liao with the sensor in any one of the emitter-and-sensor pairs is configured to sense light emitted from an emitter in another one of the emitter-and-sensor pairs as taught by Wei in order to reducing or eliminating optical loss due to transmission through an air gap (abstract of Wei).
It should be noted, that the limitations of “the light emitter and the light sensor together forming an emitter-and-sensor pair disposed in the cradle”, “plurality of additional emitter-and-sensor pairs, each additional emitter-and- sensor pair comprising a light emitter and a light sensor disposed together in a respective cradle made into the surface of the nozzle”, and “the sensor in any one of the emitter-and-sensor pairs…to sense light emitted from an emitter in another one of the emitter-and-sensor pairs” are considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Liao as modified, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Regarding claim 6, Liao, in view of Leussler, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, does not explicitly disclose further comprising: the light emitter and a second light sensor disposed together with the light sensor in the cradle, the light emitter and the light sensor and the second light sensor forming an emitter-and-sensors group; a plurality of additional emitter-and-sensors groups circumferentially arranged on the nozzle, each additional emitter-and-sensors group comprising a light emitter and two light sensors disposed in a respective cradle made into the surface of the nozzle; and any one of the two light sensors in any one of the emitter-and-sensors groups is configured to sense light emitted from a light emitter in another one of the emitter-and-sensors groups.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nielsen teaches further comprising:
the light emitter and a second light sensor disposed together with the light sensor in the cradle, the light emitter and the light sensor and the second light sensor forming an emitter-and-sensors group ([0026], FIGS. 8-14, sensors 8 comprising a respective emitter and detector group are located in radially spaced plurality of cradles located on the perimeter of the device); and
a plurality of additional emitter-and-sensors groups circumferentially arranged on the nozzle ([0026], FIGS. 8-14, sensors 8 comprising an emitter and detector pair are located in radially spaced cradles located on the perimeter of the device).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the earpiece disclosed by Liao with the light emitter and a second light sensor disposed together with the light sensor in the cradle, the light emitter and the light sensor and the second light sensor forming an emitter-and-sensors group and a plurality of additional emitter-and-sensors groups circumferentially arranged on the nozzle as taught by Nielsen in order to appropriate tissue within the ear canal with ideal force and pressure to ensure close coupling of sensors with tissue but without causing decreased perfusion or blanching of the tissue ([0027] of Nielsen).
Liao does not explicitly disclose any one of the two light sensors in any one of the emitter-and-sensors groups is configured to sense light emitted from a light emitter in another one of the emitter-and-sensors groups.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wei teaches any one of the two light sensors in any one of the emitter-and-sensors groups is configured to sense light emitted from a light emitter in another one of the emitter-and-sensors groups ([0039] more than one light channel is used to propagate light from one of the two or more emitters to the one detector, therefore, as there is more than one channel for each of the one of two or more emitters, it is understood that the respective direction of light from each of the first emitter and the second emitter to the detector will be different).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the earpiece disclosed by Liao with the any one of the two light sensors in any one of the emitter-and-sensors groups is configured to sense light emitted from a light emitter in another one of the emitter-and-sensors groups as taught by Wei in order to reducing or eliminating optical loss due to transmission through an air gap (abstract of Wei).
It should be noted, that the limitations of “an emitter and another sensor in the cradle of the sensor to provide an emitter- and-sensors group”, “the nozzle is provided with a plurality of such a group” “each group in a respective cradle”, and “light emitted from an emitter of another one of the groups” are considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Liao as modified, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao, in view of LeBoeuf, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Leussler et al. (US20170311887, hereafter “Leussler”).
Regarding claim 9, Liao substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: a wall of the cradle is absorptive of a frequency of the light which the light sensor detects.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Leussler teaches wherein:
a wall of the cradle is absorptive of a frequency of the light which the light sensor detects ([0095] the head coil and surrounding surfaces are covered with a surface material that is highly absorptive with regard to the electromagnetic radiation [frequency of light] emitted by the optical emitters).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the earpiece disclosed by Liao with the wall of the cradle is absorptive of a frequency of the light which the light sensor detects as taught by Leussler so to not affect the measurement of the optical sensor by reflected patterns ([0095] of Leussler).
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 AMY SHAFQAT whose telephone number is (571)272-4054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM MST.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/A.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights