DETAILED 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/05/2025 has been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 22 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled nor newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections raised in the non-final rejection mailed on 12/03/2025. Claims 1-5, 7-20, and 22 remain pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim 1 112(b) rejection, Applicant’s remarks have obviated this rejection (See Remarks Pages 6-7). The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Monda does not disclose an embodiment where a delay between stimuli results in a stroking sensation (Remarks Page 8, under 1. ISOA). However, examiner notes that Monda in Paragraph 0071 discloses that discrete application of forces can produce a stroking sensation. Applicant also argues that Monda Paragraph 0074 discloses no stroking sensation is achieved (Remarks Page 9, 3rd Paragraph). Monda does not disclose this in Paragraph 0074. As Applicant noted, Paragraph 0074 does disclose sequential touches that have an off-periodicity and an on-periodicity. This does not mean all the touches are activated at the same time as they are sequential. Based on the disclosure of Monda at Paragraphs 0071 and 0074 it remains examiner’s position that the system of Monda is capable of providing a delay between stimuli [sequential touches/pressure] to generate a stroking sensation (See also claim 5 disclosing sequential application of discrete forces). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues that Monda does not disclose interspaced actuators (Remarks Page 9, under 2. Interspaced actuators). Examiner notes that Monda is not being relied upon for placement of actuators, but rather for control over the actuators to apply an inter stimulus onset asynchrony to the subject (See non-final rejection mailed on 12/03/2025 at Section 12). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues that the cited references does not disclose “apparent tactile movement” (Remarks Page 10, under 3. Apparent tactile movement). Examiner respectfully disagrees for at the least the reasons above regarding Monda’s ability to generate a stroking sensation via sequential, discrete activation of separate actuation elements. Examiner notes that a subject would feel an “apparent sensation” if there is an actual sensation. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant then argues there is no motivation to combine Grunwald with Monda (Remarks Page 10, under B. There is no motivation to combine). It is examiner’s position that both Grunwald and Monda are inventions which are used to apply tactile stimuli for infants having breathing trouble, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify Grunwald with the teachings of Monda to provide a stroking sensation to the subject.
Applicant then argues that the formula disclosed in claim 1 cannot be rendered obvious via routine optimization (Remarks Page 11, under C. Formula (I) is not a mere routine optimization). Applicant reasons that Grunwald as modified by Monda cannot produce an apparent tactile movement using a delay in stimuli by interspaced actuators (Remarks Page 11, under C. Formula (I) is not a mere routine optimization). It is examiner’s position that the control logic of Monda to produce sequential discrete stimuli which results in a stroking sensation applied to the interspaced actuators of Grunwald do produce the required apparent tactile movement.
Applicant argues that no adjustable parameter or recognized variable affecting the results are described (Remarks Page 11, 1st paragraph under C. Formula (I) is not a mere routine optimization). Applicant then argues that the cited references do not describe a suitable stimulation duration or an onset interval (Remarks Page 11, 3rd Paragraph). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Grunwald and Monda disclose suitable stimulation durations (Paragraph 0040 of machine translation discloses using 20 seconds of stimulation; Monda at Paragraphs 0079-0080 disclose optimization of stimulation timings for the patient; Examiner notes that optimization of the stimulation timings would result in an optimized breathing response) and Monda describes an onset interval (See Paragraphs 0071 and 0074 disclosing a delay between stimuli [sequential touches/pressure] to result in a stroking sensation (See also claim 5 disclosing sequential application of discrete forces); Paragraph 0074 further discloses the delay values may be selected to result in personalization). Therefore, it remains examiner’s position that it would have been routine optimization to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 18-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021089694A1 to Grunwald (hereinafter “Grunwald”) in view of US20180160967A1 to diMonda et al. (hereinafter “Monda”).
Regarding claim 1, Grunwald discloses an automated stimulation device for inducing a tactile inter-stimulus onset asynchrony (ISOA) effect in a subject suffering from apnea, bradycardia and/or hypoxia (See Fig. 2 generally for the device; Paragraph 0006 discloses the invention provides a device for applying tactile stimuli during apnea phases of premature infants; Paragraph 0007 discloses the device may be automatically controlled),
the device comprising at least two actuators configured for contacting a body portion of the subject, and interspaced (Fig. 2 chambers 11, 11’; Paragraph 0012 discloses “It is also particularly preferred if the pressure in each cuff or each chamber is controlled by a separate pressure detection sensor. For this purpose, the device according to the invention has a corresponding number of pressure detection sensors. This enables individual control and filling of the chambers or cuffs with different pressure levels and frequencies in order to treat apnea phases more effectively.”; Examiner notes the chambers are spaced apart).
Grunwald does not disclose producing an apparent tactile movement in the subject upon sequential induction of actuation, wherein the duration of the actuations and the overlap in actuation time between the at least two actuators is controlled to attain an inter stimulus onset asynchrony (ISOA). However, Monda discloses a system for treating sleep apnea in infants which has sequential induction of actuation, wherein the duration of the actuations and the overlap in actuation time between the at least two actuators is controlled to attain an inter stimulus onset asynchrony (ISOA) (Figs. 6 and 7A-7C stimulation elements 401-407; Paragraph 0071 discloses the stimulation elements can produce discrete forces resulting in a stroking sensation; Paragraph 0075 discloses the pulses may overlap in time to create the stroking sensation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Grunwald producing an apparent tactile movement in the subject upon sequential induction of actuation, wherein the duration of the actuations and the overlap in actuation time between the at least two actuators is controlled to attain an inter stimulus onset asynchrony (ISOA), as taught by Monda, in order to provide a stroking sensation to the user (Paragraphs 0071-0075).
Modified Grunwald does not disclose wherein the device is configured to determine and control a stimulus onset interval and duration based on the following formula: (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
11
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). It would have been routine optimization to one having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention in order to provide a comfortable sensation for the infant while sleeping. Monda discloses that different time delays and overlaps of stimulation may be selected for personalization to provide an optimized breathing response (Paragraphs 0074-0075). This shows that stimulus onset interval is a result-effective variable to one having ordinary skill in the art. There is a design need to optimize this parameter in order to keep the infants asleep while relieving their apneic episode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grunwald’s control device to operate the stimulus onset interval according to
PNG
media_image1.png
11
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, in order to provide a comfortable relief of apnea symptoms in the infant without disturbing their sleep state.
Regarding claim 3, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses the device according to claim 1, and Grunwald further discloses wherein the subject is an infant (Paragraph 0006 discloses the invention provides a device for applying tactile stimuli during apnea phases of premature infants), preterm or term, wherein preterm relates to infants born alive before 37 weeks of pregnancy are completed, and wherein the actuators are in contact with skin of the subject.
Regarding claim 4, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses the device according to claim 1, and Grunwald further discloses wherein the actuators are chosen from Eccentric Rotating Mass (ERM) vibration motors, linear resonant actuators (LRA), voice coils, speakers (VC), solenoids and piezoceramic elements (PCE), Electro- Active Polymers (EAP) and/or pneumatic balloon actuators (Paragraph 0017 discloses the chambers are filled with air; Examiner notes a chamber filled with air is a pneumatic balloon actuator), or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 5, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses the device according to claim 4, and Grunwald further discloses wherein the actuators are shielded from the subject within a passive housing (Fig. 2 cuff 10 shields the chambers 11, 11’).
Regarding claim 7, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses the device according to claim 1, and Grunwald further discloses a sensing system for detecting apnea, bradycardia, and/or hypoxia (Paragraph 0007 discloses the device, when automatically controlled, uses in parallel an apnea detection system to provide data required to control the start and end of automatic stimulation).
Regarding claim 8, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses the device according to claim 1, and Monda further discloses wherein a first and/or second stimulus actuation comprises a vibration with a frequency in the range of from 5 to 300 Hz (Paragraph 0018 discloses the frequency of the chambers is at 0.11-5.66 Hz and 75Hz).
Regarding claim 18, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses a system (Grunwald See Fig. 2 generally for the device) comprising:
i) at least one automated stimulation device for inducing a tactile inter-stimulus onset asynchrony (ISOA) effect in a subject suffering from apnea, bradycardia and/or hypoxia of claim 1 (Monda Figs. 6 and 7A-7C stimulation elements 401-407; Paragraph 0071 discloses the stimulation elements can produce discrete forces resulting in a stroking sensation; Paragraph 0075 discloses the pulses may overlap in time to create the stroking sensation);
ii) one or more control devices configured to control one or more characteristics of the at least one automated stimulation device in order to generate one or more tactile stroke sensations using the at least one stimulation device (Grunwald Fig. 3 control device 40; Examiner notes the control device of Grunwald is modified by Monda to incorporate the stroking sensation control over the actuators); and
iii) one or more interfaces connecting the at least one automated stimulation device to the one or more control device (Grunwald Fig. 2 cuff 10 connects the device to control device 40);
iv) one or more computing devices (Grunwald Paragraph 0009 discloses the control device comprises a conventional processor);
v) a sensor system for detecting at least one of apnea, bradycardia, and/or hypoxia (Paragraph 0007 discloses the device, when automatically controlled, uses in parallel an apnea detection system to provide data required to control the start and end of automatic stimulation; Examiner notes a sensing system would inherently have a sensor); and
vi) one or more control applications, running on the one or more computing devices, and in communication with the one or more control devices and the sensor system (Paragraph 0008 discloses the control device is connected to a monitoring system via a hardware interface which may be a wired or wireless connection);
wherein the one or more control applications are configured to operate the one or more control devices, and the at least one automated stimulation device is configured to communicate with the one or more control devices and generate the tactile inter-stimulus onset asynchrony (ISOA) effect responsive to interaction with the one or more control devices (Paragraph 0009 discloses the control computer may control the pressure inside of the chambers in the cuff; Examiner notes that the control device of Grunwald is modified by Monda to provide the stroking sensation over the two actuators; Monda Paragraph 0071 discloses the stimulation elements can produce discrete forces resulting in a stroking sensation; Monda Paragraph 0075 discloses the pulses may overlap in time to create the stroking sensation).
Regarding claim 19, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses the system of claim 18, and Grunwald further discloses wherein the one or more interfaces comprise at least one housings, straps, mattresses, clamps, and articles of clothing (Fig. 2 cuff 10).
Regarding claim 20, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses the system according to claim 18, and Grunwald further discloses further comprising an incubator chamber for incubating preterm infants (Fig. 3 incubator 20; Paragraph 0025 discloses the device may be used together with a conventional incubator).
Regarding claim 22, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for treating at least one of apnea, bradycardia, and oxygen desaturation in a subject (Grunwald Paragraph 0009 discloses the control device comprises a conventional processor; Paragraph 0006 discloses the invention provides a device for applying tactile stimuli during apnea phases of premature infants; Paragraph 0007 discloses the device may be automatically controlled; Monda Paragraph 0035 discloses the system has a pre-defined program to provide a prophylactic against breathing anomalies; Examiner notes the control device of Grunwald is modified to incorporate the control schemes of Monda), the method comprising; controlling one or more characteristics of the automated stimulation device of claim 1 to generate a tactile inter-stimulus onset asynchrony (ISOA) effect, and applying one or more tactile stroke sensations to the subject in response to one or more of a measured apnea, bradycardia, and hypoxia condition, wherein the tactile inter-stimulus onset asynchrony (ISOA) effect comprises a stroking sensation perceivable by the subject (Examiner notes that the control device of Grunwald is modified by Monda to provide the stroking sensation over the two actuators; Monda Paragraph 0071 discloses the stimulation elements can produce discrete forces resulting in a stroking sensation; Monda Paragraph 0075 discloses the pulses may overlap in time to create the stroking sensation).
Claims 2 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunwald in view of Monda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Instrumentation for the Detection and Interruption of Apnea Episodes for Premature Newborn” to Camargo et al. (hereinafter “Camargo”).
Regarding claim 2, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses the device according to claim 1, but Grunwald does not disclose wherein the duration of the stimulation is in the range of from 0.5 up to 5 second. However, Camargo teaches a device for detection and interruption of apnea episodes for premature newborns wherein the duration of the stimulation is in the range of from 0.5 up to 5 seconds (Pg. 2128 2nd column, 9th Paragraph discloses the vibratory stimulation period last for 4 seconds at a frequency of 250Hz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the duration of treatment time of Grunwald to be in the range of from 0.5 up to 5 seconds, as taught by Camargo, in order to provide an effective but short window of treatment time. Examiner notes that a shorter treatment time allows for a quicker assessment of whether the apnea event has ceased (Pg. 2128, 2nd column, 9th Paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses the device according to claim 1, but does not disclose one or more sensors for monitoring oxygen saturation, respiration and/or heart rate of the subject, preferably selected from a pulse oximeter, respiratory monitor and ECG. However, Camargo teaches a device for detection and interruption of apnea episodes for premature newborns which uses a sensor for monitoring oxygen saturation (Fig. 1 oxymeter sensor 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Grunwald to further include an oximeter, as taught by Camargo, in order to provide information about the amount of oxygen with the infant’s blood.
Regarding claim 13, Grunwald discloses a method for the treatment or prevention of apnea, bradycardia and/or oxygen desaturation in a subject (See Fig. 2 generally for the device; Paragraph 0006 discloses the invention provides a device for applying tactile stimuli during apnea phases of premature infants; Paragraph 0007 discloses the device may be automatically controlled), comprising: a) providing the device according to claim 1 in contact with a body portion of the subject (Fig. 3 shows cuff 10 in contact with the infant; Examiner notes Monda is part of the rejection of the device of claim 1), and delivering at least one stimulus to the subject by the device (Paragraph 0018 discloses the frequency of the chambers is at 0.11-5.66 Hz and 75Hz). Grunwald does not disclose monitoring at least one of blood oxygen saturation, a respiration pattern and heart rate of the subject, and, c) when a threshold is reached in comparison to a desired value of the blood oxygen saturation, respiration pattern and/or heart rate, delivering a stimulus. However, Camargo teaches a device for detection and interruption of apnea episodes for premature newborns which uses a sensor for monitoring oxygen saturation and when a threshold of the sensed value is reached, a stimulus is delivered (Fig. 1 oxymeter sensor; Pg. 2128 Col. 1 “Fig. 1 illustrates the functional diagram of the apnea detection and reversion set up. It operates as follows: (1) the oxymeter sensor acquires signal from the newborn baby using PF and SpO2 optical transducer; (2) the oxymeter processes those signals, presents them numerically on the display panel and sends the information provided from the newborn via serial RS-232 interface to the computer; (3) the computer receives the pulse frequency and arterial oxygen saturation information in a digital format; it treats them through a program that manages the vibrator activation as well as the oxygen saturation and pulse frequency values during the application; (4) if the baby´s oxygen saturation and pulse frequency apnea reaches the thresholds established for the apparatus, the computer sends an electrical pulse, passing through the electrical isolator circuit; (5) the mechanical vibrator receives the trigger pulse from the optical isolator and vibrates at 250 Hz for 4 s. The vibration occurs only if the parameters get on the configured value limits.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Grunwald to monitoring at least one of blood oxygen saturation, a respiration pattern and heart rate of the subject, and, c) when a threshold is reached in comparison to a desired value of the blood oxygen saturation, respiration pattern and/or heart rate, delivering a stimulus, as taught by Camargo, in order to provide relief from an infant apnea episode according to oxygen saturation levels in the blood. Examiner notes that providing a treatment upon reaching a threshold value will result in quicker treatment of the apneic episode.
Regarding claim 14, Grunwald in view of Monda and Camargo discloses the method according to claim 13, and Grunwald as modified by Camargo further discloses wherein the stimulus of step c) is provided when the oxygen saturation and/or respiration of the subject falls within a first predefined range (Pg. 2127 2nd Column, last Paragraph – Pg. 2128 1st Column, 1st Paragraph “It was defined that cardiac pulse frequency and arterial oxygen saturation together and simultaneously could discriminate apnea episodes in premature newborns when reaching the following thresholds: for babies with less than 35 gestational weeks, pulse frequency of 100 bpm and arterial oxygen saturation equal to 80%. For babies with more than 35 gestational weeks, the pulse frequency of 80 bpm and the arterial oxygen saturation equal to 80%. Those thresholds were used to configure the apnea detection system.”) or is sustained within the first predefined range for a first predefined duration.
Regarding claim 15, Grunwald in view of Monda and Camargo discloses the method according to claim 13, and Grunwald as modified by Camargo further discloses wherein step b) comprises using a pulse oximeter (Camargo Fig. 1 oxymeter sensor), respiratory monitor, and/or ECG in contact with the subject, and that is coupled to or integral with the device (Examiner notes that the oximeter sensor of Camargo would be incorporated into the cuff 10 of Grunwald).
Regarding claim 16, Grunwald in view of Camargo and Monda discloses the method according to claim 13, but Grunwald does not disclose wherein in step c), a tactile inter stimulus onset asynchrony (ISOA) is applied to induce the sensation of a moving stimulus, thereby stimulating a large body area-to effect a desired response in the subject. However, Monda discloses a system for treating sleep apnea in infants which has a tactile inter stimulus onset asynchrony (ISOA) applied to induce the sensation of a moving stimulus, thereby stimulating a large body area-to effect a desired response in the subject (Figs. 6 and 7A-7C stimulation elements 401-407; Paragraph 0071 discloses the stimulation elements can produce discrete forces resulting in a stroking sensation; Paragraph 0075 discloses the pulses may overlap in time to create the stroking sensation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control device of Grunwald which has a tactile inter stimulus onset asynchrony (ISOA) applied to induce the sensation of a moving stimulus, thereby stimulating a large body area-to effect a desired response in the subject, wherein the duration of the actuations and the overlap in actuation time between the at least two actuators is controlled to attain an inter stimulus onset asynchrony (ISOA), as taught by Monda, in order to provide a stroking sensation to the user (Paragraphs 0071-0075).
Regarding claim 17, Grunwald in view of Monda and Camargo discloses the method according to claim 13, and Grunwald further discloses wherein the subject is a premature or a term infant (Paragraph 0006 discloses the invention provides a device for applying tactile stimuli during apnea phases of premature infants).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunwald in view of Monda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20160317370A1 to Evans et al. (hereinafter “Evans”).
Regarding claim 9, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses the device according to claim 1, and Grunwald further discloses wherein the stimulus is provided by at least two inflatable actuators (Fig. 2 chambers 11, 11’) preferably further comprising a source of air pressure (Figs. 2 & 3 flexible lines 12, 12’, pump 30). Grunwald does not disclose the actuators in fluid connection with two independently controllable solenoid valves and a pump coupled to the valves. However, Evans teaches a cushion with air bladders which has two solenoid valves and a pump coupled to the valves (Fig. 1 fill valves 124, air compressor 130; Paragraph 0036 discloses fill valves 124 are connected to air compressor 130; Paragraph 0040 discloses the valves may be individually activated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid lines of Grunwald to include solenoid valves, as taught by Evans, in order to provide target pressure to one actuator relative to another actuator (Paragraph 0040).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunwald in view of Monda and Evans as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20200390631A1 to La Porta (hereinafter “La Porta”).
Regarding claim 10, Grunwald in view of Monda and Evans discloses the device according to claim 9, but Grunwald does not disclose wherein the inflatable actuators are essentially composed of a polymeric material, preferably a medical grade silicon. However, La Porta teaches a system for applying pressure to a newborn baby which uses silicon inflatable actuators (Paragraph 0076 discloses the bladder may be made of silicone material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chambers of Grunwald to be made of silicone, as taught by La Porta, in order to provide a soft material proximal to the new born baby’s body (Paragraph 0076). Examiner notes that a soft material such as silicone will also be more comfortable as a means to apply pressure to the baby.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunwald in view of Monda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20120079662A1 to Dzioba et al. (hereinafter “Dzioba”).
Regarding claim 11, Grunwald in view of Monda discloses the device according to claim 1, but does not disclose comprising two or more actuators spaced at a distance of from 2 to 10 cm from each other. However, Dzioba teaches a support system and device which has actuators spaced at a distance of from 2 to 10 cm from each other (Paragraph 0108 “The 1.3 support surface overlay is substantially identical to the 1.0 support surface overlay but is dimensionally larger by a nominal factor of 1.3. The 1.3 support surface overlay is characterized by inflatable cells 120 having a nominal diameter of 1.06 inches, nominal horizontal spacing of 1.69 inches and nominal vertical spacing of 1.59 inches, a thickness of 0.661 inches a nodal contact density of 15 nodes per square decimeter.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chambers of Grunwald to be spaced at a distance of from 2 to 10 cm from each other, as taught by Dzioba, in order to provide an alternative means of spacing between the actuators.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-9843743-B2 to Lewis; and US-20140051938-A1 to Goldstein.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER RAUBENSTRAW whose telephone number is (571)272-0662. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:30.
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, BRANDY LEE can be reached at 571-270-3525. 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.
/TYLER A RAUBENSTRAW/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights