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 .
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant’s Arguments filed on 08/25/2025 have been fully considered. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant’s Arguments filed on 08/25/2025 have been fully considered. The original rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s Arguments filed on 08/25/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is “a stimulation device” in claim 14.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-15 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.
In re claim 1,
The limitation “A method of managing and reducing the a recall frequency of disturbing dreams, the method comprising: prior to a managed sleep session, monitoring a first electroencephalography (EEG) activity of a subject during a calibration period; and determining a subject-specific threshold value for power in a theta or alpha band based on the first EEG activity…providing stimulation to the subject at a frequency lower than the theta band in response to detecting the indicator of the disturbing dream”, is unclear since the latter part of the limitation “a frequency lower than the theta band in response to detecting the indicator of the disturbing dream” is part of a set of alternative limitations (i.e., a theta or alpha band). For examination purposes, in light of Applicant’s specification [37], the limitation “a frequency lower than the theta band” will be interpreted as “a frequency lower than the theta or alpha band”.
The limitation “a subject” is recited twice (once in reference to “a first...EEG activity” and a second in reference to “a second EEG activity”), which raises a clarity concern. Specifically, it is unclear whether (i) applicant intends for the second instance of “a subject” to represent a new subject or (ii) applicant intends for the second instance of “a subject” to be the same subject from the first instance. Given that Applicant has included “a subject specific threshold” as a requirement of the claim, Examiner believes that Applicant intends for the second instance of “a subject” to be the same subject from the first instance. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitation “ monitoring a second EEG activity of a subject” will be interpreted as “monitoring a second EEG activity of the subject”.
In re claim 14, see above (In re claim 1).
In re claim 15, see above (In re claim 1).
Examiner notes that dependent claims 3-13 inherent the same deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian‘an (CN 106667460) in view of Simor et al. (Simor et al. “Fluctuations between sleep and wakefulness: Wake-like features indicated by increased EEG alpha power during different sleep stages in nightmare disorder.” Biological Psychology, vol. 94, no. 3, Dec. 2013, pp. 592–600, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.05.022.), Ehlers et al. (Ehlers, Cindy L., and David J. Kupfer. “Effects of age on Delta and REM sleep parameters.” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 72, no. 2, Feb. 1989, pp. 118–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(89)90172-7), in view of Wetmore et al. (US 2014/0057232).
In re claim 1, Qian’an discloses a method of managing and reducing a recall frequency of disturbing dreams ([0029]: “nightmare suppression and nightmare interruption”), the method comprising:
prior to a managed sleep session,
monitoring a first brain wave activity of a subject during a calibration period (inherent that a first subject was analyzed prior to a managed sleep session given that Qian’an is capable of “detecting changes in…brain waves”; [0048]); and
determining a reference state for a metric based on the first brain wave activity (inherent that a reference state is determined given that Qian’an can “determine whether the person is in a nightmare”; [0048]); and
during the managed sleep session,
monitoring a second brain wave activity of a subject ([0037, 0040]: “sensing…brain waves”; See Claim Rejections 112b)
determining a metric ([0040]: “data information”) based on the second brain wave activity ([0040]: “senses…brain waves”)
comparing the determined metric to the reference state ([0040]: “analyzes and calculates the data”) and
responsive to the determined metric’s relationship to the reference state ([0040]: “according to…brain waves”), detecting an indicator of a disturbing dream ([0040]: “whether the human body is in a nightmare state”); and
providing stimulation to the subject ([0051]: “contact nerve stimulation or sound equipment”) at a frequency (inherent) in response to detecting the indicator of the disturbing dream [0040, 0051].
Qian’an lacks:
monitoring a first electroencephalography (EEG) activity of a subject during a calibration period;
determining a subject-specific threshold value for power in a theta or alpha band based on the first EEG activity;
monitoring a second EEG activity of a subject (see Claim Rejection 112b) ;
determining a power in a theta or alpha band based on the second EEG activity;
comparing the determined power to the subject-specific threshold value;
responsive to the determined power being above the subject-specific threshold value, detecting an indicator of a disturbing dream;
providing stimulation to the subject at a frequency lower than the theta band in response to detecting the indicator of the disturbing dream.
Simor discloses a method for detecting nightmares using EEG data (2.3 Polysomnography: “subjects were fitted with… EEG electrodes”). Simor further discloses high alpha band power being indicative of a nightmare state (abstract: “high alpha…during REM sleep”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Qian’an to (i) use EEG to monitor brain wave activity (ii) use power in the alpha band as a metric for detecting disturbing dreams, and (iii) and have an alpha value being greater than a threshold as an indicator for a disturbing dream. One would have been motivated to make this modification because EEG is a known tool for measuring and recording brain waves. As known in the art, EEG makes it possible to detect brain wave abnormalities that may indicate a variety of underlying neurological disorders.
Regarding the limitation “subject specific:
Ehlers discloses differences in brain wave activity, specifically during sleep, between younger and older subjects (abstract). Ehlers specifically discloses older subjects experiencing more awake time, lower sleep efficiency, sleep maintenance, decreased REM latency, and less overall time in delta sleep (abstract). Given the differences describes Ehlers emphasizes the importance of incorporating the effects of aging into sleep models (abstract).
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 proposed combination to be subject specific, as taught by Ehlers. One would have been motivated to make this modification because making the thresholds subject specific would enable more accurate nightmare/event prediction, by accounting for differences between individuals (Ehlers, abstract).
Regarding the limitation “providing stimulation to the subject at a frequency lower than the theta band in response to detecting the indicator of the disturbing dream.”
Wetmore discloses an analogous method that delivers stimulation to disrupt a subjects memory formation and/or dreams [0019]. Wetmore further discloses delivering stimulation to a subject at a delta frequency (0.5 Hz – 4 Hz) to enhance the power and prevalence of slow oscillations in the delta band [0288]. Examiner notes that delta frequencies are lower than frequencies in the theta band which range from 4 to 8 Hz [0156].
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 proposed combination to provide stimulation at a frequency lower than the theta band. One would have been motivated to make this modification to enhance the power and prevalence of slow oscillations (Wetmore, [0288]), which could be used to help transition a subject out of REM, i.e., the sleep stage where nightmares occur.
In re claim 4, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Qian’an) further comprising:
wherein providing the stimulation to the subject is in response to detecting the indicator of the disturbing dream [0040, 0051]
The proposed combination does not yield
detecting a sleep stage of the subject,
wherein providing the stimulation to the subject is in response to detecting the indicator of the disturbing dream and detecting if the sleep stage of the subject is a rapid eye movement sleep stage.
Simor further discloses determining a subject’s sleep stage (pg. 593, 2.4 Spectral analyses) using Rechtschaffen and Kales standardization criteria. As known in the art, Rechtschaffen and Kales standardization criteria is a visual sleep scoring technique. In the case of Simor, this visual sleep scoring technique was performed by two experienced sleep researchers (pg. 593, 2.4 Spectral analyses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed combination to detect a sleep stage of a subject, as taught by Simor. One would have been motivated to make this modification because nightmares are known to occur during late-night Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep (Simor, Introduction).
Regarding the limitations “wherein providing the stimulation to the subject is in response to detecting the indicator of the disturbing dream and detecting if the sleep stage of the subject is a rapid eye movement sleep stage.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sleep stage, at least in part, as motivation to provide stimulation to the subject since it is known that nightmares usually occur during REM sleep (Simor, Introduction).
In re claim 6 further comprising: during the managed sleep session,
detecting autonomic activity of the subject ([0021]: “one or more of human heartbeat…respiratory rate”),
wherein providing the stimulation to the subject [0051] is in response to detecting the indicator of the disturbing dream and detecting that autonomic activity of the subject is increasing [0048, 0049].
Regarding the limitation “increasing”, Qian’an discloses stimulation delivery being influenced by detecting abnormal changes in a subject’s heart rate [0038]. Given that nightmares can cause elevations in heart rate (https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sleep/nighttime-sleep-behaviors/nightmares.html), it would be reasonable for one example of “abnormal changes” observed by Qian’an to be an elevated heart rate (i.e., increase in autonomic activity of the subject). However, in so far as this is not explicitly stated, claim 6 is alternatively rejected under 35 USC 103 as follows:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use detecting that automatic activity of the subject is increasing, at least in part, as motivation to provide stimulation to the subject since nightmares are known to cause heart rate elevation (https://stanfordhealthcare.org/medical-conditions/sleep/nighttime-sleep-behaviors/nightmares.html).
In re claim 7, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Qian‘an)
wherein the autonomic activity includes at least one of electrodermal activity, heart rate, heart rate variability, and respiratory rate ([0021]: “one or more of human heartbeat…respiratory rate”).
In re claim 12, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Qian‘an) wherein the stimulation includes at least one of auditory, somatosensory, and visual stimulation ([0051]: “contact nerve stimulation or sound equipment”).
In re claim 13, the proposed combination yields wherein the frequency of stimulation is in a delta band (Wetmore, [0288]).
In re claim 14, see above (In re claim 1).
The proposed combination also yields (all mapping directed to Qian’an unless indicated otherwise)
an electroencephalography sensor configured to monitor an EEG activity of a subject; (Simor, pg. 593, 2. 3 Polysomnography)
a stimulation device configured to provide stimulation to the subject ( [0045]: “contact nerve stimulation device”); and
a processing unit ([0020]: “intelligent controller”) communicatively connected to the EEG sensor and the stimulation device [0021], the processing unit including a processor ([0021]: “control host”);
In re claim 15, see above (In re claim 1).
The proposed combination also yields
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing one or more programs, including instructions (apparent) when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a method [0021].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian‘an (CN 106667460) in view of Simor et al. (Simor et al. “Fluctuations between sleep and wakefulness: Wake-like features indicated by increased EEG alpha power during different sleep stages in nightmare disorder.” Biological Psychology, vol. 94, no. 3, Dec. 2013, pp. 592–600, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.05.022.), Ehlers et al. (Ehlers, Cindy L., and David J. Kupfer. “Effects of age on Delta and REM sleep parameters.” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 72, no. 2, Feb. 1989, pp. 118–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(89)90172-7), in view of Wetmore et al. (US 2014/0057232), in view of Frohlich (WO 2016179407).
In re claim 3, the proposed combination does not yield
wherein the indicator of the disturbing dream is detected
by calculating an instantaneous power of the theta or alpha band of the EEG activity of the subject as a running average of a square of the theta or alpha band of the EEG of the subject and
comparing the instantaneous power of the theta or alpha band of the EEG of the subject to a threshold value.
Frohlich also discloses a method for modulating memory and cognitive function (abstract) where a power for each frequency band is calculated by applying a moving average to the square of the signal [0119].
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 proposed combination to calculate an instantaneous power of the theta or alpha band of the EEG activity of the subject as a running average of a square of the alpha band of the EEG of the subject, as taught by Frohlich. One would have been motivated to make this modification both because taking the running average of a square of the signal is a known way to calculate power and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to choose a way to calculate power that would best meet their needs. Accordingly, such a modification would yield the following limitations:
“wherein the indicator of the disturbing dream being detected by calculating an instantaneous power”
“and comparing the instantaneous power of the theta and or alpha band of the EEG of the subject to a threshold value”,
since the modification is only directed to the specific way in which the power is calculated and as disclosed above (see above (In re claim 1)), and the proposed combination already discloses comparing the determined power to a threshold value.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian‘an (CN 106667460) in view of Simor et al. (Simor et al. “Fluctuations between sleep and wakefulness: Wake-like features indicated by increased EEG alpha power during different sleep stages in nightmare disorder.” Biological Psychology, vol. 94, no. 3, Dec. 2013, pp. 592–600, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.05.022.), Ehlers et al. (Ehlers, Cindy L., and David J. Kupfer. “Effects of age on Delta and REM sleep parameters.” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 72, no. 2, Feb. 1989, pp. 118–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(89)90172-7), in view of Wetmore et al. (US 2014/0057232), in view of Garcia Molina et al. (US 2019/0344042).
In re claim 5, the proposed combination does not yield
wherein detecting the sleep stage of the subject includes
segmenting the second EEG activity into windows,
processing each window with a deep neural network composed of a convolution layer (CNN) and a long-short term memory (LSTM) layer,
receiving from the deep neural network a set of probabilities for each sleep stage associated with each window, and
assigning the sleep stage having the largest probability to each window.
Garcia Molina discloses using a deep neural network to detect a subject’s sleep stage (FIG. 2; [0044]). As shown in FIG. 2, detecting a subject’s sleep stage involves feeding processed EEG data (202) into a deep neural network composed of a convolutional layer (210) and long-short term memory layer (212; [0044]: “recurrent 212…may be implemented as long-short term elements”). The neural network then outputs a series of probabilities (206) associated with each stage of sleep (208: “N3, N2, N1, R, W”). Examiner notes that although not explicitly shown in FIG. 2, the deep neural network can also be used to detect other sleep stages including REM sleep [0034].
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 proposed combination to detect a subject’s sleep stage using a deep neural network, as taught by Garcia Molina. One would have been motivated to make this modification because using a neural network would help streamline the sleep stage detection process by making it easier to analyze larger amounts of EEG data more quickly.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian‘an (CN 106667460) in view of Simor et al. (Simor et al. “Fluctuations between sleep and wakefulness: Wake-like features indicated by increased EEG alpha power during different sleep stages in nightmare disorder.” Biological Psychology, vol. 94, no. 3, Dec. 2013, pp. 592–600, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.05.022.), Ehlers et al. (Ehlers, Cindy L., and David J. Kupfer. “Effects of age on Delta and REM sleep parameters.” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 72, no. 2, Feb. 1989, pp. 118–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(89)90172-7), in view of Wetmore et al. (US 2014/0057232), in view of Arrington et al. (US 2019/0223781).
In re claim 8, the proposed combination yields further comprising: during the managed sleep session,
determining a change in power in the theta or alpha band of the EEG activity of the subject (see above (In re claim 1) specifically modification of Qian’an with Simor to include having an alpha value greater than a threshold as an indicator for a disturbing dream); and
in response to determining an increase in power in the theta or alpha band of the EEG activity of the subject, providing a remedial action by a factor based on the increase in power in the theta or alpha band of the EEG activity of the subject (Qian’an; [0046]: audio stimulation is increased to the point where “the user can be awakened”).
The proposed combination lacks:
in response to determining an increase in power in the theta or alpha band of the EEG activity of the subject, increasing an intensity of the stimulation by a factor proportional to the increase in power in the theta or alpha band of the EEG activity of the subject.
Arrington discloses an analogous device (FIG. 3: 300) and method (FIG. 2) for managing disruptive sleep disorders like night terrors and chronic nightmares (abstract). Arrington discloses using the device to deliver a stimulus to a user (222) if the device detects the user is experiencing a sleep disorder episode (220). Arrington further the device increasing the stimulation intensity until the user’s sleeping patterns return to normal or the user wakes up from their sleep disorder episode [0022].
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 proposed combination to increase an intensity of the stimulation, as taught by Arrington. One would have been motivated to make this modification in case the initial stimulus delivered was not strong enough to remedy the users sleep disorder episode.
Regarding the limitation “proportional to”, at the time the instant application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try to increase the stimulation intensity by a factor proportional to an observed power increase because increasing stimulation intensity by a factor proportional to an observed change is a common technique employed, as known by those in the art.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian‘an (CN 106667460) in view of Simor et al. (Simor et al. “Fluctuations between sleep and wakefulness: Wake-like features indicated by increased EEG alpha power during different sleep stages in nightmare disorder.” Biological Psychology, vol. 94, no. 3, Dec. 2013, pp. 592–600, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.05.022.), Ehlers et al. (Ehlers, Cindy L., and David J. Kupfer. “Effects of age on Delta and REM sleep parameters.” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, vol. 72, no. 2, Feb. 1989, pp. 118–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(89)90172-7), in view of Wetmore et al. (US 2014/0057232), in view of Garcia Molina et al. (US 2019/0298967; herein referred to as Garcia Molina II)
In re claim 9, during the managed sleep session (all mapping directed to Wetmore)
detecting a micro-arousal of the subject ([0134]; FIG. 7: “state of arousal”).
changing the stimulation in response to detecting the micro-arousal (FIG. 7).
The proposed combination does not yield
detecting the micro-arousal based on power in the alpha or a beta band of the EEG activity of the subject; and
stopping the stimulation in response to detecting the micro-arousal.
Garcia Molina II discloses an analogous system that uses EEG to monitor and adjust a subject’s brain waves during sleep (abstract). Garcia Molina II further discloses using the system to determine if the subject is expecting a sleep arousal event (FIG. 2; [0020]). As discussed in [0020] a subject is considered to be experiencing an arousal event if they experience a power increase in either an alpha or beta band. Garcia Molina II also discloses immediately stopping the stimulation if an arousal event is detected [0020].
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 proposed combination to detect the micro-arousal based on power in the alpha or a beta band of the EEG activity of the subject; and stopping the stimulation in response to detecting the micro-arousal, as taught by Garcia Molina II. One would have been motivated to make this modification because both the detection of micro-arousals and the desire to deliver stimulation to a subject without causing an arousal are known in the art (Garcia Molina II, [0020]).
In re claim 10, the proposed combination yields wherein detecting the micro-arousal is based on an increase in power in the alpha or beta band of the EEG activity of the subject for a predetermined period of time (apparent; as known by one of ordinary skill in the art the definition of a micro-arousal/arousal is an increase in power in the alpha, beta or theta band for a period of time).
In re claim 11, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Wetmore) further comprising: during the managed sleep session, increasing an intensity of the stimulation (FIG. 7: “choose more salient stimulus”; [0134]: “choice of...intensity”) to cause a micro-arousal of the subject (FIG. 7: “high relative state of arousal”);
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Garcia Molina (US 9,993,610) discloses a method for prompting a subject to fall asleep using parameters that are based on the subjects recorded EEG activity (abstract).
Qian et al. (Qian, Xiangyu, et al. “A review of methods for sleep arousal detection using polysomnographic signals.” Brain Sciences, vol. 11, no. 10, 26 Sept. 2021, p. 1274, https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11101274.) reviews methods for detecting sleep arousals and discloses that sleep arousals are also referred to as microarousals (Introduction).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)-270-5625. 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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796