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(s) filed on 02/23/2023, 05/22/2025 and 12/04/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 02/03/2023. As directed by the preliminary amendments, claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 13 and 17-27 have been amended. As such, claims 1-27 are being examined in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 8, 13, 18 and 26-27 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 9-10, recites “…so that the tube of the pressure sensor passes…” but should recite “…so that a tube of the pressure sensor passes…” due to antecedent basis.
Claim 13, line 1, recites “…claim 9 the transit time…” but should recite “…claim 9 wherein a transit time…” for antecedent basis and clarity.
Claim 18, line 2, recites “…wherein the transit time is…” but should recite “…wherein a transit time is…” due to antecedent basis.
Claim 26, line 2, recites “…wherein the transit times between…” but should recite “…wherein a transit time
Claim 27, line 2 recites “…wherein the transit times between…” but should recite “…wherein a transit time.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Concini (EP 0273385 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Concini teaches a method of monitoring, detecting, or observing the flow and volume of a gas along a channel (Concini teaches measuring the flow rate (and therefore, monitoring, detecting or observing) within the longitudinal section of a portion 2 of the duct through which fluid passes as seen in page 2, lines 38-41 and page 3, lines 21-26), the method comprising the steps of:
utilising at least a first ultrasonic transducer (ultrasonic signal transmitter 3, see Fig. 4) to project an alternating ultrasonic signal substantially transverse to the direction of gas flow (ultrasonic signal transmitter 3 projects a signal substantially transverse to the direction of gas flow as seen in Fig. 2 wherein u is the velocity of the fluid as seen on page 3, lines 30-35);
sampling the ultrasonic signal after it traverses the gas flow (ultrasonic signal receivers 4 and 4' receives the signal from the ultrasonic signal transmitter 3 as seen in Figs. 2 and 4 and page 2, lines 43-52, wherein the electric signals are to be processed to determine the rate of flow as seen in page 3, lines 3-26);
utilising at least a first pressure sensor (pressure transducer 23, see Fig. 1) to simultaneously monitor the pressure variations within the tube (Concini teaches a pressure transducer 23 disposed in the portion 2 of the duct as seen in Fig. 1 and page 3, lines 22-26, and therefore measures pressure variations within portion 2 of the duct); and
processing the sampled signal and pressure measurements to determine properties of the gas and flow parameters relating thereto (Concini teaches the electric output signal from the receivers 4 and 4’ to from an output signal 20 equal to the mid value of the input signals and indicative of the degree of angular phase shift between the two signals provided by the receivers 4 and 4' as seen on page 3, lines 3-21. The signal 20 is supplied to unit 21 which also receives signal 22 from pressure transducer 23 to form an output signal 25 indicative of the rate of the flow in the portion 2 of the duct as seen on page 3, lines 22-26. Concini further teaches using signals 20 and 22 to form the product with the value K0 which is established on the basis of the parameters of the device and of the portion 2 of the duct so that the signal 25 which represents the value G of mass flow rate is produced directly as seen on page 5, lines 23-26).
Regarding claim 2, Concini teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches wherein said sampling includes sampling the ultrasonic signal at least two points substantially opposite said first ultrasonic transducer (Concini teaches receivers 4 and 4' to be substantially opposite ultrasonic signal transmitter 3 as seen in Figs. 2 and 4 and page 2, lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 3, Concini teaches the method of claim 2, and further teaches wherein at least one of the points is upstream of the first ultrasonic transducer and one is down stream of the first ultrasonic transducer (Concini teaches wherein u is the velocity of the fluid as seen on page 3, lines 30-35 and ultrasonic signal receivers 4 and 4' receives the signal from the ultrasonic signal transmitter 3 as seen in Figs. 2 and 4 and page 2, lines 43-52 as shown by lines 5 and 5’. As such, ultrasonic signal receivers 4 and 4' are located upstream and downstream relative to the ultrasonic signal transmitter 3 as ultrasonic signal transmitter 3 is located in the middle as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Concini teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches further comprising: simultaneously monitoring the gas pressure within the channel (Concini teaches a pressure transducer 23 disposed in the portion 2 of the duct as seen in Fig. 1 and page 3, lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 7, Concini teaches a device for monitoring the flow of a gas along a tube (Concini teaches measuring the flow rate (and therefore, monitoring, detecting or observing) within the longitudinal section of a portion 2 of the duct through which fluid passes as seen in page 2, lines 38-41 and page 3, lines 21-26), the device comprising:
a first tube having an inlet and outlet for connection to a gas source and a gas sink (Concini teaches a portion 2 of the duct as seen in Fig. 2 with an inlet and outlet which can connect to a gas source and a gas sink. Furthermore, Concini teaches measuring fluid within a duct (see page 2 and 39-41) and a fluid velocity (see Col. 3, lines 27-32), and as such portion 2 of the duct can be connected to a gas source and a gas sink);
at least one ultrasonic transducer (ultrasonic signal transmitter 3, see Fig. 4) located on one side of the tube for projecting an ultrasonic signal into the tube substantially transverse to the gas flow in the tube (ultrasonic signal transmitter 3 is on one side of portion 2 of the duct and projects a signal substantially transverse to the direction of gas flow as seen in Fig. 2 wherein u is the velocity of the fluid as seen on page 3, lines 30-35);
at least two ultrasonic sensors (ultrasonic signal receivers 4 and 4', see Fig. 4) located on an opposed side of the tube for monitoring the receipt of the ultrasonic signal on the opposed side of said tube (ultrasonic signal receivers 4 and 4' are located on the opposed side of portion 2 of the duct from ultrasonic signal transmitter 3 and receives the signal from the ultrasonic signal transmitter 3 as seen in Figs. 2 and 4 and page 2, lines 43-52);
at least one pressure sensor (pressure transducer 23, see Fig. 1) for measuring pressure values within said tube (Concini teaches a pressure transducer 23 disposed in the portion 2 of the duct as seen in Fig. 1 and page 3, lines 22-26, and therefore measures pressure values within the portion 2 of the duct); and
processing means interconnected to the at least one ultrasonic transducer and said two ultrasonic sensors and at least one pressure sensor for determining flow parameters of the gas within said tube (Concini teaches the electric output signal from the receivers 4 and 4’ to from an output signal 20 equal to the mid value of the input signals and indicative of the degree of angular phase shift between the two signals provided by the receivers 4 and 4' as seen on page 3, lines 3-21. The signal 20 is supplied to unit 21 which also receives signal 22 from pressure transducer 23 to form an output signal 25 indicative of the rate of the flow in the portion 2 of the duct as seen on page 3, lines 22-26. Concini further teaches using signals 20 and 22 to form the product with the value K0 which is established on the basis of the parameters of the device and of the portion 2 of the duct so that the signal 25 which represents the value G of mass flow rate is produced directly as seen on page 5, lines 23-26).
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Concini (EP 0273385 A2) in view of Gysling (EP 1982169 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Concini teaches the method of claim 4, but does not teach wherein the gas pressure is monitored at multiple points along said channel.
However, Gysling teaches wherein the gas pressure is monitored at multiple points along said channel (Gysling teaches an array of pressure sensors 112-118 monitoring multiple points along pipe 104 as seen in Fig. 5 and [0025] and [0027], wherein at least two pressure sensors are spaced axially along the outer surface 132 of the pipe 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Concini to have multiple pressure sensors to monitor multiple points along said channel as taught by Gysling to improve the accuracy of the measurements due to having more sensors (see [0027]).
Regarding claim 6, Concini in view of Gysling teaches the method of claim 5, and further teaches wherein one of the points is opposite the first ultrasonic transducer opposite the channel (Gysling teaches a transmitter 160/120 as seen in Figs. 4-5 on the top side of the pipe 104 and further teaches pressure sensor 112 measuring a point opposite of the transmitter 160/120 at the bottom of the pipe 104 as seen in Figs. 4-5. As such, Concini in view of Gysling teaches wherein one of the points being monitored by the pressure sensor is opposite the ultrasonic signal transmitter 3 (taught by Concini)).
Claim(s) 8-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferencz (US 20100095782 A1) in view of Sabharwal (US 20190046074 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Ferencz teaches an apparatus, for the examination, testing and intervention in the functionality of ventilators and other mechanical respiratory devices (Ferencz teaches determining flow parameters of a streaming medium in a conduit as seen in [0008]-[0010] and further teaches performing flow measurements in applications such as medical measurements as seen in [0022]-[0023] and [0057]), comprising:
a flow tube (conduit L, see Fig. 1) along which a gas to be measured flows (“…with reference to FIG. 1 showing a conduit L in cross section with a medium streaming with a flow rate v.sub.a.” see [0048]);
an ultrasonic transducer (transmitter) (transmitter A, see Fig. 1; “The transmitter A and the receivers may be accomplished as piezoelectric devices clamped on the outer surface of the conduit wall for generating and receiving ultrasonic waves.” See [0048]) on one side of the flow tube (see Fig. 1), generating longitudinal waves inside the flow tube (transmitter A generates longitudinal waves inside conduit L as seen in Fig. 1 and [0048] and [0019]),
at least two transducers (receivers V1 and V2, see Fig. 1) located on an opposed side of the flow tube, the waves are received by the two transducers (receivers) (receivers V1 and V2 are located on an opposite side of conduit L and receives the waves transmitted by transmitter A as seen in Fig. 1 and [0048]),
but does not teach a pressure sensor on the wall of the flow tube in a way so that the tube of the pressure sensor passes through the wall of the tube, stops in line with the plane of the inner surface, and the actual pressure sensor is located outside the wall of the tube.
However, Sabharwal teaches a pressure sensor (pressure transducer 138, see Fig. 6) on the wall of the flow tube (waveguide 128, see Fig. 6 and [0032]) in a way so that the tube of the pressure sensor passes through the wall of the tube, stops in line with the plane of the inner surface, and the actual pressure sensor is located outside the wall of the tube (Sabharwal teaches pressure transducer 138 on the wall of the waveguide 128 and is located outside waveguide 128 as seen in Fig. 6 and further teaches a flexible pipe 142 (taken as tube of the pressure sensor) which connects the pressure transducer 138 to an opening in the waveguide 128 that is located approximate to the mouthpiece 104 to have appropriate signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio as seen in [0035]. Sabharwal further teaches a computing unit 154 to determine a mechanical impedance of the patient's respiratory system based on the measured change in pressure and flowrate of the airflow as seen in [0043] and [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus taught by Ferencz to include the computing unit and a pressure sensor on the wall of the flow tube in a way so that the tube of the pressure sensor passes through the wall of the tube, stops in line with the plane of the inner surface, and the actual pressure sensor is located outside the wall of the tube as taught by Sabharwal to measure a change in pressure of the airflow to help determine mechanical impedance of a patient’s lung to diagnose known respiratory diseases (see [0022] and [0045]). Furthermore, both prior arts teach a tube with an ultrasonic transducer/flowmeter to measure airflow parameters.
Regarding claim 9, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 8, and Sabharwal further teaches further comprising a monitoring unit for monitoring the flow and pressure measurements and determining parameters therefrom (Sabharwal teaches computing unit 154 to determine the mechanical impedance of the patient’s lung based on the measured change in pressure and flowrate of the airflow as seen in [0043] and [0045]).
Regarding claim 10, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 8, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the longitudinal waves are ultrasonic waves generated by a piezoelectric device (Ferencz teaches transmitter A to be a piezoelectric device and to generate longitudinal waves that are ultrasonic as seen in [0048] and [0019]).
Regarding claim 11, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 8, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the longitudinal waves generated by the transducer used as a transmitter are in the form of wave packages separated from each other by a period sufficiently long for identifying the appropriate pulse packages (Ferencz teaches transmitter A to generate longitudinal waves as seen in [0048]). Ferencz further teaches the control circuit is configured to provide the necessary electric signals for the transducers preferably in the form of pulse trains separated from each other by a period sufficiently long for identifying the appropriate wave packages as seen in [0019] and the transducer used as a transmitter to generate an electric signal that comprises pulse trains separated from each other by a period substantially long for identifying the appropriate pulse packages as seen in [0059] and claim 3).
Regarding claim 12, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 11, and Ferencz further teaches wherein subsequent wave packages following each other are shifted in phase with respect to each other wherein the phase shift is selected randomly between a minimum and a maximum value, for inhibiting the forming of standing waves inside the conduit (“…the control circuit is configured to provide electrical control signals with subsequent pulse trains following each other shifted in phase with respect to each other, said phase shift being selected randomly between a minimum and a maximum value, for inhibiting the forming of standing waves inside the conduit.” See [0020] and [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 9, and Ferencz further teaches the transit time is determined by measuring the time between a selected point of the transmitted wave and a corresponding selected point of the received wave (“As it is clear from FIG. 4, the transit time can be determined by measuring the time between a selected point of the exciting electric signal and a corresponding selected point of the output signal of a receiver.” See [0060]; Ferencz teaches the transmitter to be excited with an electrical signal as seen in [0063]).
Regarding claim 14, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 13, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the selected point of the received wave is determined by comparing the received wave with a reference signal of a predetermined level being above the noise level (“The selected point of the received wave may be determined by comparing the received wave with a reference signal of a predetermined level being above the noise level.” See [0061]).
Regarding claim 15, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 14, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the selected point of the received wave is determined as a first zero crossing after the signal level exceeded the comparator level (“A better result of measuring the transit time may be achieved if the selected point of the received wave is determined as a zero crossing which may be determined and measured more precisely. In a preferred embodiment a first zero crossing will be used as a selected point for determining the transit time after the signal level exceeded the comparator level.” See [0062] and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 14, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the selected point of the transmitted and received wave is determined as a zero crossing of a selected rising edge of the respective signal (“It may also be preferable to measure the transit time between selected and corresponding zero crossings of the transmitted and received wave or signal. This selected zero crossing may be a zero crossing of a selected rising edge of the respective signal…” see [0062] and [0066] and Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 13, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the transit time of the waves between the transducer used as a transmitter and the transducers used as receivers is determined by
measuring the transit time of subsequent waves, and
generating an average value of said several transit time values (“…the transit time of the waves between the transmitter and the receivers is determined by measuring the transit time of subsequent waves or pulses and generating an average value of said several transit time values.” See [0064]).
Regarding claim 18, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 8, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the transit time is determined by
determining a transit time between the transducer used as a transmitter and a transducer used as receivers under normal conditions when the flow rate is zero,
measuring a phase shift of the zero crossing of a corresponding rising edge of the received signal,
calculating a time difference corresponding to said phase shifting, and
adding the time difference to the transit time under zero flow condition (“…characterized in that the transit times are determined by determining transit times between the transducer used as a transmitter and the transducers used as receivers under normal conditions when the flow rate is zero, measuring a phase shift of the zero crossing of a corresponding rising edge of the received signal, calculating a time difference corresponding to said phase shifting, and adding the time difference to the transit time under zero flow condition.” See claim 2 and [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 19, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 18, and Ferencz further teaches wherein in that the time difference is determined by
measuring a time difference for subsequent zero crossings in the received wave and
generating an average value of several time differences (“…the transit time of the waves between the transmitter and the receivers is determined by measuring the transit time of subsequent waves or pulses and generating an average value of said several transit time values.” See [0064] and [0063]).
Regarding claim 20, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 18, and Ferencz further teaches wherein a zero crossing is used for determining the time difference when the amplitude of the received signal has exceeded a predetermined comparator level (“…characterized in that a zero crossing is used for determining the transit time values after the amplitude of the received signal has exceeded a predetermined comparator level when the zero crossing is inside a time window determined by minimum and maximum streaming conditions.” See claim 5).
Regarding claim 21, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 18, and Ferencz further teaches wherein a zero crossing is used for determining the time difference when the zero crossing is inside a time window (gate wait) determined by minimum and maximum streaming conditions (“…characterized in that a zero crossing is used for determining the transit time values after the amplitude of the received signal has exceeded a predetermined comparator level when the zero crossing is inside a time window determined by minimum and maximum streaming conditions.” See claim 5 and [0062]).
Regarding claim 22, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 21, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the time window will be determined by a gating signal having a rising edge at the beginning of the time window and a falling edge at the end of the time window (“The time window may be selected by using a gating signal (not shown) having a rising edge at the beginning of the time window and a falling edge at the end of the time window.” See [0063]).
Regarding claim 23, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 22, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the gating signal is selected so that it starts after the transversal component of the wave propagating in the wall of the tube has reached the receivers and it ends before significant reflected waves arrive at the receivers (“The time window may be selected by using a gating signal (not shown) having a rising edge at the beginning of the time window and a falling edge at the end of the time window. It is desirable to use a gating signal with a rising edge at a point of time when the transversal component of the wave propagating in the wall of the conduit or tube has possibly reached the receivers and with a falling edge at a point of time before significant reflected waves arrive at the receivers.” See [0063]).
Regarding claim 24, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 18, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the transit time is determined in case of a phase jump of the zero crossing in the received wave by adding or subtracting a compensating value to the time difference corresponding to a total wave of the received signal (“As long as the time or phase shift value is within the time window, the determined zero crossing of the received wave can be unambiguously assigned to a wave number and the transit time can be determined exactly as described above in connection with FIG. 7. If however the flow rate of the streaming medium under given circumstances exceeds a maximal value v.sub.amax, the zero crossing will shift to a neighboring period of the reference wave and a phase jump will be detected as shown in FIG. 8B. In that moment the time shift value changes from +T/2 to -T/2 as shown on the right side or from -T/2 to +T/2 as shown on the left side of the diagram…. As the flow rate can only change continuously, a jump in the determined time or phase shift value can be interpreted as exceeding the maximum or minimum of the time window (T0+-T/2) and can be compensated accordingly by adding or subtracting the time of a period T.” see [0067] and Figs. 8A-8B).
Regarding claim 25, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 21, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the transducers used as receivers are controlled to minimize their sensitivity in a time interval outside the time window for receiving the waves transmitted by the transducer used as a transmitter (“In order to eliminate the disturbing effect of the noise the receivers may be controlled to minimize their sensitivity in a time interval outside a time window for receiving the waves transmitted by the transmitter.” See [0063]).
Regarding claim 26, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 9, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the transit times between the transducer used as a transmitter and the transducers used as receivers are determined under zero flow condition wherein the transducers used as receivers are located symmetrical relative to the transducer used as a transmitter and if a difference between the two transit times is detected, an offset value is determined and all subsequent measured values are corrected on the basis of the offset value (“…characterized in that the transit times between the transducer used as a transmitter and the transducers used as receivers are determined under zero flow condition wherein the transducers used as receivers are located symmetrically relative to the transducer used as a transmitter and if a difference between the two transit times is detected, an offset value is determined and all subsequent measured values are corrected on the basis of the offset value.” See claim 6 and [0051]).
Regarding claim 27, Ferencz in view of Sabharwal teaches the apparatus of claim 9, and Ferencz further teaches wherein the transit times between the transducer used as a transmitter and the transducers used as receivers are determined under zero flow condition, wherein the transducers used as receivers are located asymmetrical relative to the transducer used as a transmitter and if a difference between a calculated or nominal position and an actual position of the transducer used as a transmitter can be detected, a correction value is determined and all subsequent measured values are modified with the correction value (“…characterized in that the transit times between the transducer used as a transmitter and the transducers used as receivers are determined under zero flow condition, wherein the transducers used as receivers are located asymmetrically relative to the transducer used as a transmitter and if a difference between a calculated or nominal position and an actual position of the transducer used as a transmitter can be detected, a correction value is determined and all subsequent measured values are modified with the correction value.” See claim 7 and [0048] and [0069]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Reuterholt (US 20130032152 A1) teaches a gas meter for ultrasound measurements within a breathing apparatus.
Mault (US 20010029340 A1) teaches using ultrasound transducers connected to a ventilator.
Tschirner (US 5090252 A) teaches an ultrasonic fluid-flow measuring device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tina Zhang whose telephone number is (571)272-6956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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) 270-7410. 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.
/TINA ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785