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
Applicant's amendments filed 12/12/2025 merit new grounds for rejection in view of the prior art of record. Applicant’s amendments also overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and therefore the rejections under § 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p. 12-13 of the Remarks dated 12/12/2025, Applicant states that the LeBoeuf reference does not explicitly teach a dimension of 20mm or less.
This is not disputed by the Examiner. Instead, the rejection states that even though LeBoeuf does not teach a dimension of 20mm or less, sizing the device to meet with this claimed requirement would nevertheless be obvious.
On p. 16, Applicant goes on to state that the modification of LeBoeuf would not have been obvious because the 20mm size requirement is not applied to a results-effective variable, and because LeBoeuf does not provide “guidance toward miniaturization” therefore characterizing the rejection as based on impermissible hindsight.
This appears to ignore the additional context provided in the rejection, citing to LeBoeuf: LeBoeuf teaches that the size and shape of the housing of an device is a matter of design, and results-effective for a user’s comfort and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in changing size and shape of the device (¶[0090]). Applicant does not disclose a criticality to the dimension of the device in the specification dated 3/8/2023.
While Applicant alleges that LeBoeuf does not teach the elements underlined above, Applicant provides no factual analysis of the cited portions of LeBouef, instead making a general allegation that 20mm in length would require “guidance on miniaturization” because they represent “significant technical challenges” to achieve. As evidence that this range of dimensions was well known, and achievable by routine experimentation, attention is drawn to the Dot reference, cited by the Examiner “Kickstarter Campaign July 2015 Dot”, showing that as early as July 2015, at least three earbud type devices were known in the art, and a plurality of “longest dimensions” are well under the 20mm requirement of the claims. Furthermore, the benefits of comfort and discretion are all well-known as results effected by overall device size.
On p. 16-17 of the Remarks filed 12/12/2025, Applicant states that the contoured portions of LeBoeuf that are configured to fit specific locations of the user’s ear are incompatible with a 20mm dimension. The Examiner disagrees because it is the Examiner’s position that the distance between an anti-tragus and touching an acoustic meatus of a user is 2cm or less in distance, depending on a user’s physiology. Factual support for this position is found in cited reference “A Morphometric Study of the External Ear: Age- and Sex-Related Differences” (Brucker, Michael J. M.D.; Patel, Jagruti M.D.; Sullivan, Patrick K. M.D.. A Morphometric Study of the External Ear: Age- and Sex-Related Differences. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 112(2):p 647-652, August 2003) which states that the average width of the entire adult ear lobe is less than 2cm.
On p. 18, Applicant’s position is that the invention is a device which fits within the region of the cymba concha without extending into other ear regions, which is a feature that the device of LeBoeuf cannot be modified to achieve.
This is not found persuasive, as the claims do not require a device which fits within the region of the cymba concha without extending into other ear regions. As noted by the Examiner above, the limitations of a dimension of “20 mm or less” is not so small that it adequately limits devices to only that which would fit solely into a cymba concha, and the claims do not functionally require a device fitting wholly within a user’s cymba concha.
Further on pp. 19-20, Applicant alleges that the device is “small enough to be forgotten by the user, does not occlude hearing, permits comfortable side sleeping, carries minimal social stigma, and through its energy harvesting and power management features enables continuous operation without user intervention” representing “a material innovation that is not rendered obvious by LeBoeuf’s earbud design.”
All of these features alleged by Applicant are not claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., continuous operation without user intervention for example) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant has refrained from specifically claiming the allegedly critical size and shape which enables these argued features, therefore the arguments are not persuasive.
On p. 20, Applicant alleges that modifying the device of LeBoeuf to be less than 20mm in a longest dimension would require modifying the device to no longer fit at the desired physical anatomy “between the anti tragus and the acoustic meatus”. As noted by the Examiner above, 20mm does not apparently render this configuration impossible. Human ear anatomy on average supports 20mm as an average distance between the anti-tragus and acoustic meatus.
On pp. 21-22, Applicant states that the LeBoeuf reference does not teach targeting “at least a portion of the posterior auricular artery” and characterizes the LeBoeuf reference as only teaching targeting anatomy internal to the ear.
In the LeBoeuf section reproduced by Applicant, ¶[0058] includes sensing the pinna of the ear. Pinna is a synonym for auricle, therefore teaching sensing at the external ear anatomy. Furthermore, in ¶[0073] and Fig. 4A-D, the sensor region 204 targets the auricle between the anti-tragus and acoustic meatus as depicted, the hollow tube element 206 is inserted into the acoustic meatus, thereby locating the sensors at the skin surface on the external ear. In accordance with Applicant’s provided description of the path of the posterior auricular artery on p. 21 of the Remarks, LeBoeuf correspondingly targets at least a portion of the posterior auricular artery.
On p. 23, Applicant alleges that LeBoeuf does not teach continuous monitoring for at least about 24 hours.
It is the Examiner’s position that the teachings of ¶[0096] state that the device is used throughout the day, week, month, or the like and in context this includes sleep data ¶[0065]. The Examiner’s reasoned position is that this includes “at least about 24 hours” of continuous monitoring.
On p. 25, Applicant’s position appears to be that “configured to monitor the subject for at least about 24 hours continuously” refers to “specific design choices regarding power consumption, energy storage capacity, and operational parameters.”
Applicant may want to consider amending the claims to include such specific parameters as the instant claims do not appear to comprise any specific design choices regarding power consumption, energy storage capacity, and/or operational parameters.
On pp. 26-27 with respect to claim 12, Applicant states that the Li reference fails to teach the three claimed sleep, first wake, and second wake states because “Li discloses only two operational modes” and a “sleep mode” which is disclosed as “part of a duty cycle optimization framework, not a dedicated charging state.”
This is not found persuasive because the claims do not require a dedicated charging state, only a sleep state during which the battery is configured to charge. The distinction under BRI is that the sleep mode of Li allows for the battery to be charged during the sleep/inactive mode, which meets the requirements of the claim. Applicant may wish to claim a dedicated charging mode to overcome this interpretation. The Examiner’s characterization of the wake states of Li are not active/inactive, but rather that the different duty cycles of Li correspond to first and second wake states. The duty cycle is changed based on the energy harvesting output, which means that the changes in duty cycle are triggered by parameter changes.
Applicant characterizes this feature of Li as duty cycle optimization, and alleges that this cannot meet the claimed state management that applicant describes as “reactive state transition” for asynchronous monitoring. However, under BRI, the two distinct duty cycles of Li are considered to be first and second wake states.
On p. 28, Applicant alleges that Li teaches away from improving wearable devices with PPG sensors. The Examiner disagrees, as no modification is proposed to add PPG sensors to the device of Li. Instead, the modification is to improve a pre-existing device with a power management technique that states “PPG sensors may become more efficient …making PPG sensors suitable for self-powered wearable devices.” which would suggest itself as a ready improvement to PHOSITA for wearable devices, even PPG devices that were previously too inefficient. Furthermore, Li teaches embodiments using a PPG sensor, including “aggressive power management mechanism may be applied to enable the use of PPG sensors in the user-wearable device with long operating time” (Li ¶[0039]). Li also teaches that precluding a continuous PPG sensor is only true “in some cases” (Li, ¶[0050]), further characterizing a PPG sensor as a low power sensor in ¶[0056] and ¶[0057].
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 25, 31-33, 35-37, 43, and 47-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0135596) hereinafter referred to as LeBoeuf.
Regarding claim 1, LeBoeuf teaches a device (¶[0011]) for long-term, continuous monitoring of a subject (¶[0096] throughout the day, week, month), the device comprising:
a biometric sensor configured to monitor at least one biometric parameter of the subject (¶[0075]), wherein the biometric sensor comprises an optical sensor (Fig. 12, ¶[0077]);
a movement sensor configured to monitor at least one activity parameter of the subject (¶[0075]);
an energy storage bank (¶[0069]);
a wireless communications transceiver (¶[0067]); and
an attachment mechanism for securing the device to an auricle of the subject (¶[0070]);
wherein the biometric sensor, the movement sensor, the energy storage bank, and the wireless communications transceiver are adapted to fit within a volume and wherein the device is configured to attach to the auricle (¶[0058] pinna, ¶[0073] Fig. 4A-D, the sensor region 204 targets the auricle between the anti-tragus and acoustic meatus as depicted, the hollow tube element 206 is inserted into the acoustic meatus, thereby locating the sensors at the skin surface on the external ear) of the subject (¶[0090], ¶[0096]) to target at least a portion of the posterior auricular artery (¶[0073] Fig. 4A-D, the sensor region 204 targets the auricle between the anti-tragus and acoustic meatus as depicted, the hollow tube element 206 is inserted into the acoustic meatus, thereby locating the sensors at the skin surface on the external ear);
wherein the at least one biometric parameter of the subject comprises one or more of: cerebral blood flow, blood pressure, blood volume, heart rate, heart rate variability, and blood oxygenation (¶[0065]).
LeBoeuf teaches that the size and shape of the housing of an device is a matter of design, and results-effective for a user’s comfort and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in changing size and shape of the device (¶[0090]). Applicant does not disclose a criticality to the dimension of the device in the specification dated 3/8/2023.
LeBoeuf does not explicitly teach a volume 20 mm or less in its longest dimension.
However, it would nevertheless have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensor device of LeBoeuf to be less than 20mm in a longest length, because courts have 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), and one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to fit a sensor to a user, in order to best match the ear of a user (LeBoeuf, ¶[0090]).
Regarding claim 3, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf further teaches the device configured to monitor the subject for at least about 24 hours continuously (¶[0096] throughout the day, week, month).
Regarding claim 5, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the energy storage bank comprises a micro battery (¶[0069]).
Regarding claim 7, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf teaches further comprising an energy harvesting element configured to charge the energy storage bank (¶[0069]), and wherein the energy harvesting element compromises one or more of:
a photovoltaic cell configured to harvest energy from natural daylight, interior lighting, infrared emitters, or a combination thereof (¶[0069]),
a RF antenna configured to harvest energy from the environment of the device (¶[0069]);
a thermoelectric generator configured to harvest energy from body heat of the subject (¶[0069]); and
a piezoelectric material configured to harvest energy from motion of the subject (¶[0069]).
Regarding claim 25, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the attachment mechanism is a custom molded elastomer configured to lock into the subject's unique concha morphology (¶[0070], ¶[0090]).
Regarding claim 31, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the biometric sensor comprises an optical sensor (¶[0077]).
Regarding claim 32, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 31.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the optical sensor comprises a photoplethysmography (PPG) sensor (¶[0077], ¶[0065]).
Regarding claim 33, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the movement sensor comprises at least one accelerometer (¶[0059]).
Regarding claim 35, LeBeouf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the at least one biometric parameter of the subject comprises one or more of: cerebral blood flow, blood pressure, blood volume, heart rate, heart rate variability, and blood oxygenation (¶[0065]).
Regarding claim 36, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the at least one activity parameter of the subject comprises one or more of: motion, activity level, body posture, and change in body posture (¶[0075]).
Regarding claim 37, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the wireless communications transceiver utilizes a Near-Field Communication (NFC) protocol, LoRa, or Wi-Fi (¶[0067]).
Regarding claim 43, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf teaches further comprising a microcontroller configured to analyze the at least one biometric parameter and the at least one activity parameter (¶[0067] time-dependent analysis).
Regarding claim 47, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 43.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the analysis comprises identification of physiological trends (¶[0067] over time).
Regarding claim 48, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 47.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the physiological trends comprise trends in one or more of: cerebral blood flow, blood pressure, blood volume, heart rate, heart rate variability, blood oxygenation, and activity level (¶[0067], ¶[0065] and ¶[0075]).
Regarding claim 49, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 47.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the physiological trends are interday and intraday trends (¶[0067] over time, and ¶[0096], day, week, month).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0000332) hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 11, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf as modified does not teach further comprising a logic element performing a charge management protocol comprising:
monitoring the charge of the energy storage bank;
when the charge is below a predetermined threshold, allowing the energy harvesting element to charge the micro energy storage bank; and
when the charge is above a second predetermined threshold, allowing the micro energy storage bank to power operation of the biometric sensor, the movement sensor, or the wireless communications transceiver.
Attention is brought to the Li reference, which teaches a logic element performing a charge management protocol (¶[0034]) comprising:
monitoring the charge of the energy storage bank (¶[0022], ¶[0063]);
when the charge is below a predetermined threshold, allowing the energy harvesting element to charge the energy storage bank (Fig. 4, ¶[0051], ¶[0052]); and
when the charge is above a second predetermined threshold, allowing the energy storage bank to power operation of the biometric sensor, the movement sensor, or the wireless communications transceiver (Fig. 4, ¶[0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensing system of LeBoeuf to include a charge management protocol, as taught by Li, because Li discloses that improving the battery life capabilities of wearable sensing devices solves a long-felt need in the art of monitoring (Li, ¶[0003]).
Regarding claim 12, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf as modified does not teach a logic element performing a state management protocol comprising:
maintaining the device in a sleep state, wherein the energy storage bank is charged;
shifting the device to a first wake state intermittently, at a predefined interval, wherein the micro energy storage bank powers operation of the biometric sensor, the movement sensor, and the wireless communications transceiver to perform synchronous monitoring of the subject; and
shifting the device to a second wake state as a response to the at least one biometric parameter, the at least one activity parameter, or both, wherein the micro energy storage bank powers operation of the biometric sensor, the movement sensor, and the wireless communications transceiver to perform asynchronous monitoring of the subject.
Attention is brought to the Li reference, which teaches a logic element performing a state management protocol comprising:
maintaining the device in a sleep state, wherein the energy storage bank is charged (¶[0043] sleep mode);
shifting the device to a first wake state intermittently, at a predefined interval, wherein the micro energy storage bank powers operation of the biometric sensor, the movement sensor, and the wireless communications transceiver to perform synchronous monitoring of the subject (¶[0043] duty cycle, ¶[0045]); and
shifting the device to a second wake state as a response to the at least one biometric parameter, the at least one activity parameter, or both, wherein the energy storage bank powers operation of the biometric sensor, the movement sensor, and the wireless communications transceiver to perform asynchronous monitoring of the subject (¶[0046], depending e.g. on the energy harvesting parameter ¶[0052] derived from motion sensing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the sensing system of LeBoeuf to include a state management protocol, as taught by Li, because Li discloses that improving the battery life capabilities of wearable sensing devices solves a long-felt need in the art of monitoring (Li, ¶[0003]).
Regarding claim 16, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 12.
Li teaches further comprising an energy harvesting element configured to charge the energy storage bank, and wherein, in the first wake state or the second wake state, the power consumption of the device is more than the power output of the energy harvesting element (¶¶[0045-0046]).
Claim(s) 19-20, 22, 24, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wetmore et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0160995) hereinafter referred to as Wetmore.
Regarding claim 19, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf as modified does not teach wherein the attachment mechanism is a biocompatible adhesive.
Attention is brought to the Wetmore reference, which teaches an adhesive with a retention structure for an wearable (¶[0164]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the earpiece of LeBeouf as modified to include an adhesive, as taught by Wetmore, because it helps hold a measuring device in place (Wetmore, ¶[0164]).
Regarding claim 20, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the attachment mechanism is one or more elastomeric wings configured to extend into the triangular fossa while pressing into the helix, and/or to extend into the concha cavum while pressing into the antihelix or antitragus (Fig. 4A-D, ¶[0070]).
LeBoeuf as modified does not teach a durometer less than 80 Shore A.
Attention is brought to the Wetmore reference, which teaches an attachment mechanism with a durometer less than 80 Shore A (¶[0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the earpiece of LeBoeuf as modified to use an attachment mechanism with a durometer as taught by Wetmore, because relatively conforming hydrogel helps hold a measuring device in place (Wetmore, ¶[0164]).
Regarding claim 22, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the attachment mechanism is one or more elastomeric rough surface finishes (Fig. 4A-D, ¶[0070] no particular relative roughness is claimed)
LeBoeuf as modified does not teach a durometer less than 80 Shore A, configured to maximize the presence of Van Der Waals forces.
Attention is brought to the Wetmore reference, which teaches an attachment mechanism with a durometer less than 80 Shore A (¶[0021]). The result, configured to maximize the presence of Van Der Waals forces, appears to be an intended use of the required structural feature, of the durometer. The combination of LeBouef and Wetmore is capable of this use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the earpiece of LeBoeuf as modified to use an attachment mechanism with a durometer as taught by Wetmore, because relatively conforming hydrogel helps hold a measuring device in place (Wetmore, ¶[0164]).
Regarding claim 24, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf further teaches wherein the attachment mechanism is a set of elastomeric appendages configured to maximize friction by press into the helix, antihelix, antitragus, and/or the cymba concha of the subject (Fig. 4A-D, ¶[0070]).
LeBoeuf as modified does not teach durometer less than 50 Shore A,
Attention is brought to the Wetmore reference, which teaches an attachment mechanism with a durometer less than 50 Shore A (¶[0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the earpiece of LeBoeuf as modified to use an attachment mechanism with a durometer as taught by Wetmore, because relatively conforming hydrogel helps hold a measuring device in place (Wetmore, ¶[0164]).
Regarding claim 40, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf as modified does not teach wherein the device further comprises an acoustic transducer for communicating audio messages with low sound leakage perceived by others near the subject.
Attention is drawn to the Wetmore reference, which teaches an acoustic transducer for communicating audio messages with low sound leakage perceived by others near the subject (¶[0018], ¶[0149]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of LeBoeuf to include a speaker, as taught by Wetmore, because applying audio content to a user helps treat disorders related to sympathetic function (Wetmore ¶[0006]).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0278220) hereinafter referred to as Yuen.
Regarding claim 34, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 1.
LeBoeuf as modified does not teach wherein the movement sensor comprises at least one altimeter.
Attention is drawn to the Yuen reference, which teaches at least one altimeter (¶[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the monitoring system of LeBoeuf to include an altimeter, as taught by Yuen, because it aids in the determination of location and context of a user (Yuen ¶[0397], Abstract).
Claim(s) 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeBoeuf as applied to claim 1 and 43 above, and further in view of Tzvieli et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0313915) hereinafter referred to as Tzvieli.
Regarding claims 44-46, LeBoeuf as modified teaches the device of claim 43.
LeBoeuf as modified does not teach wherein the analysis comprises application of one or more artificial neural networks (ANNs), wherein the one or more ANNs are configured to detect or predict one or more of: poor cerebral blood flow, poor blood pressure, presyncope, syncope, and a fall event; and wherein the one or more ANNs are configured to infer systolic and diastolic blood pressure from the at least one biometric sensor or activity sensor.
Attention is drawn to the Tzvieli reference, which teaches application of one or more artificial neural networks (ANNs) (¶[0445]), wherein the one or more ANNs are configured to detect or predict one or more of: poor cerebral blood flow, poor blood pressure, presyncope, syncope, and a fall event (¶[0079] orthostatic hypotension); and wherein the one or more ANNs are configured to infer systolic and diastolic blood pressure (¶[0076], ¶[0079]) from at least one biometric sensor or activity sensor (¶[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the analysis of LeBoeuf as modified to include artificial neural networks, as taught by Tzvieli, because Tzvieli teaches an accurate blood pressure estimation using ANNs, which adjusts for user posture (Tzvieli ¶[0012]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA L STEINBERG whose telephone number is (303)297-4783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-4.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792