DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19, 24-31 are pending.
This action is Final.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 11/30/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 102021131477.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 1-5, 7-8 are poor quality photocopies/line thickness, Figures 2, 10 text is too small; Figures 1-10 “Fig” are too small; Figures 5, 7 has text on shaded surfaces . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings in the brief description are not all discussed in the detailed description; see Rule 1.74. Please check all Figures, but at least Figure 1 is missing.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The use of the terms Bluetooth and Oculus, which each is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: see drawing objections.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
When making amendments, claims which are canceled should have no strikethrough or text. Please ensure all future amendments are in compliance.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
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 1-19, 24-31 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations set forth an attachment structure including electrodes, but sets forth the attachment “coupled to” elements outside the attachment requirements, but then further limits the these coupled to elements which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if applicant is attempting to limit the attachment claimed to include these elements and is not clear if these elements are intended to bear patentable weight due to the inclusion of further limitations solely directed to the additional elements outside the claimed attachment. For these reasons the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear which renders the claim indefinite. This aspect is carried into each dependent claim which further limits the elements outside the positive recited elements of the attachment. In addition, claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons. For brevity, the rejection will not be repeated in each dependent claim. For examination purposes, each limitation which further limits the inferenced/intended use structures are interpreted as being non-limiting to the claimed required structures and to further limiting inference or intended structures/uses.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the other electrodes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the reference potential-defined acquisition of the EEG signals". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the EEG signals". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the stimulations". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further regarding claim 6, it is not clear if “an odorant” is the same or different from “odorant” of claim 5 upon which it depends. Secondly, it is not clear as constructed as to what “the stimulations with an odorant arise at intervals of more than 30 sec and less than 45 sec, and the stimulations are repeated at least 8 times at a time interval of 480 sec” are mean to construe in view of claim 5 requirements of “wherein the control unit (T) triggers a sensory stimulus with a stimulus edge, embedded in a flow of air, the stimulus being fed with an odorous substance or odorant into the flow of air in a pulsed manner in a time window of less than 250 msec, wherein a steepness of a rise of the stimulus edge is of such a nature that at least 66% of a stimulus concentration are reached within at most 20 msec” as the time scales overlap and are significantly different. These reasons make the metes and bounds of the claim unclear which renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 7 “wherein an actuator (A1) is provided as an actuator element” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if these are the same elements or different elements of claim 1. This makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the measurement". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the phrases "especially" “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the head surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further in claim 10, it is not clear if “a respective helmet segment holder… a respective helmet segment holder” are the same or different elements. This makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the beginning". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 13-15, 17-19 the limitations of “wherein the software is configured to” renders the claim indefinite separately from the issues raised in the independent claims. Claim 12 states that the inferenced element “wherein the microprocessor is configured to execute a software program”. Thus, claims 13-15, 17-19 appear to be limiting the software per se, and not the microprocessor. The limitations should be amended to limit the configuration of the microprocessor or software steps include.
Regarding claim 14, the phrases "preferably" “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations “wherein the software combines these values with temperature values that have been acquired as well” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear what is meant by the claimed features for these values nor is there temperature present in the claims prior to this point. What structures perform or gather temperature in the attachment? This makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations “wherein the software is configured to perform target/actual comparisons with respect to observed vs. referenced data” is unclear how this relates to any previous claimed data or what this is in reference to. This makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 28, the limitations “wherein the attachment and/or of virtual-reality glasses comprises” renders the claim indefinite. The claim (1) upon which this claim depends has no mention of virtual-reality glasses and it is not clear what is being set forth here because it appears the attachment is attempting to be limited in alternative to virtual reality glasses which are not part of the attachment. The metes and bounds are not clear what applicant is attempting to claim. For examination “and/or of virtual-reality glasses” is excluded from the interpretation.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4-19, 29-30, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeow et al. (Yeow, US 2017/0042439).
Regarding claim 1, Yeow teaches an attachment for a head of a person (see at least Figure 2-3), the attachment coupled to a first control unit (T) (mere inference not a positively recited element of the attachment, structure of Figures 1-3 meet inference capability of said attachment) and comprising electrodes (Ei to E4) for receiving cerebral electrical activity or brain potentials (see at least Figures 1-3, one or more electrodes, [0077]-[0085]), the electrodes leading to the first control unit (T) (see at least Figures 2-3 further limiting intended use with inference, the structures of Figures 1-3 are capable of such);
wherein the first control unit (T) has a microprocessor that is capable of recording signals from the electrodes (E1 to E4) in a time-related manner via an analog-to-digital converter (further limiting inferential elements outside the claimed product bears no patentable weight, see also at least Figures 1-3, [0077]-[0085]);
wherein the first control unit (T) is coupled to or actuates an actuator element (A1) that is capable (LDZ1) of releasing a fragrance in pulses as a stimulus in a flow from at least one pressurized cartridge (Ki) (further limiting inferential elements outside the claimed product bears no patentable weight, see also at least Figures 1-3, [0166], [0168]-[0169], [0172], [0199]-[0200], [0214]-[0215]);
wherein the signals of the electrodes (E1 to E4) have an EEG signal level in order to record a group of chemosensorically evoked potentials or at least chemosensorically-influenced temporal sections thereof in a time-related manner and to analyze them (intended use/result, structures capable of measuring such, see at least Figures 1-3, [0077]-[0085], [0166], [0168]-[0169], [0172], [0199]-[0200], [0214]-[0215]).
Regarding claim 4, Yeow teaches wherein the control unit (T) is coupled to and actuates an olfactometer, in particular to a modified olfactometer integrated in the attachment (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Yeow teaches wherein the control unit (T) triggers a sensory stimulus with a stimulus edge, embedded in a flow of air, the stimulus being fed with an odorous substance or odorant into the flow of air in a pulsed manner in a time window of less than 250 msec, wherein a steepness of a rise of the stimulus edge is of such a nature that at least 66% of a stimulus concentration are reached within at most 20 msec (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Yeow teaches wherein the stimulations with an odorant arise at intervals of more than 30 sec and less than 45 sec, and the stimulations are repeated at least 8 times at a time interval of 480 sec (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Yeow teaches wherein an actuator (A1) is provided as an actuator element that is actuated by the control unit (T) and causes a flow of air with a flow volume of more than 51/min (see at least [0166], [0168]-[0169], [0172], [0199]-[0200], [0214]-[0215] meets the structures and intended use).
Regarding claim 8, Yeow teaches locally coupled to a monitor used for displaying information that the person wearing the attachment has to follow during the measurement (inferential elements and intended use, structures required in claim 1 are capable of such use [0078], [0081], [0114]).
Regarding claim 9, Yeow teaches coupled to virtual-reality glasses used for displaying information that the person wearing the attachment follows (inferential elements and intended use, structures required in claim 1 are capable of such use [0078], [0081], [0114], [0145], [0153]).
Regarding claim 10, Yeow teaches , the attachment being a helmet (see at least Figure 1-3, [0080]), wherein:
the electrodes (Ei to E4) in a respective helmet segment holder are movable, especially rotatable or slidable, towards a surface of the head so far as to have sufficient contact with the head surface, and, in particular, can also be displayed on a display by a checking component of a control program in the microprocessor (intended use with inferenced elements, see at least Figures 1-3, [0080], [0101]); or
the electrodes (E1 to E4) are arranged in a respective helmet segment holder under pretension; or
with helmet segments of the helmet having an electrically conductive material incorporated therein for shielding against extrinsic electromagnetic interference fields.
Regarding claim 11, Yeow teaches wherein the actuator (A1) is connected to a hose piece capable of conducting the flow of air released by the actuator (limits inferenced elements, structure capable of such, see at least [0166], [0168]-[0169], [0172], [0199]-[0200], [0214]-[0215]).
Regarding claim 12, Yeow teaches wherein the microprocessor is configured to execute a software program comprising sequences of test steps that separate event-related potentials from a background noise by a summation of at least 8 derived stimulus-synchronous EEG sections by averaging (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Yeow teaches wherein the software is configured to perform a contacts check for correctness at the beginning of a session or a measurement (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Yeow teaches wherein the software is configured to control a respective technical component, in particular a flow of air, randomized fragrance flow stimuli, preferably to show on a display associated concentration elements, distraction images or movies, in particular to generate an acoustic distraction (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Yeow teaches wherein the software is configured to acquire resultant EEG signals as time series (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Yeow teaches wherein the software of the microprocessor calculates transformed data, e.g. FFT, extracts relevant quantities, such as minima, maxima, amplitudes, time spans, and/or compares threshold values or carries out categorizations (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Yeow teaches wherein the software of the microprocessor is configured to access reference data, in particular general data on stimulus-adequate reactions, or individual data, such as archive data (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 18, Yeow teaches wherein the software combines these values with temperature values that have been acquired as well (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 19, Yeow teaches wherein the software is configured to perform target/actual comparisons with respect to observed vs. referenced data, in particular to decide offline whether a result that is not obtained on humans and not on animals is positive/negative (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 29, Yeow teaches wherein the first control unit (T) has a microprocessor that repeatedly activates such a stimulus according to a predetermined cycle rate, with respect to one or more of start time, stimulus edge, stimulus concentration and stimulus duration (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 30, Yeow teaches wherein a fragrance to be released is suitable for generating a chemosensorily event-related potential by triggering an olfactory or trigeminal stimulus via an air/fragrance feeder (LDZ) (intended use/result, structures capable of such, see at least [0166], [0168]-[0169], [0172], [0199]-[0200], [0214]-[0215]).
Regarding claim 24, Yeow teaches an attachment for a head of a person (see at least Figure 2-3), the attachment coupled to a control unit (T), virtual-reality glasses and headphones (mere inference not a positively recited element of the attachment, structure of Figures 1-3 meet inference capability of said attachment), and comprising electrodes (E2 to E4) in a respective helmet segment holder for receiving cerebral electrical activity or brain potentials (see at least Figures 1-3, one or more electrodes, [0077]-[0085]), the electrodes leading to the first control unit (T) (see at least Figures 2-3 further limiting intended use with inference, the structures of Figures 1-3 are capable of such);
wherein the first control unit has a microprocessor that is capable of recording signals from the electrodes (E1 to E4) in a time-related manner via an analog-to-digital converter (further limiting inferential elements outside the claimed product bears no patentable weight, see also at least Figures 1-3, [0077]-[0085]);
wherein the first control unit (T) is coupled to an actuator element (A1) that is capable of releasing a flow of humidified air from a pressurized first cartridge (Ki) and capable of feeding, separately therefrom, a pulsed fragrance as a stimulus into the flow of air (further limiting inferential elements outside the claimed product bears no patentable weight, see also at least Figures 1-3, [0166], [0168]-[0169], [0172], [0199]-[0200], [0214]-[0215]);
wherein the signals of the electrodes have an EEG signal level in order to record a group of chemosensorically evoked potentials or at least chemosensorically-influenced temporal sections thereof in a time- related manner and to analyze them (intended use/result, structures capable of measuring such, see at least Figures 1-3, [0077]-[0085], [0166], [0168]-[0169], [0172], [0199]-[0200], [0214]-[0215]).
Regarding claim 25, Yeow teaches wherein the control unit (T) is configured to trigger a sensory stimulus embedded in a flow of air, the stimulus being feedable with an odorous substance or odorant into the flow of air in a pulsed manner in a time window of less than 250 msec (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 24).
Regarding claim 26, Yeow teaches wherein the control unit (T) is coupled to an olfactometer and actuates the same (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 24).
Regarding claim 27, Yeow teaches wherein the control unit (T) is coupled to a modified olfactometer integrated in the attachment (further limiting structures outside the required elements, met by rejection of claim 24).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeow et al. (Yeow, US 2017/0042439) as applied to claims 1, 10 above, and further in view of Connor (US 2015/0313496).
Regarding claim 2, Yeow teaches so that, when the attachment is placed on the head of the person, cerebral electrical activity or brain potentials are or can be tapped there and can be transmitted to the analog-to-digital converter and the microprocessor (intended use with inferenced elements which do not bear patentable weight are capability of the claimed structures in Figures 1-3), but the limitations that wherein the electrodes are arranged in a 10/20 distribution on the attachment is not directly taught.
The 10-20 arrangement is well known in the art, Conor teaches a related system for brain activity (see title, abstract), and teaches usage of attachments such as bicycle helmet, helmet, cap, beanie (see at least [0019], [0563]-[0564]), and teaches the locations of electrodes can include 10-20 locations (see at least [0325]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known locations of electrodes on known structures in order to measure brain activity as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Yeow teaches electrodes for creating one or two reference potentials for the other electrodes and for the reference potential-defined acquisition of the EEG signals from the person as subject or test person (intended use, see at least [0078]), but the limitations of wherein two earlobe electrodes (Ai, A2) are arranged laterally on the attachment are not directly taught.
The 10-20 arrangement is well known in the art, Conor teaches a related system for brain activity (see title, abstract), and teaches usage of attachments such as bicycle helmet, helmet, cap, beanie (see at least [0019], [0563]-[0564]), and teaches the locations of electrodes can include 10-20 locations, which includes two earlobe electrodes (Ai, A2) are arranged laterally on the attachment (see at least [0325]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known locations of electrodes on known structures in order to measure brain activity as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 31, the limitations are met by Yeow, except the limitation of wherein the helmet comprises a bicycle helmet is not directly taught. While it is likely the helmet of Yeow could be used on a bicycle, Connor directly teaches this as Conor teaches a related system for brain activity (see title, abstract), and teaches usage of attachments such as bicycle helmet, helmet, cap, beanie (see at least [0019], [0563]-[0564]), and teaches the locations of electrodes can include 10-20 locations (see at least [0325]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use known locations of electrodes on known structures in order to measure brain activity as is known in the art.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeow et al. (Yeow, US 2017/0042439) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Villarreal (US 6,870,109).
Regarding claim 28, the limitations are met by Yeow, where Yeow teaches wires can be used inside the device (see [0108]), except the limitations of wherein the attachment and/or of virtual-reality glasses comprises electrically conductive components for shielding against extrinsic interference fields are not directly taught.
Villarreal teaches a system that can measure EEG, and includes structures for mitigating interference in patient monitoring by using a ferrous metal hose to shield wires (see at least Figure 3, claims 1, 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of shielding wires with ferrous material in order to shield sensed data from interference.
Response to Arguments
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to the claims and specification filed 11/26/2025; amendments to the drawings filed 12/4/2025 in a supplemental amendment (NOT ENTERED).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the drawing objections have been fully considered but are not persuasive as the amendments filed were late, and there was no explanation of changes as is a requirement. All objections remain and the Figures will be required to be resubmitted with appropriate explanation of changes. “All changes to the drawings shall be explained, in detail, in either the drawing amendment or remarks section of the amendment paper.”
Applicant’s arguments regarding the specification amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive as the amendments do not fully correct the issue raised. The objections remain.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim objections have been fully considered and the prior objections are withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims; however, the amendments have necessitated new objections as raised above.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive due to the amendments to the claims; however, the amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections as addressed above.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.US 2019/0387998, and US 2020/0302825 teach related subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R BLOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3252. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11-8 EST.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571)272-3672. 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.
/MICHAEL R BLOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791