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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/4/2026 has been entered.
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, 3-7, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (US 2021/0051427) in view of Kvist (US 2019/0191256) in view of Sadler et al. (US 2001/0011964) in view of Prabhu et al. (US 2022/0394399).
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt discloses a hearing device, comprising:
a housing configured for insertion in an ear canal of a user (¶ 0022);
a face plate (Fig. 1C/D: 16) of the housing configured to carry electronic components (Fig. 1D: 32, 34, 36) of the hearing device (¶ 0032); and
a
Schmidt is not relied upon to disclose that the line antenna is a meander line antenna, and that the conductive traces are shaped as meandering folds.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kvist discloses that in a hearing device, arranging the conductive traces (e.g., 13, 14, and/or 16) of a dipole (¶ 0018) antenna in a meandering shape and/or form (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0101) allows for:
a compact antenna structure (¶ 0101),
enable better control of the fundamental tradeoff between antenna size, bandwidth and efficiency (¶ 0050), and/or
antenna efficiency may be maintained while reducing the size of the antenna, thereby providing a smaller, such as a reduced, size antenna while keeping, such as retaining, such as sustaining, a satisfactory, such as acceptable, such as normal, such as standard, such as appropriate, level of antenna efficiency, thereby providing a small yet efficient antenna (¶ 0050).
Additionally, Sadler discloses a meander line antenna (¶ 0038, 0040) that is a dipole antenna (¶ 0037) having two dipole arms (66 and 76) being carried by a planar substrate (52), wherein each dipole arm of the dipole antenna (66 and 76) is electrically coupled to an electrical contact (48a and 48b), wherein each dipole arm (66 and 76) are shaped as meandering folds that extend monotonically away from their respective electrical contacts (48a and 48b) (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange each of the conductive traces (12A and 12B) of the antenna of Schmidt in a meandering shape and/or form, as taught by Kvist, where the meandering shape and/or form is that of Sadler,
which would result in: the line antenna being a meander line antenna, wherein each dipole arm has conductive traces that are shaped as meandering folds that extend monotonically away from their respective electrical contacts,
the motivation being to allow for:
a compact antenna structure (Kvist - ¶ 0101),
enable better control of the fundamental tradeoff between antenna size, bandwidth and efficiency (Kvist - ¶ 0050), and/or
antenna efficiency may be maintained while reducing the size of the antenna, thereby providing a smaller, such as a reduced, size antenna while keeping, such as retaining, such as sustaining, a satisfactory, such as acceptable, such as normal, such as standard, such as appropriate, level of antenna efficiency, thereby providing a small yet efficient antenna (Kvist - ¶ 0050), and
the motivation being to meander the conductive traces in a manner that is suitable for a long narrow board (i.e. the long narrow board of 14 of Schmidt, which is similar to the long narrow board 50 of Sadler).
Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler is not relied upon to disclose wherein each dipole arm of the dipole antenna is carried by a separate flexible printed circuit board.
In a similar field of endeavor, Prabhu discloses a meandered dipole antenna (¶ 0038) wherein each dipole arm (402a and 402b) of the dipole antenna is carried by a separate flexible printed circuit board (412a and 412b, respectively) (¶ 0037, 0039) (¶ 0040: strap 404 that connects 412a and 412b as seen in Fig. 4 is optional as it is included “in some embodiments”, and thus in an embodiment where the strap 404 is not included, 412a and 412b will be separate) (Fig. 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try to configure the dipole antenna as one wherein each dipole arm is carried by a same flexible printed circuit board (as taught by Schmidt) or by a separate flexible printed circuit board (as taught by Prabhu), and note that the latter would result in: wherein each dipole arm of the dipole antenna is carried by a separate flexible printed circuit board, the motivation being to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success to address the issue of what configurations a flexible dipole antenna can be presented in. See MPEP § 2143(E).
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 1, and Schmidt discloses wherein the flexible printed circuit board comprises a first edge (Fig. 1A: 24) that is at least partially housed in a trench (Fig. 1C: 18) of the face plate and a second edge (Fig. 1A: 22) that is opposite from the first edge, and wherein the trench follows a perimeter of the face plate (Fig. 1C/D) (¶ 0029).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 3, and Schmidt discloses wherein the first edge (24) of the flexible printed circuit board is aligned with a bottom of the trench (¶ 0025).
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 4, and Schmidt discloses wherein a wall is configured in the faceplate (Fig. 1C: wall of trench 18) and the flexible printed circuit board is at least partially aligned against the wall configured in the face plate, and wherein the second edge (22) of the flexible printed circuit board is flush with at least a portion of an edge of the wall (¶ 0029).
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 3, and Schmidt discloses wherein the flexible printed circuit board has a nonuniform width between the first edge and the second edge (see Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 1, and Schmidt discloses adding additional dielectric material to the flexible printed circuit board to achieve antenna tuning (¶ 0031).
Additionally, Sadler discloses wherein the printed circuit board has a non-uniform thickness to achieve additional antenna tuning (¶ 0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein the flexible printed circuit board has a non-uniform thickness,
the motivation being to: achieve additional antenna tuning (Schmidt - ¶ 0031) (Sadler - ¶ 0053).
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 1.
Additionally, Kvist discloses wherein the dipole arms (¶ 0018) of the meander line antenna have different lengths (¶ 0017, 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein the dipole arms of the meander line antenna have different lengths,
the motivation being that the dipole arms may deviate within a range of +/-10% (Kvist - ¶ 0017, 0045).
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 1.
Additionally, Kvist discloses wherein the meandering folds of the meander line antenna are shaped as a rectangular pattern (¶ 0037, meandering shape can be rectangular pattern, as illustrated in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein the meandering folds of the meander line antenna are shaped as a rectangular pattern,
the motivation being to base the meandering shape on a shape already taught by Kvist (Kvist - ¶ 0037 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 12, wherein the meandering folds are at least partially housed in a trench (Schmidt - Fig. 1C: 18) of the face plate (Schmidt - see Figs. 1C and 1D) (Schmidt - ¶ 0029: the conductive traces 12A and 12B of Schmidt are housed in trench 18, and thus similarly the meandering folds of the conductive traces resulting from combination with Kvist and Sadler will also be housed in the trench), and mutually connected by connecting sections that at least partially follow a bottom of the trench (Sadler – Fig. 2: the horizontal portions of 66 and 76 are connected by connecting sections (i.e. vertical portions of 66 and 76) that run parallel to the extension direction (i.e. horizontal direction), and thus similarly the connecting sections of the meandering folds applied to Schmidt will run parallel to the extension direction of the PCB in the trench, and thus follow a bottom of the trench).
The teachings of Kvist and Sadler relied upon above are combinable with Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 1.
Additionally, Sadler discloses wherein a spacing among individual traces (64 and 74) of the meander line antenna is non-uniform along a span of the meander line antenna (Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein a spacing among individual traces of the meander line antenna is non-uniform along a span of the meander line antenna,
the motivation being to: produces differing effects, all of which help to tune the antenna to the desired frequencies (Sadler - ¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 18, Schmidt discloses a hearing device, comprising:
a housing configured for insertion in an ear canal of a user (¶ 0022);
a face plate (Fig. 1C/D: 16) of the housing configured to carry electronic components (Fig. 1D: 32, 34, 36) of the hearing device (¶ 0032); and
a dipole arm of the dipole antenna is carried by a
Schmidt is not relied upon to disclose a meander line antenna operatively coupled to the electronic components of the hearing devices, wherein conductive traces of the meander line antenna are at least partially shaped as meandering folds, wherein the meander line antenna is a dipole antenna having dipole arms of different lengths, wherein the meandering folds of the dipole arms are carried by a flexible printed circuit board that is configured perpendicularly with respect to a principal plane of the face plate, wherein each dipole arm of the dipole antenna is electrically coupled to an electrical contact of the face plate, wherein the meandering of each dipole arm extend monotonically away from their respective electrical contacts.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kvist discloses that in a hearing device, arranging the conductive traces (e.g., 13, 14, and/or 16) of a dipole (¶ 0018) antenna in a meandering shape and/or form (Fig. 2 and ¶ 0101) allows for:
a compact antenna structure (¶ 0101),
enable better control of the fundamental tradeoff between antenna size, bandwidth and efficiency (¶ 0050), and/or
antenna efficiency may be maintained while reducing the size of the antenna, thereby providing a smaller, such as a reduced, size antenna while keeping, such as retaining, such as sustaining, a satisfactory, such as acceptable, such as normal, such as standard, such as appropriate, level of antenna efficiency, thereby providing a small yet efficient antenna (¶ 0050).
Additionally, Sadler discloses a meander line antenna (¶ 0038, 0040), wherein conductive traces (66 and 76) of the meander line antenna are at least partially shaped as meandering folds (see Fig. 2), wherein the meander line antenna is a dipole antenna (¶ 0037) having dipole arms (66 and 76)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange each of the conductive traces (12A and 12B) of the antenna of Schmidt in a meandering shape and/or form, as taught by Kvist, where the meandering shape and/or form is that of Sadler,
which would result in:
a meander line antenna operatively coupled to the electronic components of the hearing devices, wherein conductive traces of the meander line antenna are at least partially shaped as meandering folds (shaped in the manner taught by Sadler), wherein the meander line antenna is a dipole antenna having dipole arms , wherein the meandering folds of the dipole arms are carried by a flexible printed circuit board (of Schmidt) that is configured perpendicularly with respect to a principal plane of the face plate (as taught by Schmidt), wherein each dipole arm of the dipole antenna is electrically coupled to an electrical contact of the face plate, and wherein the meandering of each dipole arm extend monotonically away from their respective electrical contacts.
the motivation being to allow for:
a compact antenna structure (Kvist - ¶ 0101),
enable better control of the fundamental tradeoff between antenna size, bandwidth and efficiency (Kvist - ¶ 0050), and/or
antenna efficiency may be maintained while reducing the size of the antenna, thereby providing a smaller, such as a reduced, size antenna while keeping, such as retaining, such as sustaining, a satisfactory, such as acceptable, such as normal, such as standard, such as appropriate, level of antenna efficiency, thereby providing a small yet efficient antenna (Kvist - ¶ 0050), and
the motivation being to meander the conductive traces in a manner that is suitable for a long narrow board (i.e. the long narrow board of 14 of Schmidt, which is similar to the long narrow board 50 of Sadler).
Additionally, Kvist discloses wherein the meander line antenna is a dipole antenna (¶ 0018) having dipole arms of different lengths (¶ 0017, 0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein the meander line antenna is a dipole antenna having dipole arms of different lengths,
the motivation being that the dipole arms may deviate within a range of +/-10% (Kvist - ¶ 0017, 0045).
Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler is not relied upon to disclose wherein each dipole arm of the dipole antenna is carried by a separate flexible printed circuit board.
In a similar field of endeavor, Prabhu discloses a meandered dipole antenna (¶ 0038) wherein each dipole arm (402a and 402b) of the dipole antenna is carried by a separate flexible printed circuit board (412a and 412b, respectively) (¶ 0037, 0039) (¶ 0040: strap 404 that connects 412a and 412b as seen in Fig. 4 is optional as it is included “in some embodiments”, and thus in an embodiment where the strap 404 is not included, 412a and 412b will be separate) (Fig. 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try to configure the dipole antenna as one wherein each dipole arm is carried by a same flexible printed circuit board (as taught by Schmidt) or by a separate flexible printed circuit board (as taught by Prabhu), and note that the latter would result in: wherein each dipole arm of the dipole antenna is carried by a separate flexible printed circuit board, the motivation being to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success to address the issue of what configurations a flexible dipole antenna can be presented in. See MPEP § 2143(E).
Regarding claim 20, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 18.
Additionally, Kvist discloses wherein the meandering folds of the meander line antenna are shaped as a rectangular pattern or a triangular pattern (¶ 0037, meandering shape can be rectangular pattern, as illustrated in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein the meandering folds of the meander line antenna are shaped as a rectangular pattern,
the motivation being to base the meandering shape on a shape already taught by Kvist (Kvist - ¶ 0037 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 18, wherein the meandering folds are at least partially housed in a trench (Schmidt - Fig. 1C: 18) of the face plate (Schmidt - see Figs. 1C and 1D) (Schmidt - ¶ 0029: the conductive traces 12A and 12B of Kvist are housed in trench 18, and thus similarly the meandering folds of the conductive traces resulting from combination with Kvist will also be housed in the trench), and wherein connecting sections of rectangles of the meandering folds at least partially follow a bottom of the trench (Sadler – Fig. 2: the horizontal portions of 66 and 76 are connected by connecting sections (i.e. vertical portions of 66 and 76) that run parallel to the extension direction (i.e. horizontal direction), and thus similarly the connecting sections of the meandering folds applied to Schmidt will run parallel to the extension direction of the PCB in the trench, and thus follow a bottom of the trench).
The teachings of Kvist and Sadler relied upon above are combinable with Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 18 rejection.
Regarding claim 23, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 18.
Additionally, Sadler discloses wherein a spacing among individual meandering folds (of 64 and 74) of the meander line antenna is non-uniform along a span of the meander line antenna (Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein a spacing among individual meandering folds of the meander line antenna is non-uniform along a span of the meander line antenna,
the motivation being to: produces differing effects, all of which help to tune the antenna to the desired frequencies (Sadler - ¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 24, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 18, and Schmidt discloses wherein the flexible printed circuit board comprises a first edge (Fig. 1A: 24) that faces the face plate and a second edge (22) that is opposite from the first edge, wherein the flexible printed circuit board has a non-uniform width between the first edge and the second edge (see Fig. 1A), wherein the flexible printed circuit board is at least partially housed in a trench (Fig. 1C: 18) configured in the face plate (¶ 0029), wherein the first edge (24) follows a bottom of the trench (¶ 0025), and wherein the second edge (22) of the flexible printed circuit board is flush with at least a portion of a wall (wall of trench) of the face plate (¶ 0029).
Claim(s) 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Kvist in view of Sadler in view of Prabhu in view of Tomomatsu et al. (US 2002/0149538).
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 1.
Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu is not relied upon to disclose wherein the meandering folds comprise a first plurality of the meandering folds and a second plurality of the meandering folds,
wherein the first plurality of the meandering folds is closer to the electrical contacts than the second plurality of the meandering folds, and
wherein individual meandering folds of the first plurality of the meandering folds are configured closer to each other than individual meandering folds of the second plurality of the meandering folds.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tomomatsu discloses:
wherein the meandering folds comprise a first plurality (22a) of the meandering folds and a second plurality (22b) of the meandering folds (Fig. 1A),
wherein the first plurality (22a) of the meandering folds is closer to the electrical contacts (24) than the second plurality (22b) of the meandering folds (Fig. 1A), and
wherein individual meandering folds of the first plurality (22a) of the meandering folds are configured closer to each other than individual meandering folds of the second plurality (22b) of the meandering folds (Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: configure the meandering folds of each of 12A and 12B of Schmidt as taught by Tomomatsu,
which would result in:
wherein the meandering folds comprise a first plurality of the meandering folds and a second plurality of the meandering folds,
wherein the first plurality of the meandering folds is closer to the electrical contacts than the second plurality of the meandering folds, and
wherein individual meandering folds of the first plurality of the meandering folds are configured closer to each other than individual meandering folds of the second plurality of the meandering folds,
the motivation being to: allow the antenna and power supply line to be easily matched (Tomomatsu - ¶ 0039).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu-Tomomatsu discloses the hearing device of claim 10, and Tomomatsu discloses wherein the individual meandering folds of the first plurality (22a) of the meandering folds are smaller than individual meandering folds of the second plurality (22b) of the meandering folds (see Fig. 1A).
The teachings of Tomomatsu relied upon above are combinable with Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu-Tomomatsu for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 10 rejection.
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Kvist in view of Sadler in view of Prabhu in view of Waki et al. (WO 2004/025781 using an English machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 1.
Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu is not relied upon to disclose wherein the meandering folds of the meander line antenna are shaped as a triangular pattern.
In a similar field of endeavor, Waki discloses wherein the meandering folds of the meander line antenna are shaped as either a rectangular pattern (Fig. 1a) or a triangular pattern (Fig. 1b) (page 5, lines 4-18).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try shaping the meandering folds of the meander line antenna as either one of a rectangular pattern or a triangular pattern,
where the latter would result in: wherein the meandering folds of the meander line antenna are shaped as a triangular pattern,
the motivation being to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success to address the issue of how to pattern the folds of a meander line antenna. See MPEP § 2143(E).
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu-Waki discloses the hearing device of claim 14, and Waki discloses wherein the triangular pattern includes connecting sections (Fig. 1b: the flat horizontal portions of the triangle pattern).
The teachings of Waki relied upon above are combinable with Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu-Waki for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 14 rejection.
Claim(s) 16, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt in view of Kvist in view of Sadler in view of Prabhu in view of Mao et al. (US 2011/0025576).
Regarding claim 16, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 1.
Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu is not relied upon to disclose wherein a shape of the meandering folds is selected from a group consisting of a polynomial pattern, a sinusoidal pattern, and a spline pattern.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mao discloses a shape of the meandering folds is selected from a group consisting of a triangular pattern (131), a trapezoidal pattern (132), a spiral pattern (134), and a sinusoidal pattern (133) (Fig. 14).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try shaping the meandering folds of the meander line antenna as any one of a triangular pattern, a trapezoidal pattern, a spiral pattern, and a sinusoidal pattern,
where the last choice would result in: wherein a shape of the meandering folds is selected from a group consisting of a polynomial pattern, a sinusoidal pattern, and a spline pattern,
the motivation being to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success to address the issue of how to pattern the folds of a meander line antenna. See MPEP § 2143(E).
Regarding claim 22, Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu discloses the hearing device of claim 18.
Schmidt-Kvist-Sadler-Prabhu is not relied upon to disclose wherein the meandering folds of the meander line antenna are shaped as a polynomial pattern, a sinusoidal pattern, or a spline pattern.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mao discloses the meandering folds of the meander line antenna are shaped as any one of a triangular pattern (131), a trapezoidal pattern (132), a spiral pattern (134), and a sinusoidal pattern (133) (Fig. 14).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try shaping the meandering folds of the meander line antenna as any one of a triangular pattern, a trapezoidal pattern, a spiral pattern, and a sinusoidal pattern,
where the last choice would result in: wherein the meandering folds of the meander line antenna are shaped as a polynomial pattern, a sinusoidal pattern, or a spline pattern,
the motivation being to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success to address the issue of how to pattern the folds of a meander line antenna. See MPEP § 2143(E).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Flood et al. (US 2018/0310106) discloses a dipole antenna (¶ 0030) wherein each dipole arm (314a and 314b) of the dipole antenna is carried by a separate element (304a and 304b, respectively) (Fig. 3), and that the antenna can comprise a conductive layer on a flexible printed circuit board (¶ 0028).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm 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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached on 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARK FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights