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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 1 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore
meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract
idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “performing… a first hearing test on the first ear of the
user while the user is wearing the first hearing device”; “obtaining… an input signal while the first hearing test is being performed and while the user is wearing the second hearing device, wherein the input signal is indicative of ambient noise”; and “informing the user about the ambient noise or stopping the hearing test, based on a first ambient noise level associated with the ambient noise.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)lll.A. – in particular the reference to Electric Power group). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or
transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regards to the second step 2B, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that
amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “the first hearing device” and “the second
hearing device”. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because they are recited at a
high level of generality. A “first hearing device” and a “second hearing device” are recited at a high level
of generality to administer a hearing test.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements does not add anything significantly more to
the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements does not have any
function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than
the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35
U.S.C. 101. Claims 2-8 recite further limitations on abstract idea(s) that has/have already been recited.
Claim 9 recites “a receiver”, “a wireless communication interface”, “a processing unit” and “a memory
unit” which are all recited at a high level of generality to provide processing and communication of test
signals. Claim 10 recites “a microphone inlet of the primary microphone” which is recited at a high level
of generality to provide collection of sound. Claim 10 recites “a microphone inlet of the secondary
microphone” which is recited at a high level of generality in order to provide collection of sound. Claims 14-17 recite generic components well understood routine and conventional in the art at a high level of generality. Thus, claims 1-11 and 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 13, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim 13 is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore
meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, Claim 13 is directed to an abstract
idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “wherein the first hearing device is configured to perform a
first hearing test on the first ear of the user” and “wherein the second hearing device is configured to
obtain an input signal while the first hearing test is being performed, wherein the input signal is
indicative of ambient noise, wherein the set of hearing devices is configured to stop the first hearing test or to inform the user about the ambient noise, based on the input signal” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represent abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)lll.A. – in particular the reference to Electric Power group). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regards to the second step 2B, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that
amount to significantly more. The additional elements are “a first hearing device”, “a second hearing
device”, “an output transducer”, “an input transducer”, “a wireless communication interface”, “a
processing unit” and “a memory unit”. However, these elements are not “significantly more” because
they are recited at a high level of generality. A “first hearing device” and a “second hearing device” are
recited at a high level of generality to administer a hearing test. The “output transducer” and “input
transducer” are recited at a high level of generality to provide emission and collection of sound. The
“wireless communication interface” is recited at a high level of generality to provide the transmission of
data. The “processing unit” is recited at a high level of generality to provide processing of data. The
“memory unit” is merely recited at a high level of generality to provide storage of data.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements does not add anything significantly more to
the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements does not have any
function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than
the sum of its parts.
Claims 18, 19, and 21 recite generic components well understood routine and conventional in the art at a high level of generality.
In view of the above, independent claim 13 and claims 18, 19, and 21 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rix (2015/0358745) in view of Wasden (2005/0033193)
Regarding claim 1, Rix teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a self-fitting hearing test performed via a set of hearing devices (Abstract, Figure 1, hearing test kit 10), the set of hearing devices comprising a first hearing device configured to be worn at a first ear of a user (Figure 1, earpiece 20, Paragraph 0048 lines 1-3) and a second hearing device configured to be worn at a second ear of the user (Figure 1, earpiece 22, Paragraph 0048 lines 1-3), the method comprising:
performing, via the first hearing device, a first hearing test on the first ear of the user (Paragraph 0056) while the user is wearing the first hearing device (user must wear device to use it);
obtaining, via the second hearing device, an input signal while the first hearing test is being performed and while the user is wearing the second hearing device (user wears both hearing devices simultaneously), wherein the input signal is indicative of ambient noise (Paragraph 0061 “earpiece 22 may have a microphone provided therein for detection of the ambient noise”, thus earpiece 22 may also detect ambient noise during testing by earpiece 20 since Rix states “ambient noise present in either earpiece 20, 22 is “a sweep ambient noise test…is done to determine the ambient noise level”).
However, Rix fails to teach informing the user about the ambient noise, or stopping the first hearing test, based on a first ambient noise level associated with the ambient noise.
Wasden teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a hearing test (Abstract) comprising determining an ambient noise level (Paragraph 0032, Figure 3, via ambient noise monitoring module 300) and outputting the ambient noise level (Paragraph 0032, Figure 4, via ambient noise screen 400). Doing so would allow the user to better understand the intensity of the noise present in their surrounding environment.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rix to include outputting the first ambient noise level as taught by Wasden in order to allow the user to better understand the intensity of the noise present in their surrounding environment.
Regarding claim 2, Rix as modified by Wasden teaches comparing the first ambient noise level to a first noise threshold (Rix, Paragraph 0050); and if the first ambient noise level exceeds the first noise threshold, outputting a user notification (Rix, Paragraph 0050 “If ambient noise level is >40 dB the user is informed the environment is not suitable”).
Regarding claim 4, Rix as modified by Wasden teaches subsequent to performing the first hearing test, performing via the second hearing device a second hearing test on the second ear of the user (Rix, Paragraph 0061 lines 1-3); while performing the second hearing test, obtaining via the first hearing device another input signal, wherein the other input signal is indicative of ambient noise (Rix, Paragraph 0061 lines 3-7); determining a second ambient noise level based on the other input signal (Rix, Paragraph 0061 lines 3-7); and outputting the second ambient noise level (Wasden, Paragraph 0032, Figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Rix as modified by Wasden teaches comparing the second ambient noise level to a second noise threshold (Rix, Paragraph 0050); if the second ambient noise level exceeds the second noise threshold, stopping the second hearing test (Rix, Paragraph 0050 “If ambient noise level is >40 dB the user is informed the environment is not suitable”).
Regarding claim 7, Rix as modified by Wasden teaches re-starting the second hearing test on the second ear of the user, if the user reinitiates the second hearing test after the second hearing test has been stopped (Rix, Paragraph 0050 “Another sweep ambient noise test is done to determine the ambient noise level. This is continued until the proper testing conditions are achieved”, this indicates that the test is restarted each time after it’s stopped due to high ambient noise levels).
Regarding claim 8, Rix as modified by Wasden teaches determining a hearing profile based on a result of the first hearing test and a result of the second hearing test (Rix, Paragraph 0062).
Regarding claim 14, Rix further teaches the use of a hearing aid for the first and second hearing devices (par. 65).
Regarding claim 17, Rix further teaches wherein the act of performing the first hearing test via the first hearing device and the act of obtaining the input signal via the second hearing device, together, reduce feedback and distribute usage of processing power (reducing ambient noise would reduce feedback and as a result have a better test outcome thereby reducing processing power).
Claims 3, 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rix in view of Wasden as applied to claims 1-2 and 5 above, and further in view of Henriksen et al. (US 20120029383 A1 – cited by applicant), hereinafter “Henriksen”.
Regarding claim 3, Rix as modified by Wasden fails to teach comparing the first ambient noise level to a second noise threshold; and if the first ambient noise level exceeds the second noise threshold, stopping the first hearing test.
Henriksen teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a hearing test performed via a set of hearing devices (Abstract, Paragraph 0012 lines 1-9), comprising comparing an ambient noise level to a first (Paragraph 0065 “a dangerous level of sound” indicates one threshold) and second threshold (Paragraph 0065 “background level of noise is too high” indicates another threshold), and stopping the hearing test if the ambient noise level exceeds the second noise threshold (Paragraph 0065 “prevent initiation of a test session”). Doing so can help ensure proper testing is able to take place.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fil ing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rix as modified by Wasden to include comparing the first ambient noise level to a second noise threshold; and if the first ambient noise level exceeds the second noise threshold, stopping the first hearing test as taught by Henriksen in order to ensure proper testing is able to take place.
Regarding claim 6, Rix as modified by Wasden fails to teach storing a result of the first hearing test if the second ambient noise level exceeds the second noise threshold.
Henriksen teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a hearing test performed via a set of hearing devices (Abstract, Paragraph 0012 lines 1-9), comprising storing a result of a first hearing test (Paragraph 0066 lines 31-39) if a second ambient noise level exceeds a second noise threshold (Paragraph 0065 “background level of noise is too high” indicates another threshold). The Examiner notes that Henriksen teaches storing results of a first hearing test regardless of if the ambient noise measured during a second hearing test exceeds a threshold, thus the results of the first hearing test would still be stored if the ambient noise measured during the second test exceeds the threshold. Doing so would provide results that could be used in future assessments to measure progress of a user’s hearing.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rix as modified by Wasden to include storing a result of the first hearing test if the second ambient noise level exceeds the second noise threshold as taught by Henriksen in order to provide results that could be used in future assessments to measure progress of a user’s hearing.
Regarding claim 11, Rix as modified by Wasden fails to teach each of the first and second hearing devices comprises a primary microphone and a secondary microphone; wherein a microphone inlet of the secondary microphone of the first hearing device is configured to receive sounds from a first ear canal of the user, and/or wherein a microphone inlet of the secondary microphone of the second hearing device is configured to receive sounds from a second ear canal of the user.
Henriksen teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a hearing test performed via a set of hearing devices (Abstract, Paragraph 0012 lines 1-9), wherein the hearing devices comprise a primary (Paragraph 0063 lines 1-6) and secondary microphone (Paragraph 0062 lines 16-31); wherein the secondary microphone is configured to receive sounds from an ear canal of the user (Paragraph 0062 lines 16-31). Henriksen also teaches that including such a component would help determine if ambient noise penetration is too high (Paragraph 0062 lines 16-31).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rix as modified by Wasden such that each of the first and second hearing devices comprises a primary microphone and a secondary microphone; wherein a microphone inlet of the secondary microphone of the first hearing device is configured to receive sounds from a first ear canal of the user, and/or wherein a microphone inlet of the secondary microphone of the second hearing device is configured to receive sounds from a second ear canal of the user as taught by Henriksen in order to help determine if ambient noise penetration is too high (Henriksen, Paragraph 0062 lines 16-31).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rix in view of Wasden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shennib (US 10341790 B2), hereinafter “Shennib”.
Regarding claim 9, Rix as modified by Wasden fails to teach each of the first and second hearing devices comprises a receiver, a wireless communication interface, a processing unit and a memory unit.
Shennib teaches a method for a self-fitting hearing test performed by a set of hearing devices (Abstract, Figures 1 and 6, hearing device 100), comprising a first and second hearing device (Figure 6, hearing device 100) each comprising a receiver (Figure 1, wireless antenna 118), a wireless communication interface (Figure 1, wireless electronics 116), a processing unit (Figure 1, processor 126), and a memory unit (Figure 1, memory 128). Including such components would reduce the number of additional components needed to conduct a test.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rix as modified by Wasden such that each of the first and second hearing devices comprises a receiver, a wireless communication interface, a processing unit and a memory unit as taught by Shennib in order to reduce the number of additional components needed to conduct a test.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rix in view of Wasden and Shennib as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Henriksen.
Regarding claim 10, Rix as modified by Wasden and Shennib fails to teach the first and second hearing devices also comprise a primary microphone; wherein a microphone inlet of the primary microphone of the first hearing device is configured to receive sounds from an environment outside the first hearing device, and/or wherein a microphone inlet of the primary microphone of the second hearing device is configured to configured to receive sounds from an environment outside the second hearing device.
Henriksen teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a hearing test performed via a set of hearing devices (Abstract, Paragraph 0012 lines 1-9), wherein the hearing devices comprise a primary (Paragraph 0063 lines 1-6) and secondary microphone (Paragraph 0062 lines 16-31); wherein the primary microphone is configured to receive sounds from an environment outside the first hearing device (Paragraph 0061 lines 1-6). Henriksen also teaches that including such a component would allow the user to still hear outside sounds without being exposed to dangerous noise levels (Paragraph 0062 lines 6-9).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rix as modified by Wasden and Shennib such that the first and second hearing devices also comprise a primary microphone; wherein a microphone inlet of the primary microphone of the first hearing device is configured to receive sounds from an environment outside the first hearing device, and/or wherein a microphone inlet of the primary microphone of the second hearing device is configured to configured to receive sounds from an environment outside the second hearing device as taught by Henriksen in order to allow the user to still hear outside sounds without being exposed to dangerous noise levels (Henriksen, Paragraph 0062 lines 6-9).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rix (2015/0358745) in view of Wasden (2005/0033193) in further view of Howell (11,852,901).
Regarding claim 15, a modified Rix fails to teach wherein the first and second hearing devices are ear buds.
Howell teaches the use of ear buds (item 2218) in in a similar system which tests the users hearing, provides a hearing enhancement, and considers ambient noise levels via a microphone when providing the enhancement (abstract, col. 20, lines 40-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize earbuds as taught by Howell to the modified system of Rix, the motivation being that these are essentially equivalent substitutions that would have yielded predictable results, namely providing amplification of sound into the user’s ear. It is noted that ear buds are considered well understood and the examiner takes official notice of this as evidenced by Howell.
Regarding cliam 16, a modified Rix fails to teach wherein the act of obtaining the input signal indicative of ambient noise is performed using a microphone facing away from the user.
Howell teaches the use of a microphone (fig. 1, item 110) that faces away from the user in order to determine ambient noise (col. 20, lines 40-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a microphone as taught by Howell pointing towards where the user is speaking to the system of Rix, the motivation being that the microphone should focus on where the ambient noise would be coming from and it would be unlikely to have ambient noise primarily coming from the body.
Claims 13, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rix in view of Shennib in view of Wasden.
Regarding claim 13, Rix teaches a set of hearing devices comprising: a first hearing device configured to be worn at a first ear of a user (Figure 1, earpiece 20); and a second hearing device configured to be worn at a second ear of the user (Figure 1, earpiece 22); wherein the first hearing device is configured to perform a first hearing test on the first ear of the user (Paragraph0056); and wherein the second hearing device is configured to obtain an input signal while the first hearing test is being performed, wherein the input signal is indicative of ambient noise (Paragraph 0061 “earpiece 22 may have a microphone provided therein for detection of the ambient noise”, thus earpiece 22 may also detect ambient noise during testing by earpiece 20 since Rix states “ambient noise present in either earpiece 20, 22 is essentially the same”). However, Rix fails to teach each of the first and second hearing devices comprises: an output transducer, an input transducer, a wireless communication interface, a processing unit, and a memory unit.
Shennib teaches a set of hearing devices (Abstract, Figures 1 and 6, hearing device 100), comprising a first and second hearing device (Figure 6, hearing device 100) each comprising an output transducer (Figure 1, speaker 124), an input transducer (Figure 1, microphone 122), a wireless communication interface (Figure 1, wireless antenna 118, wireless electronics 116), a processing unit (Figure 1, processor 126), and a memory unit (Figure 1, memory 128). Including such components would reduce the number of additional components needed to conduct a test.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the devices of Rix such that each of the first and second hearing devices comprises an output transducer, an input transducer, a wireless communication interface, a processing unit, and a memory unit as taught by Shennib in order to reduce the number of additional components needed to conduct a test.
However, Rix fails to teach informing the user about the ambient noise, or stopping the first hearing test, based on a first ambient noise level associated with the ambient noise.
Wasden teaches a method for determining ambient noise during a hearing test (Abstract) comprising determining an ambient noise level (Paragraph 0032, Figure 3, via ambient noise monitoring module 300) and outputting the ambient noise level (Paragraph 0032, Figure 4, via ambient noise screen 400). Doing so would allow the user to better understand the intensity of the noise present in their surrounding environment.
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Rix to include outputting the first ambient noise level as taught by Wasden in order to allow the user to better understand the intensity of the noise present in their surrounding environment.
Regarding claim 18, Rix further teaches the use of a hearing aid for the first and second hearing devices (par. 65).
Regarding claim 21, Rix further teaches wherein the act of performing the first hearing test via the first hearing device and the act of obtaining the input signal via the second hearing device, together, reduce feedback and distribute usage of processing power (reducing ambient noise would reduce feedback and as a result have a better test outcome thereby reducing processing power).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rix in view of Shennib in view of Wasden and in further view of Howell (11,852,901).
Regarding claim 19, a modified Rix fails to teach wherein the first and second hearing devices are ear buds.
Howell teaches the use of ear buds (item 2218) in in a similar system which tests the users hearing, provides a hearing enhancement, and considers ambient noise levels via a microphone when providing the enhancement (abstract, col. 20, lines 40-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize earbuds as taught by Howell to the modified system of Rix, the motivation being that these are essentially equivalent substitutions that would have yielded predictable results, namely providing amplification of sound into the user’s ear. It is noted that ear buds are considered well understood and the examiner takes official notice of this as evidenced by Howell.
Regarding claim 20, a modified Rix fails to teach wherein the act of obtaining the input signal indicative of ambient noise is performed using a microphone facing away from the user.
Howell teaches the use of a microphone (fig. 1, item 110) that faces away from the user in order to determine ambient noise (col. 20, lines 40-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a microphone as taught by Howell pointing towards where the user is speaking to the system of Rix, the motivation being that the microphone should focus on where the ambient noise would be coming from and it would be unlikely to have ambient noise primarily coming from the body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments towards the 35U.S.C.101 rejection, the Applicant argues that the claims are not drawn to an abstract idea because the hearing devices are performing the data gathering. It is noted that the structure of the claim is recited at a very high level of generality of well known components in the field of endeavor. The Examiner notes that the input signal being indicative of ambient noise (despite “determining” not being recited) the system must come to that conclusion and that conclusion is a mental process. It is noted that the dependent claims clearly recite the comparison step which constitutes the clear mental process step. The Applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more in lieu of the “informing the user…” step. However, this appears to be insignificant extra solution activity. It is further noted that displaying or notifying a user of a value is well known in the field of medical diagnostics. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The Examiner notes that claims 16 and 20 appear to overcome the 101 rejection.
Regarding the arguments to the amendments, the Examiner respectfully traverses. The Examiner acknowledges that if the claim purely recited stopping the hearing test that it would overcome the prior art rejection. Even though Rix adjusts the ambient noise level, that does not necessarily preclude a benefit of notifying the user that the test was adjusted/modified. Also, it is noted that Nix has a +/-% variance which indicates imperfect cancelation and thus the results of a hearing test with excessive ambient noise versus one without significant outside noise would likely be skewed, thus knowledge of the matter would be beneficial.
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 ALEX M VALVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-4233. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
ALEX M. VALVIS
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791