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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information
disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauger (US 20140126733 A1), and further in view of Voix (US 7688983 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Gauger (US 20140126733 A1) discloses a hearing protection assessment module for a Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) (Gauger, ¶
[0059]: “hearing protection”) device, comprising:
an ambient sound receiver that receives an indication of an ambient sound (Gauger, Fig. 2C, item 108; ¶ [0041]: “using one or more feed-forward microphones
...to detect the ambient sound”), wherein
the ambient sound is exterior of the PPE device and the ambient sound receiver is positioned on an exterior of the PPE device (Gauger, Fig. 3, item 108) to measure the ambient sound adjacent to the wearer's ear (Gauger, Fig. 2C, item 108; ¶ [0010 & 0041] – headphone/ear cup with an external FF microphone to measure ambient sound
adjacent to the user’s ear);
an experienced sound receiver that receives an indication of an experienced sound, wherein the experienced sound is a sound experienced by a user while wearing the PPE in the environment with the ambient sound (Gauger, ¶ [0041]: “The ambient
sounds in question may include all ambient sounds, just the voices of others, or the wearer's own voice.”).
However, Gauger fails to disclose a Field Attenuation Rating (FAR) calculator
that, based on the ambient and attenuated experienced sound indications, calculates a
personal attenuation rating for the PPE device.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Voix (US 7688983 B2) discloses a Field Attenuation Rating (FAR) calculator that, based on the ambient and experienced sound indications, calculates a personal attenuation rating for the PPE device (Voix, col. 16, lines 34-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Voix with Gauger to determine the acoustic attenuation obtained by an outside and an inside microphones in a hearing protection device worn by a user.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gauger and Voix discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Voix discloses a controller (Voix, Fig. 1, item 22) that, when triggered, causes the ambient sound receiver to capture a current indication of ambient sound (Voix, Fig. 1, item 28), the attenuated sound receiver to capture a current indication of experienced sound (Voix, Fig. 1, item 30; col. 11, lines 30-36:“ first 28 and second 30 sound measurement devices or microphones mounted in a back-to-back relationship relative to one another such that the first microphone 28 measures an external sound pressure level in proximity to the earplug and the second microphone 30 measures an internal sound pressure level inside the ear canal ”), and causes the FAR calculator to calculate a current personal attenuation rating based on the current ambient and experienced sound indications (Voix, Fig. 1, col. 7, lines 23-28), wherein the current ambient sound indication and the current experienced sound indication are captured substantially simultaneously (Voix, Fig. 1, items 42 and 44; see also the wired connection of microphones 26, 30 to the controller 22, simultaneously) .
Regarding claim 5, Gauger and Voix discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Voix further discloses a module of comprising:
an attenuation receiver that receives an indication of an expected attenuation
level (Voix, col. 6, lines 59-61: “controller unit analyzes said first and second
reference sound levels and assesses calibration of said first and second sound
measurement devices”); and wherein
the FAR calculator provides an indication of a deviation of the current attenuated
sound from the expected attenuation level (Voix, col. 7, lines 14-19: “comparing said
first and second sound levels to one another, said controller unit further
assessing an acoustic seal by further using a compensation term relating to the
in-ear device, said controller unit communicating with said user interface unit
to indicate to the user proper acoustic seal of the in-ear device inside the ear.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Voix with Gauger
to provide an apparatus for objective assessment of in-ear device acoustical performance.
Claim(s) 11, 23, 31, 33 and 45-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
as being unpatentable over Gauger (US 20140126733 A1), and further in view of Von Dach (US 20080011084 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Gauger discloses a hearing protection device (Gauger, ¶
[0059]: “hearing protection”) comprising:
a sound receiver configured to capture an ambient sound exterior to the hearing protection device, wherein
the sound receiver is positioned on an exterior of the PPE device (Gauger, Fig. 2C, item 108; ¶ [0041]: “using one or more feed-forward microphones ...to detect the ambient sound”) to measure the ambient sound adjacent to the wearer's ear (Gauger, Fig. 3, item 108).
However, Gauger fails to disclose a speaker configured to broadcast an
attenuated sound; and a sealing feature configured to at least partially seal an inner portion of the ear component from an outside of the ear component, wherein the
attenuated sound is broadcast in the inner portion; an experienced sound receiver
positioned in the inner portion, configured to capture an indication of an experienced
sound, experienced by a wearer of the pair of ear components in an environment with
the ambient sound; a field attenuation rating processor configured to, based on the
indication of the ambient sound and the indication of the experienced sound, calculate a
field attenuation rating (FAR) value for the hearing protection device.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Voix discloses a speaker configured to
broadcast an attenuated sound (Von Dach, Fig. 1, item 32); and
a sealing feature configured to at least partially seal an inner portion of the ear
component from an outside of the ear component, wherein the attenuated sound is
broadcast in the inner portion (Von Dach, Fig. 1, ¶ [0022]: “the microphone 16 of the
earplug 10 from the ear canal 14 which is acoustically sealed by the earplug 10”);
an experienced sound receiver positioned in the inner portion (Von Dach, Fig. 2,
item 16), configured to capture an indication of an experienced sound, experienced by a
wearer of the pair of ear components in an environment with the ambient sound;
a field attenuation rating processor configured to, based on the indication of the
ambient sound and the indication of the experienced sound, calculate a field attenuation
rating (FAR) value for the hearing protection device (Von Dach, ¶ [0022]: “the
computer, and subsequently the acoustic attenuation provided by the earplug 10
can be estimated from the processed audio signals”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Von Dach with Gauger to
determine the acoustic attenuation obtained by a hearing protection device worn by a
user.
Regarding claim 23, Gauger discloses a method of evaluating hearing
protection of a personal protective equipment (Gauger, ¶ [0059]: “hearing protection”)
device, the method comprising:
the ambient sound signal is measured exterior of the PPE device and the
ambient sound receiver is positioned on an exterior of the PPE device to measure the
ambient sound adjacent to the wearer's ear (Gauger, Fig. 2C, item 108; ¶ [0041]: “using
one or more feed-forward microphones ...to detect the ambient sound”).
However, Gauger fails to disclose activating a personal attenuation rating
monitoring module of a hearing protection system, wherein the hearing protection
system comprises a passive sound attenuation feature and a seal that separates an ear
canal of a user from an ambient environment; calculating a FAR value, using a FAR calculator, for the active hearing protection device in the hearing protection system,
wherein calculating comprises retrieving an ambient sound signal from an ambient
sound receiver and an experienced sound signal, from an experienced sound receiver
and comparing the experienced sound to the ambient sound, wherein the FAR value is
an indication of the comparison; and providing an indication of the FAR value.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Von Dach discloses activating a personal
attenuation rating monitoring module (Von Dach, ¶ [0023]: “the acoustic attenuation
provided by the earplug can be estimated from the processed audio signals”) of a
hearing protection system, wherein
the hearing protection system comprises a passive sound attenuation feature
and a seal that separates an ear canal of a user from an ambient environment (Von Dach, Fig. 2, item 300; ¶ [0023]: “the test sound (ambient) as attenuated by action of the earplug 10 is picked-up by the microphone 16 of the earplug 10 from the ear canal 14 which is acoustically sealed”);
calculating a FAR value, using a FAR calculator (Von Dach, Fig. 2, item 300; ¶
[0023]: “the test sound (ambient) as attenuated by action of the earplug 10 is
picked-up by the microphone 16 of the earplug 10 from the ear canal 14 which is
acoustically sealed ”), for the active hearing protection device in the hearing protection
system, wherein calculating comprises retrieving an ambient sound signal from an
ambient sound receiver (Von Dach, Fig. 2, item 34; ¶ [0020]: “ a microphone (ambient)
which is oriented towards the user's ear for picking up sound”) and
an experienced sound signal, from an experienced sound receiver (internal
microphone) (Von Dach, Fig. 2, item 16), ¶ [0020]: “can be estimated from the processed audio signals) and comparing the experienced sound to the ambient
sound, wherein the FAR value is an indication of the comparison; and providing an
indication of the FAR value (Von Dach, claim 11: “microphone of said hearing
protection device and said microphone of said measuring device are calibrated
relative to each other …comparing said audio signals captured by said
microphone of said hearing protection device and said audio signals captured by
said microphone of said measuring device.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Von Dach with Gauger to
determine the acoustic attenuation obtained by a hearing protection device worn by a
user.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach discloses all the
limitations of claim 23.
Von Dach further discloses wherein the hearing protection system comprises a
control unit communicably coupled to the hearing protection device (Von Dach, Fig. 1,
item 24; ¶ [0032]: “The audio signals from the microphones 16 and 34 undergo
some signal processing in the computer 24”).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach discloses all the
limitations of claim 23.
Von Dach further discloses wherein the steps of calculating and providing are
repeated periodically (Von Dach, Fig. 1, item 24, 32; ¶ [0022]: “an audio signal is
generated by the computer 24… is supplied to the loudspeaker 32”, this signal
could be a periodical signal).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach discloses all the
limitations of claim 11.
Gauger further discloses, wherein the device includes active noise reduction
applied to the ambient sound, and the personal attenuation rating is computed with the
active noise reduction disabled (Gauger, ¶ [0039]: “the ANR circuit is turned off,
allowing ambient sound to pass through or around the ear cup, providing passive
monitoring… uses the external microphone, coupled to the internal speaker by
the ANR circuit or some other circuit, to directly reproduce ambient sounds
inside the ear cup.”).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach discloses all the
limitations of claim 11.
Gauger further discloses, wherein the device adjusts one or both of a level-
dependent function and an active noise reduction based on the personal attenuation
rating and the ambient sound level to limit the experienced sound level to a target value
(Gauger, ¶ [0059]: “feed-forward active noise reduction, plus passive attenuation,
that delivers 20 dB attenuation could be used to protect hearing, to accepted
standards”)
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach discloses all the
limitations of claim 11.
Gauger further discloses, wherein the field attenuation rating processor
computes the rating as a difference between the ambient sound level and the
experienced sound level measured on the inner portion (Gauger, Fig. 7, items 108, 106; ¶ [055]: “The difference in overall noise reduction at the ear between the normal
ANR mode and the active hear-through model should be at least 12 dBA.”).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauger (US 20140126733 A1), in view of Von Dach (US 20080011084 A1) and further in view of Voix (US 7688983 B2).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach discloses all the
limitations of claim 23.
However, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach fails to disclose wherein,
the comparison comprises an indication of a difference between the ambient sound
signal and the experienced sound signal.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Voix (US 7688983 B2) discloses an indication
of a difference between the ambient sound signal and the experienced sound signal
(Voix, col. 12, lines 17-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claim invention to add Voix to the combination of Gauger
and Von Dach to determine the degree of attention of the ambient sound when reaching
the air canal.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauger (US 20140126733 A1), in view of Voix (US 7688983 B2), and further in view of Holter (US 20130094658 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gauger and Voix discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
However, the combination of Gauger and Voix fails to disclose comprising: electronics configured to receive an ambient sound from a microphone, process the ambient sound, and provides the sound to a speaker of the PPE; wherein the experienced sound is a processed sound generated by a device of the PPE to a safe sound level; and wherein the experienced sound receiver receives the indication of the experienced sound from a receiver located on an interior of the PPE device.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Holter (US 20130094658 A1) discloses
electronics configured to receive an ambient sound from a microphone (Holter, Fig. 6,
item 607), process the ambient sound (Holter, Fig. 6, item 630), and provides the sound
to a speaker (Holter, Fig. 6, item 603) of the PPE; wherein
the experienced sound is a processed sound generated by a device of the PPE
to a safe sound level (Holter, ¶ [0035]); and wherein
the experienced sound receiver receives the indication of the experienced sound
from a receiver located on an interior of the PPE device (Holter, ¶ [0034-0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claim invention to add Holter to the combination of Gauger
and Von Dach to provide a test device to determine that auditory level are not
exceeded.
Claim(s) 17, 22, 27-30, 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Gauger (US 20140126733 A1), in view of Von Dach (US 20080011084 A1), and further in view of Holter (US 20130094658 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach discloses all the
limitations of claim 11.
The combination if Gauger and Von Dach fails to disclose a power source that,
based on a command from the personal attenuation rating processor, powers the
ambient and attenuated sound receivers.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Holter (US 20130094658 A1) discloses a
power source that, based on a command from the personal attenuation rating
processor, powers the ambient and attenuated sound receivers (Holter, Fig. 8, item 855;
¶ [0040]: “The electric circuitry is powered by power supply that may be a primary
or rechargeable battery arranged in the ear terminal or in a separate unit, or may
be an electrical power connection.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claim invention to add Holter to the combination of Gauger
and Von Dach to provide electrical energy to the system.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach discloses all the
limitations of claim 11.
However, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach fails to disclose, wherein the
filter reduces sound above a threshold sound level.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Holter discloses a filter reduces sound above
a threshold sound level (Holter, ¶ [0025]: “The processor may filter the external
sound detected by the outer microphone (by filtering the signal to ensure that
sounds are only reproduced at a safe level)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claim invention to add Holter to the combination of
Gauger and Von Dach to ensure that the sound level is maintained in a safe range.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach discloses all the
limitations of claim 23.
Von Dach further discloses wherein the hearing protection system comprises a
microphone configured to capture an ambient sound (Von Dach, Fig. 2, item 34).
However, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach fails to disclose a speaker
configured to broadcast the experienced sound.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Holter discloses a speaker configured to
broadcast the experienced sound (Holter, Fig. 1A, item 140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Holter to the combination of
Gauger and Von Dach to provide the means to replicate the ambient noise with an
adequate level for the user.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Von Dach and Holter discloses all the
limitations of claim 27.
Von Dach further discloses, wherein the microphone is on an outer portion of the
hearing protection device (Von Dach, Fig. 2, item 34).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Von Dach and Holter discloses all the
limitations of claim 28.
Holter further discloses wherein the experienced sound is a processed sound,
and wherein the processing comprises applying a level dependent function to the
captured ambient sound (Holter, ¶ [0025]: “The processor may filter the external
sound detected by the outer microphone (by filtering the signal to ensure that
sounds are only reproduced at a safe level) and direct the speaker to generate the
filtered sounds within the user's ear (thereby allowing hear-through
capabilities).”).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Gauger , Von Dach and Holter
discloses all the limitations of claim 28.
However, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach fails to disclose wherein the
experienced sound is a processed sound, and wherein the processing comprises
applying an active noise reduction function to the captured ambient sound.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Holter discloses wherein the experienced
sound is a processed sound, and wherein the processing comprises applying an active
noise reduction function to the captured ambient sound (Holter, ¶ [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claim invention to add Holter to the combination of
Gauger and Von Dach to provide all-in-ear device with capabilities for passive sound
attenuation, active sound attenuation, sound exposure monitoring, leakage control,
hear-through, and communication/entertainment, featuring passive sealing, electro-
acoustic transducers, and electric circuitry.
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Gauger, Von Dach and Holter
discloses all the limitations of claim 22.
Gauger further discloses wherein the filter is configured to apply a level-
dependent function to the ambient sound so that only sound above the threshold is
reduced before reproduction (Gauger, Abstract: “the signal processor detects high-
frequency signals in the feed-forward path exceeding a threshold level indicative
of abnormally high acoustic coupling of the output transducer to the feed-forward
microphone, and applies a compressing limiter to the feed-forward path ”).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gauger (US 20140126733 A1), in view of Von Dach (US 20080011084 A1), and further in view of Sven (EP 1313417 B1) .
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach discloses all the
limitations of claim 11.
However, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach fails to disclose wherein,
based on the FAR value, an effectiveness indication of the sealing feature is provided.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Sven (EP 1313417 B1) discloses an effectiveness
indication of the sealing feature is provided (Sven, ¶ [0062]:“The user may get audible
or other messaged confirmation if the leakage is acceptably low, or a warning
signal if leakage is unacceptably high. ”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claim invention to add Sven to the combination of Gauger
and Von Dach to provide an ear terminal having all-in-the-ear intelligent hearing
protector with wireless communication.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gauger (US 20140126733 A1), in view of Voix (US 7688983 B2) , and further in view of Parkins (US 20170312135 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Gauger and Voix discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
However, the combination of Gauger and Voix fails to disclose wherein the
FAR calculator determines the personal attenuation rating as a difference between the
ambient sound indication and the experienced sound indication, wherein the FAR is
converted to a PAR value personal attenuation rating using a field diffuse
transformation.
In analogous field of endeavor, Parkins discloses wherein the FAR calculator
determines the personal attenuation rating as a difference between the ambient sound
indication and the experienced sound indication, wherein the FAR is converted to a
PAR value personal attenuation rating using a field diffuse transformation (Parkins, Fig.
7, ¶ [0130]: “ In the presence of ambient acoustic noise and the earplug is in an
ear, the output of the power spectrum of the equalization circuit 32 compared to
the power spectrum of the pressure at the eardrum exhibits a response curve that equals the inverse of the diffuse field response of an un-occluded ear
compensated by the acoustic response of the occluded ear canal with earplug.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Parkins to the combination of Gauger and Voix to compensate for the diffuse field response of the human ear.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gauger (US 20140126733 A1), Von Dach (US 20080011084 A1), in view of Voix (US 7688983 B2), and further in view of Parkins (US 20170312135 A1).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Gauger, Von Dach and Voix discloses
all the limitations of claim 24.
However, the combination of Gauger, Von Dach and Voix fails to disclose wherein the comparison further comprises a diffuse field correction.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Parkins discloses the comparison further comprises a diffuse field correction (Parkins, ¶ [0132]: “acoustics must also be
modified, compared to a dock unit that mimics the human ear diffuse field
response, to account for occluded ear damped resonances to maintain an A-
weighted response.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Parkins to the combination of Gauger, Von Dach and Voix to compensate for the diffuse field response of the human
ear.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Gauger (US 20140126733 A1), in view of Von Dach (US 20080011084 A1), and
further in view of Keady (US 20100135502 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach discloses all the
limitations of claim 11.
However, the combination of Gauger and Von Dach fails to disclose, wherein the
indication of ambient sound is an ambient sound pressure, and wherein the indication of
attenuated sound is an attenuated sound pressure.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Keady discloses wherein the indication of
ambient sound is an ambient sound pressure, and wherein the indication of attenuated
sound is an attenuated sound pressure (Keady, ¶ [0063]: “the sound pressure level of
the ambient environment using ambient sound microphone to include in the
calculation of the sound pressure level dose received by the user.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Keady to the combination of Gauger
and Von Dach to measures the sound pressure level of the ambient environment
using ambient microphone.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 48 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRIEDRICH FAHNERT whose telephone number is (571)270-7797. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am-4:00 pm.
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 EDWARDS can be reached at (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.
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/FRIEDRICH FAHNERT/
Examiner
Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights