DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 13, 15, 18, 20, and 21 and the addition of claims 23-27 in the response filed November 18, 2025, are acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20-27 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to “A. Claim 1”
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that Kusens alone does not meet each limitation of the amended claim. As necessitated by the amendments, new grounds of rejection have been made. Kusens remains the primary art of reference as it continues to share structural and functional characteristics with the instant application.
In response to “B. Claim 13”
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that Riach does not meet each limitation of the amended claim. As necessitated by the amendments, new grounds of rejection and a new interpretation of Riach have been made; Riach Fig 4 is shown to have frame members 25 and 24 that are inner portions of joints 22 where the head support member 20 is the outer portion so the width of frame members 24,25 combined is less than the width of head support member 20. Riach remains the primary art of reference as it continues to meet the claim limitations and share structural and functional characteristics with the instant application.
In response to “III. Response to Rejection Under 35 USC 103”
With respect to claim 20, Applicant argues that Kusens and Riach does not meet each limitation of the amended claim. As necessitated by the amendments, new grounds of rejection have been made.
In response to “IV. Dependent Claims 9, 18, and 23-25”
Applicant argues that Kusens is silent on “wherein at least a portion of the tray underlies at least a portion of a lowermost surface of the head mountable image display device to support the head-mountable image display device” this is not found persuasive. Kusens col 4 ll 00-15 details a support with shelf 201, the shelf is shown to span the opening of the head support, which the image display rests on, as the display rests on the shelf which spans the whole of the opening the shelf is below the lowermost of the display.
In response to “V. New Claims 26 and 27”
Applicant argues that Kusens is silent on “at least a portion of the person's head in a raised position above or level with at least one of the resting surface and the head mountable image display device, and the head-mountable image display device” this is not found persuasive. Kusens col 4 ll 20-35, Fig 4, and Fig 6, show bracket 401 which can support the head level and above the image display which fits therein; the head must be above the resting surface and image display to be placed and rest thereon. The limitations is met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-18, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13, and 21 each recite “wherein a maximum span of the frame measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is less than a maximum span of the head support measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis” which is not properly supported in the Specifications and is therefore new matter. Patent Drawings that do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue, so the Drawings alone cannot be relied upon for the claimed feature. Examiner will interpret the claim in light of the closest prior art of record.
Claims 2-9, 11, 12, 14-18, and 22-25 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 26 is 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.
Claim 26 lines 6-7 recite “with at least one of the resting surface and the head mountable image display device, and the head-mountable image display device;” it is unclear if there is a typographical error or whether a limitation is missing rendering the claim indefinite.
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 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2002/0184706 (“Riach”).
With respect to claim 13, Riach discloses A support assembly for use by a person lying in a generally prone or generally lateral position on a resting surface ([0028], embodiment Fig 4 relied upon where the resting surface is a table), the support assembly comprising:
a torso support having a longitudinal axis positionable between at least a portion of the person's torso and the resting surface (Fig 4, [0028], torso support 17,16 between a torso and a table/resting surface, axis along length);
a head support operably coupled to the torso support (Fig 1, head support 14) and configured to support at least a portion of the person's head in a raised position above or level with the resting surface (Fig 1, raising and lowering of head support 14 via adjustment system 17);
a frame directly coupling the head support and the torso support (Fig 4, frame 24), wherein a maximum span of the frame measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is less than a maximum span of the head support measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig 4, frame members 25 and 24 are inner portions of joints 22 where the head support member 20 is the outer portion so the width of frame members 24,25 combined is less than the width of head support member 20); and
an opening alignable with one or more of the person's eyes while the person lies in the generally prone or generally lateral position with the at least a portion of the person's torso supported by the torso support and the at least a portion of the person's head supported by the head support (Fig 1, opening 19 open for the user’s face thus aligned with the eyes).
With respect to claim 14, Riach discloses The support assembly of claim 13, wherein the torso support and the head support are configured to support the person with respect to the resting surface such that the person's spine has a medically or therapeutically desired position while the person lies in the generally prone or generally lateral position with the person's face aligned with the opening in the head support (Fig 4, [0007], user is aligned as desired when on the support system).
With respect to claim 15, Riach discloses The support assembly of claim 13, wherein the frame comprises an adjustment mechanism configured to allow one to manually adjust at least one of a position and an orientation of the head support with respect to the torso support (Fig 1, adjustment mechanism 17).
With respect to claim 16, Riach discloses The support assembly of claim 15, wherein the adjustment mechanism facilitates one or any combination of: (a) rotation of the head support about one or more generally horizontal axes, (b) rotation of the head support about one or more generally vertical axes, (c) rotation of the head support about the torso support, (d) translation of the head support along one or more generally vertical axes, (e) translation of the head support along one or more generally horizontal axes, and (f) translation of the head support toward and away from the torso support ([0023], rotation about multiple horizontal axes).
With respect to claim 17, Riach discloses The support assembly of claim 16, wherein at least one of the one or more generally horizontal axes is generally perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the torso support (Fig 1, axes of locks 22 and 26 extend across width the device which is generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis along the length of the device).
With respect to claim 25, Riach discloses The support assembly of claim 13, wherein the support assembly is selectively adjustable to maintain or alter a curvature of the person's spine during a medical procedure (Fig 1, locking and adjusting members 22 and 26 would adjust and maintain the neck and spine curvature).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 11,285,066 (“Kusens”).
With respect to claim 26, Kusens discloses A system for use by a person lying in a generally prone or generally lateral position on a resting surface (col 1 ll 55-60, massage table allows for prone resting), the system comprising:
a head-mountable image display device that when used by the person at least partially occludes the person's view of a surrounding environment (Fig 6, display 301, as it is a headset it is head mountable);
a support assembly configured to support: at least a portion of the person's head in a raised position above or level with at least one of the resting surface and the head mountable image display device, and the head-mountable image display device (col 4 ll 20-35, Fig 4, Fig 6, bracket 401 which can support the head level and above the image display which fits therein, the head must be above the resting surface and image display to be placed and rest thereon);
wherein at least a portion of the support assembly underlies at least a portion of a lowermost surface of the head-mountable image display device to support the head mountable image display device (col 4 ll 00-15, support with shelf 201, shelf shown to span the opening of the head support, which the image display rests on, as the display rests on the shelf which spans the whole of the opening it is below the display); and
an opening in the support assembly sized to permit the person while lying in the generally prone or generally lateral position to view at least a portion of the head-mountable image display device through at least a portion of the support assembly (Fig 4, cut out 402).
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 12, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Kusens in view of US 5,233,713 (“Murphy”).
With respect to claim 1, Kusens discloses A system for use by a person lying in a generally prone or generally lateral position on a resting surface (col 1 ll 55-60, massage table allows for prone resting), the system comprising:
a head-mountable image display device that when used by the person at least partially occludes the person's view of a surrounding environment (Fig 6, display 301, as it is a headset it is head mountable);
a support assembly configured to support at least a portion of the person's head in a raised position above or level with at least one of the resting surface and the head- mountable image display device (col 4 ll 20-35, Fig 4, Fig 6, bracket 401 which can support the head level and above the image display which fits therein) wherein the support assembly comprises a head support (Fig 4, Fig 6, head support 101), …and
an opening in the support assembly sized to permit the person while lying in the generally prone or generally lateral position to view at least a portion of the head-mountable image display device through at least a portion of the support assembly (Fig 4, cut out 402).
Kusens is silent on a torso support having a longitudinal axis, and a frame directly coupling the head support and the torso support, wherein a maximum span of the frame measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is less than a maximum span of the head support measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Murphy et al teaches an analogous head support connecting to a support surface (Fig 1, head support 11, support surface 16) further having a torso support having a longitudinal axis (Fig 1, torso support 14), and a frame directly coupling the head support and the torso support (Fig 1, frame 12), wherein a maximum span of the frame measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is less than a maximum span of the head support measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig 1, frame is on the inside of head support section 20 and so it is less in span/width).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Kusens to connect to a torso support as taught by Murphy et al in order to allow for more variations in positions and placements (Murphy col 1 ll 20-25, col 2 ll 00-05).
With respect to claim 2, Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the support assembly is configured to support the person with respect to the resting surface such that the person's spine has a medically or therapeutically desired position while the person lies in the generally prone or generally lateral position with the person's face aligned with the opening to view the at least a portion of the head-mountable image display device (Kusens Fig 4, col 1 ll 55-65, support assembly supports the head and allows for use with a massage table, combined with a massage table the user would rest prone in a desired aligned position and be able to view the headset).
With respect to claim 3, Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The system of claim 2, wherein the medically or therapeutically desired position of the person's spine is a generally neutral position (Kusens Fig 6, col 1 ll 55-65, support assembly supports the head and allows for use with a massage table, so the support is capable and designed to support a desired position that is neutral).
With respect to claim 4, Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The system of claim 1, the torso support being positionable between at least a portion of the person's torso and the resting surface (Murphy et al Fig 1, torso support 14 between a user and surface 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Kusens to connect to a torso support as taught by Murphy et al in order to allow for more variations in positions and placements (Murphy col 1 ll 20-25, col 2 ll 00-05).
With respect to claim 5, Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The system of claim 4, wherein the frame comprises an adjustment mechanism permitting one to manually adjust at least one of a position and an orientation of the head support with respect to the torso support (Murphy et al Fig 1, col 2 ll 60-65, adjustment mechanism 28,29,30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Kusens to connect to a torso support as taught by Murphy et al in order to allow for more variations in positions and placements (Murphy col 1 ll 20-25, col 2 ll 00-05).
With respect to claim 6, Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The system of claim 5, wherein the adjustment mechanism facilitates one or any combination of: (a) rotation of the head support about one or more generally horizontal axes, (b) rotation of the head support about one or more generally vertical axes,(c) rotation of the head support about the torso support, (d) translation of the head support along one or more generally vertical axes, (e) translation of the head support along one or more generally horizontal axes, and (f) translation of the head support toward and away from the torso support (Murphy et al Fig 1, col 2 ll 60-65, adjustment mechanism 28,29,30 allows rotation of the head support about axis of member 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Kusens to connect to a torso support as taught by Murphy et al in order to allow for more variations in positions and placements (Murphy col 1 ll 20-25, col 2 ll 00-05).
With respect to claim 7, Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The system of claim 4, further comprising a lock having an unlocked state permitting movement of the head support with respect to the torso support and a locked state preventing movement of the head support with respect to the torso support (Murphy et al Fig 1, col 3 ll 60-65, adjustment mechanism 28,29,30 locked via member nuts 27,34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Kusens to connect to a torso support as taught by Murphy et al in order to allow for more variations in positions and placements (Murphy col 1 ll 20-25, col 2 ll 00-05).
With respect to claim 8, Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The system of claim 4, further comprising a first arm and a second arm each operably coupling the head support to the torso support, wherein at least a portion of the opening is positioned laterally between the first arm and the second arm (Kusens Fig 4, arms are opposing arms of U-shaped member 401 with a space 402 in between and supporting the head support 101).
With respect to claim 9, Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising a tray for holding the head-mountable image display device in a position aligned with the opening (Kusens Fig 3, retaining shelf 201), wherein at least a portion of the tray underlies at least a portion of a lowermost surface of the head mountable image display device to support the head-mountable image display device (Kusens col 4 ll 00-15, support with shelf 201, shelf shown to span the opening of the head support, which the image display rests on, as the display rests on the shelf which spans the whole of the opening it is below the display).
With respect to claim 11, Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the head-mountable image display device comprises at least one of a virtual reality headset, an augmented reality device, and an audiovisual display system (Kusens col 4 ll 00-10, virtual reality headset).
With respect to claim 12, Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the head-mountable image display device comprises an adjustable strap for securing the head-mountable image display device to the person's head (Kusens col 4 ll 55-65, strap for adjusting the headset placement and thus the securement to the face support 401 and the head).
With respect to claim 24, Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the support assembly is selectively adjustable to maintain or alter a curvature of the person's spine during a medical procedure (Murphy et al Fig 1, col 3 ll 60-65, adjustment mechanism 28,29,30 locked via member nuts 27,34 would allow for adjustment of the neck and therefore the spine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Kusens to connect to a torso support as taught by Murphy et al in order to allow for more variations in positions and placements (Murphy col 1 ll 20-25, col 2 ll 00-05).
With respect to claim 27, Kusens discloses The system of claim 26.
Kusens is silent on wherein the support assembly comprises a torso support positionable between at least a portion of the person's torso and the resting surface.
Murphy et al teaches an analogous head support connecting to a support surface (Fig 1, head support 11, support surface 16) wherein the support assembly comprises a torso support positionable between at least a portion of the person's torso and the resting surface (Fig 1, torso support 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Kusens to connect to a torso support as taught by Murphy et al in order to allow for more variations in positions and placements (Murphy col 1 ll 20-25, col 2 ll 00-05).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riach in view of Kusens.
With respect to claim 18, Riach discloses The support assembly of claim 13.
Riach is silent on further comprising a tray configured to receive a head-mountable image display device and operably coupled to the head support such that the head-mountable image display device is visible through the opening in the head support by the person lying in the generally prone or generally lateral position.
Kusens teaches an analogous user face support having a tray configured to receive a head-mountable image display device and operably coupled to the head support such that the head-mountable image display device is visible through the opening in the head support by the person lying in the generally prone or generally lateral position (Fig 3, retaining shelf 201), wherein at least a portion of the tray is configured to underlie at least a portion of a lowermost surface of the head-mountable image display device to support the head mountable image display device (col 4 ll 00-15, col 4 ll 00-15, support with shelf 201, shelf shown to span the opening of the head support, which the image display rests on, as the display rests on the shelf which spans the whole of the opening it is below the display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the face support of Riach with the addition of the video system as taught by Kusens in order to allow for a calmer user (Kusens col 1 ll 45-55).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,752,064 (“Voss”) in view of Kusens.
With respect to claim 20, Voss discloses A method of treating a person lying in a generally prone or generally lateral position on a resting surface (Fig 4, surface 24), the method comprising:
…
positioning a support assembly such that at least a portion of the support assembly is vertically between the person and the resting surface (Fig 4, assembly 10), …
performing a medical procedure on the person, wherein the medical procedure comprises at least one of a surgical procedure, an injection, a biopsy, a medical examination, a medically-prescribed bed rest, and a medical procedure where a loss of lordosis is desired (col 2 ll 50-60, surgical procedure); and
…
Voss is silent on providing a head-mountable image display device that when used by the person at least partially occludes the person's view of a surrounding environment; … the support assembly supporting at least a portion of the person's head in a raised position above or level with the head- mountable image display device and including an opening sized to permit the person while lying in the generally prone or generally lateral position to view at least a portion of the head- mountable image display device through at least a portion of the support assembly; …displaying therapeutic imagery via the head-mountable image display device before, after, and/or during the medical procedure.
Kusens teaches an analogous face support teaching the steps of providing a head-mountable image display device that when used by the person at least partially occludes the person's view of a surrounding environment (Fig 6, display 301, as it is a headset it is head mountable); positioning a support assembly such that at least a portion of the support assembly is vertically between the person and the resting surface (col 2ll 10-40, between at least the face and the floor), the support assembly supporting at least a portion of the person's head in a raised position above or level with the head- mountable image display device and including an opening sized to permit the person while lying in the generally prone or generally lateral position to view at least a portion of the head- mountable image display device through at least a portion of the support assembly (col 4 ll 20-35, Fig 4, Fig 6, bracket 401 which can support the head level and above the image display which fits therein); performing a medical procedure on the person (col 1 ll 65-70, massage); and displaying therapeutic imagery via the head-mountable image display device before, after, and/or during the medical procedure (col 1 l 65-col 2 l 5, peaceful imagery displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the TV and support of Voss to have the head mounted display with the therapeutic video as taught by Kusens in order to improve user experience (Kusens col 1 ll 60-65).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voss/Kusens as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Murphy et al.
With respect to claim 21, Voss/Kusens discloses The method of claim 20, wherein the support assembly comprises a head support (Kusens Fig 4, head support 12), a torso support having a longitudinal axis (Kusens col 2 ll 10-40, torso support is the table), and a frame directly coupling the head support and the torso support (Kusens col 4 ll 20-35, Fig 4, Fig 6, bracket 401).
Voss/Kusens is silent on wherein a maximum span of the frame measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is less than a maximum span of the head support measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Murphy et al teaches an analogous head support above a floor surface (Fig 1, head support 11) further having a torso support having a longitudinal axis (Fig 1, torso support is table ), and a frame directly coupling the head support and the torso support (Fig 1, frame 12), wherein a maximum span of the frame measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is less than a maximum span of the head support measured perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig 1, frame is on the inside of head support section 20 and so it is less in span/width).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frame of Voss/Kusens to be the arm as taught by Murphy et al in order to allow for more variations in positions and placements (Murphy col 1 ll 20-25, col 2 ll 00-05).
With respect to claim 22, Voss/Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The method of claim 21, further comprising adjusting the head support with respect to the torso support such that the person's spine has a generally neutral position while the person lies in the generally prone or generally lateral position with the person's face aligned with the opening to view the at least a portion of the head-mountable image display device (Kusens col 4 ll 55-65, adjusting the system to put the patient in the proper position with the display device therein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the TV and support of Voss to have the head mounted display with the therapeutic video as taught by Kusens in order to improve user experience (Kusens col 1 ll 60-65).
With respect to claim 23, Voss/Kusens/Murphy et al discloses The method of claim 21, comprising inserting the head-mountable image display device into a tray, wherein at least a portion of the tray underlies at least a portion of a lowermost surface of the head-mountable image display device to support the head mountable image display device (Kusens col 4 ll 00-15, col 4 ll 00-15, support with shelf 201, shelf shown to span the opening of the head support, which the image display rests on, as the display rests on the shelf which spans the whole of the opening it is below the display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the TV and support of Voss to have the head mounted display with the therapeutic video as taught by Kusens in order to improve user experience (Kusens col 1 ll 60-65).
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 ADAM D BAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3333. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30.
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, Rachael E Bredefeld can be reached at (571)270-5237. 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.
/ADAM BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3786