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 Arguments
This office action is responsive to Request for Reconsideration filed on 05/15/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 – 20 are pending, no claims were canceled, no claims were added & claims 1, 6, 15 – 17 & 20 have been amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 11, filed 05/15/2026, with respect to specification objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the abstract has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. After much consideration, a new interpretation for the amended claims has been considered based on the broadest reasonable interpretation and the examiner considers Robertson can be used solely to read on the claims. Based on this, the claims are not considered allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20190083002 A1), Ha et al. (US 20160022440 A1), Zoss et al. (WO 2016/077442 A1) & Robertson et al. (US 10426688 B2).
Regarding claim 1, A wearable device 100 configured to be worn on a user's body (Column 6, lines 55 – 56), the wearable device 100 comprising:
a driving module 110, comprising a motor and/or circuitry, configured to generate torque to be applied to the user's body (Paragraph 0073 - 0074);
a leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) configured to relay the generated torque to the user's leg (Paragraph 0082);
a sensor module (Paragraph 0079), comprising one or more sensors, configured to obtain sensor data comprising motion information regarding the leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) (Paragraph 0075 - 0079); and
a control module 140, comprising control circuitry (Paragraph 0086 – 0088), configured to control the wearable device based on the sensor data (Paragraph 0081, 0086 & 0125).
Jang does not disclose a thigh fastener connected to the leg driving frame and configured to connect the leg driving frame to the user's leg;
perform a test to determine whether the wearable device is properly worn on the user's leg, wherein performing the test includes:
controlling the driving module to generate a test torque to move the leg driving frame in at least one direction such that a shake motion in the leg driving frame is induced while the wearable device is worn on the user's body, and
determine whether the test is passed based on the sensor data obtained during the induced shake motion.
Ha discloses a thigh fastener connected to the leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) and configured to connect the leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) to the user's leg. (Paragraph 0076)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify to include a thigh fastener connected to the leg driving frame and configured to connect the leg driving frame to the user's leg as it would apply power received from the leg driving frame to the thigh of the user. (Paragraph 0076)
PNG
media_image1.png
513
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Figure 2
Robertson discloses performing a physical test of the sequence using the exoskeleton. Performing the physical test includes causing the exoskeleton to move and receiving data from a sensor of the exoskeleton. (Claim 1 & 2)
Robertson discloses there is movement in order to determine the safety. Robertson does not go into detail about what the type of movement is specifically used for the test meaning shake is a movement that can be considered. (Column 6, last paragraph – Column 7, first paragraph)
However, Zoss discloses the use of shaking motion in exoskeleton. (Claim 18)
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify to include perform a test to determine whether the wearable device is properly worn on the user's leg, wherein performing the test includes controlling the driving module to generate a test torque to move the leg driving frame in at least one direction such that a shake motion in the leg driving frame is induced while the wearable device is worn on the user's body and determine whether the test is passed based on the sensor data obtained during the shaking motion as it would ensure the sequence is safe for the use of the user. (Column 5, line 7 – 22) Zoss discloses the use of low movements such as shaking to help with preparations prior to the actual gait therapy, where many uses are given, meaning using shake as a test for the exoskeleton would be obvious as it is a low-speed movement. (Claim 18 & Paragraph 0016) It would be obvious for the user for the test to determine if it passed as the sensor is able to detect the safety state of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Jang does not expressly disclose further comprising a waist support frame configured to be worn proximate the user's waist.
However, an embodiment in Jang does disclose a waist support frame 12 configured to be worn proximate the user's waist. (Paragraph 0246)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jang to include a waist support frame configured to be worn proximate the user's waist as it would ensure the waist of the user is supported. (Paragraph 0246)
the control module 140 is further configured to determine whether the test is passed based on a motion value of the waist support frame 12 obtained after the test torque (Robertson) is generated (Paragraph 0017 & 0106 discloses one or more sensors detect the motion of the user and some are even found on the waist area of the user).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the leg driving frame comprises:
a first leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) (Note: the examiner considers this to be found on the right thigh of the user) configured to relay torque of the driving module to the user's right leg (Figure 1 discloses both sides of the device have the same parts); and
a second leg driving frame(see annotated Figure 2) (Note: the examiner considers this to be found on the left thigh of the user) configured to relay torque of the driving module to the user's left leg (Figure 1 discloses both sides of the device have the same parts).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 3.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the driving module 110 is further configured to generate the test torque (Robertson) such that at least one of the first leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) and the second leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) moves in a front and/or rear direction of the wearable device by control of the control module 140. (Paragraph 0082 &00108)
Regarding claim 5, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 3.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the driving module 110 is further configured to generate a test torque (Robertson) such that at least one of the first leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) and the second leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) moves back and forth between front and rear directions of the wearable device by control of the control module 140. (Paragraph 0108 – 0109)
Regarding claim 6, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 3.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the driving module is further configured to generate the test torque (Robertson) such that the first leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) and the second leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) move in the same direction (Note: the examiner considers this having the user walk to a specific direction) by control of the control module 140. (Paragraph 0080 / 0108)
Claim(s) 7 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 10426688 B2), Ha et al. (US 20160022440 A1), Zoss et al. (WO 2016/077442 A1) & Robertson et al. (US 10426688 B2) as claimed in claim 1, in view of Karamu et al. (JP 2020532436 A) & ZHU et al. (CN 108309689 B1)
Regarding claim 7, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the control module 140. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose further configured to determine at least one of a moving direction of the leg driving frame to which the test torque is applied based on a user set value by selection of the user, an intensity of the test torque, and an application pattern of the test torque.
Karamu discloses further configured to determine at least one of a moving direction of the leg driving frame to which the test torque is applied, an intensity of the test torque, and an application pattern of the test torque. (Page 10, Paragraph 6 – 7 & Page 11, Paragraph 1)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jang to include further configured to determine at least one of a moving direction of the leg driving frame to which the test torque is applied based on a user set value by selection of the user, an intensity of the test torque, and an application pattern of the test torque as it would allow the determination of positive and negative displacement that arise from such movements during conformance testing. (Page 10, Paragraph 6 – 7 & Page 11, Paragraph 1)
ZHU discloses based on a user set value by selection of the user. (Page 3, Paragraph 6)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jang to include a user set value by selection of the user as it would torque coefficient value to be selected based on the recovery condition of the patient muscles as if the muscle strength is higher, the torque coefficient is lower and vice versa. (Page 3, Paragraph 6)
Regarding claim 8, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the sensor module 120 (Paragraph 0079) comprises an angle sensor (Paragraph 0264) configured to obtain a motion value of the leg driving frame (see annotated Figure 2) (Paragraph 0125 – 0126), and
the control module 140. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose the control module is further configured to determine whether the test is passed based on a threshold value and the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated.
Karamu discloses further configured to determine whether the test is passed based on a threshold value (Page 10 last paragraph – Page 11 first paragraph) and the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated (Page 11, Paragraph 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jang to include further configured to determine whether the test is passed based on a threshold value and the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated as it would determine whether or not there is an improper fit for the user of the system. (Page 13, Paragraph 4)
Regarding claim 9, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 8.
Modified Jang discloses the control module 140 (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose further configured to determine that the test is passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being less than the threshold value.
Karamu discloses the conformance test can be designed to slowly increase the torque until the exoskeleton device reaches a predetermined maximum torque and then slowly return the torque to zero. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
Karamu does not expressly disclose wherein the control module is further configured to determine that the test is passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being less than the threshold value
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Karamu to include wherein the control module is further configured to determine that the test is passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being less than the threshold value as it would allow the device to compare the behavior of the device under torque to the no-torque configuration to determine if the device is properly connected to the user. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
Regarding claim 10, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 8.
Modified Jang discloses the control module 140. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose further configured to determine that the test is not passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being greater than or equal to the threshold value.
Karamu discloses the conformance test can be designed to slowly increase the torque until the exoskeleton device reaches a predetermined maximum torque and then slowly return the torque to zero (Page 4, Paragraph 3 & second to last paragraph / Page 5, second paragraph);
further configured to determine that the test is not passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being greater than or equal to the threshold value. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Karamu to include wherein the control module is further configured to determine that the test is not passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being greater than or equal to the threshold value as it would allow the device to compare the behavior of the device under torque to the no-torque configuration to determine if the device is properly connected to the user. (Page 4, Paragraph 3) If the device indicates an improper fit if there is any deviation of the knee angle with respect to the leg.)
Regarding claim 11, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 10.
Modified Jang discloses the control module 140. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose further configured to provide the user with a guide notification to induce proper wearing of the thigh fastener in response to determining that the test is not passed.
Karamu discloses the device can provide warnings, alerts to the user. (Page 4, Paragraph 5)
Karamu does not disclose wherein the control module is further configured to provide the user with a guide notification to induce proper wearing of the thigh fastener in response to determining that the test is not passed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jang to include wherein the control module is further configured to provide the user with a guide notification to induce proper wearing of the thigh fastener in response to determining that the test is not passed as it would provide warnings and alerts to the user after assessing and determining the problem depending on which incompatibility is identified. (Page 4, Paragraph 5)
Regarding claim 12, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 10.
Modified Jang discloses the control module 140 is further configured to repeatedly perform the test until the wearable device is determined to be properly worn on the user's leg based on the sensor data obtained through the sensor module in response to determining that the test is not passed. (Column 9, lines 25 – 31 & Column 11, lines 10 – 22)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 10426688 B2), Ha et al. (US 20160022440 A1), Zoss et al. (WO 2016/077442 A1) & Robertson et al. (US 10426688 B2) as claimed in claim 1, in view of Jeongrae et al. (KR 20240040589 A)
Regarding claim 13, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Jang discloses wherein the control module 140 to perform the test. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose receiving a user input comprising a driving command over the wearable device or before starting an operation for a walking assistance mode and/or an exercise assistance mode of the wearable device.
Jeongrae discloses receiving a user input comprising a driving command over the wearable device or before starting an operation for a walking assistance mode and/or an exercise assistance mode of the wearable device. (Page 15, Paragraph 5)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jan to include receiving a user input comprising a driving command over the wearable device or before starting an operation for a walking assistance mode and/or an exercise assistance mode of the wearable device as it would allow the control module to operate according to the received control command and may transmit control results according to the control command and/or sensor data. (Page 15, Paragraph 5)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 10426688 B2), Ha et al. (US 20160022440 A1), Zoss et al. (WO 2016/077442 A1) & Robertson et al. (US 10426688 B2) as claimed in claim 1, in view of Rock et al. (KR 20210050636 A).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Jang discloses the wearable device as claimed in claim 1.
Modified Jang discloses the control module 140. (as claimed in claim 1)
Modified Jang does not disclose wherein the control module is further configured to perform the test in response to entering a standby mode after terminating a walking assistance mode and/or a exercise assistance mode of the wearable device.
Rock discloses the exercise assistance device operates in a standby mode. (Page 9, Second-to-last paragraph)
Rock does not expressly disclose wherein the control module is further configured to perform the test in response to entering a standby mode after terminating a walking assistance mode and/or a exercise assistance mode of the wearable device
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Jang to include wherein the control module is further configured to perform the test in response to entering a standby mode after terminating a walking assistance mode and/or a exercise assistance mode of the wearable device as it would allow to determine a test when the device does not apply torque to the user’s leg. (Page 9, Second-to-last paragraph)
Claim(s) 15 – 16 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US 10426688 B2) in view of Zoss et al. (WO 2016/077442 A1)
Regarding claim 15, An operation method of a wearable device configured to be worn on a user's body, the operation method comprising: performing a test to determine whether the wearable device is properly worn the user's body (Column 4, lines 56 – 62); and
driving the wearable device in response to determining that the test is passed (Column 5, line 7 – 22), wherein the performing the test comprises:
controlling a driving module, comprising a motor 145 & 155, to generate a test torque to move a leg driving frame of the wearable device in at least one direction (Column 7, lines 1 – 19)
Robertson discloses a safety check that includes performing a physical test of the sequence causing the skeleton to move and receive data from a sensor.
Robertson does not expressly disclose such that a shake motion in the leg driving frame is induced while the wearable device is worn on the user's body;
obtaining, during the induced shake motion, sensor data comprising a motion value of at least one of the leg driving frame and a waist support frame of the wearable device; and
determining whether the test is passed based on the sensor data.
Robertson discloses there is movement in order to determine the safety. Robertson does not go into detail about what the type of movement is specifically used for the test meaning shake is a movement that can be considered. (Column 6, last paragraph – Column 7, first paragraph)
However, Zoss discloses the use of shaking motion in exoskeleton. (Claim 18)
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Robertson to include that a shake motion in the leg driving frame is induced while the wearable device is worn on the user's body as it would ensure the sequence is safe for the use of the user. (Column 5, line 7 – 22) Zoss discloses the use of low movements such as shaking to help with preparations prior to the actual gait therapy, where many uses are given, meaning using shake as a test for the exoskeleton would be obvious as it is a low-speed movement. (Claim 18 & Paragraph 0016) It would be obvious for the user for the test to determine if it passed as the sensor is able to detect the safety state of the device.
Regarding claim 16, Modified Robertson discloses the operation method as claimed in claim 15.
Modified Robertson discloses wherein the performing the test comprises: obtaining, during the induced shake motion, a motion value of a waist support frame configured to be worn proximate the user's waist; (Claim 1 discloses the data being taken form the sensor which could be the hip sensor 145 that is connected to the waist support frame 105);
and determine whether the test is passed based on the obtained motion value of the waist support frame (Claim 1).
Regarding claim 20, Robertson discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
performing a test to determine whether a wearable device configured to be worn on a user's body is properly worn on the user's body (Claim 1 & 2); and
driving the wearable device in response to determining that the test is passed (Column 5, line 7 – 22).
controlling a driving module comprising a motor and/or circuitry to generate a test torque to move a leg driving frame of the wearable device in at least one direction. (Column 7, lines 1 – 19)
Robertson does not disclose wherein the performing the test comprises:
a shake motion in the leg driving frame is induced while the wearable device is worn on the user's body;
obtaining, during the induced shake motion, sensor data comprising a motion value of at least one of the leg driving frame and a waist support frame the leg driving frame of the wearable device; and
determining whether the test is passed based on the sensor data.
Robertson discloses there is movement in order to determine the safety. (Column 5, line 7 – 22 / Column 6, last paragraph – Column 7, first paragraph)
Robertson does not go into detail about what the type of movement is specifically used for the test meaning shake is a movement that can be considered.
However, Zoss discloses the use of shaking motion in exoskeleton. (Claim 18)
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Robertson to include a shake motion in the leg driving frame is induced while the wearable device is worn on the user's body obtaining, during the induced shake motion, sensor data comprising a motion value of at least one of the leg driving frame and a waist support frame the leg driving frame of the wearable device and determining whether the test is passed based on the sensor data. (Column 5, line 7 – 22) Zoss discloses the use of low movements such as shaking to help with preparations prior to the actual gait therapy, where many uses are given, meaning using shake as a test for the exoskeleton would be obvious as it is a low-speed movement. (Claim 18 & Paragraph 0016) It would be obvious for the user for the test to determine if it passed as the sensor is able to detect the safety state of the device.
Claim(s) 17 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson et al. (US 10426688 B2) & Zoss et al. (WO 2016/077442 A1) as claimed in claim 15, in further view of Karamu et al. (JP 2020532436 A).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Robertson discloses the operation method as claimed in claim 15.
Modified Robertson does not disclose wherein the determining whether the test is passed comprises:
determining that the test is passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being less than the threshold value; and
determining that the test is not passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being greater than or equal to the threshold value.
Karamu discloses the conformance test can be designed to slowly increase the torque until the exoskeleton device reaches a predetermined maximum torque and then slowly return the torque to zero. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
wherein the control module is further configured to determine that the test is passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being less than the threshold value. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Karamu to include wherein the control module is further configured to determine that the test is passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being less than the threshold value as it would allow the device to compare the behavior of the device under torque to the no-torque configuration to determine if the device is properly connected to the user. (Page 4, Paragraph 3) If the device indicates an improper fit if there is any deviation of the knee angle with respect to the leg.)
Karamu discloses the conformance test can be designed to slowly increase the torque until the exoskeleton device reaches a predetermined maximum torque and then slowly return the torque to zero. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
Karamu does not expressly disclose further configured to determine that the test is not passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being greater than or equal to the threshold value.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Karamu to include wherein the control module is further configured to determine that the test is not passed in response to a maximum value of the motion value of the leg driving frame obtained after the test torque is generated being greater than or equal to the threshold value as it would allow the device to compare the behavior of the device under torque to the no-torque configuration to determine if the device is properly connected to the user. (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
Regarding claim 18, Modified Robertson discloses the operation method as claimed in claim 17.
Modified Robertson discloses wherein the generating the test torque comprises: generating the test torque (as claimed in claim 15) such that at least one of a first leg driving frame 145 (Note: the examiner considers this to be found on the right thigh of the user) of the wearable device configured to relay torque of the driving module to the user's right leg 140 and a second leg driving frame 145 (Note: the examiner considers this to be found on the left thigh of the user) of the wearable device configured to relay the torque of the driving module to the user's left leg moves in a front and/or rear direction of the wearable device. (Column 6, lines 50 – 67)
Regarding claim 19, Modified Robertson discloses the operation method as claimed in claim 17.
Modified Robertson discloses wherein the generating the test torque comprises: generating the test torque (as claimed in claim 15) such that at least one of a first leg driving frame 145 (Note: the examiner considers this to be found on the right thigh of the user) of the wearable device configured to relay torque of the driving module to the user's right leg 140 and a second leg driving frame 145 (Note: the examiner considers this to be found on the left thigh of the user) of the wearable device configured to relay the torque of the driving module to the user's left leg moves in a front and rear direction of the wearable device. (Column 6, lines 50 – 67)
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 GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights