/2025DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 04/30/2024.
Claim 12 has been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 10-17 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 18-20 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 1 is the system claim, while claim 10 covers a method claim and claim 17 covers the matching computer readable medium.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A test system for use by a virtual-health practitioner (“VHP”), the test system comprising:
a hearing test device including one or more test headphones, the one or more test headphones operably coupled to a controller, the hearing test device configured to facilitate a hearing test of a patient;
at least one of a VHP speaker and VHP headphones;
a VHP device configured to facilitate a virtual-health visit; and
an A/B switch auditorily coupled to the VHP speaker, the hearing test device, and the VHP device, the A/B switch configured to switch an auditory output from the VHP speaker to the hearing test device.
Specifically, independent claim 10 recites:
A method for conducting a remote hearing test, the method comprising:
switching, by an A/B switch, a hearing test system from a pre-examination mode to an examination mode, wherein in response to the switching the hearing test system from the pre- examination mode to the examination mode, a remote microphone is auditorily coupled to test headphones of the hearing test system, the hearing test system disposed in a local location; and
initiating, by a one or more processors, a hearing test, wherein in response to initiating the hearing test, a set of tones are output through the test headphones.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain methods of organizing human activity” because a healthcare provider virtually facilitating a hearing test on a patient, switching from a pre-examination mode to an examination mode disposed in a local location are activities of diagnosing and providing a healthcare service, which are managing human behavior/interactions between people. The foregoing underlined limitations also relate to claims 1 and 10 (similarly to claim 18).
Accordingly, the claim describes at least one abstract idea.
In relation to claims 7, 11-16 and 19-20, these claims merely recite determining steps such as: claim 7 – mix the set of tones and the audio data to form a single audio output and transmit the single audio output through one or more servers to an audiologist speaker, claim 11 - initiating the hearing test, the set of tones are simultaneously output, claim 13 - the set of tones are transmitted, claim 14 - transmitting the audio data, claim 15 - transmitting, by the one or more processors, audio corresponding to the audio data, claim 16 - transmitting, by the one or more processors, an audio output corresponding to the audio data, claim 19 - in response to initiating the hearing test, the set of tones are simultaneously output through and claim 20 - in response to the switching the hearing test system from the pre-examination mode to the examination mode.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 10 and 17, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by humans but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, a controller, a VHP speaker, a A/B switch, a VHP microphone, an audio mixer, test headphones, an audiologist speaker, one or more servers, a processor, and an article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer- readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed by humans. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation within a health care environment by humans but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the system, controller, VHP speaker, A/B switch, VHP microphone, audio mixer, test headphones, audiologist speaker, one or more servers, processor, and article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer- readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors are recited at high levels of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data/inputs, determining and providing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components.
Regarding the additional limitations of “hearing test device”, “VHP device”, and “audiologist device”, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the Examiner further submits that these limitations do no more than generally link use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use because they merely specify the type of input sources which does not alter or affect how the abstract idea is performed (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Regarding the additional limitation “a pre-examination configuration”, “pre-examination mode” and “examination mode”, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or us the above-noted implement/use to above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, in representative independent claim 8, regarding the additional limitations of the system, controller, VHP speaker, A/B switch, VHP microphone, audio mixer, test headphones, audiologist speaker, one or more servers, processor, and article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer- readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 10 and 17 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims no not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swetlitz (US 2021/0329393 A1).
Claim 18:
Swetlitz discloses an article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer- readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (See processors and non-transient computer-readable medium in Abstract, P0086.) comprising:
switching, by the one or more processors, a hearing test system from a pre-examination mode to an examination mode, wherein in response to the switching the hearing test system from the pre- examination mode to the examination mode, a remote microphone is auditorily coupled to test headphones of the hearing test system (See Fig. 1A-1B, Fig. 2 remotely administering hearing tests mentioned in P0035-P0036.), the hearing test system disposed in a local location; and initiating, by the one or more processors, a hearing test, wherein in response to initiating the hearing test, a set of tones are output through the test headphones (See Fig. 4A-4B, Fig. 5A-5E where the patient is in a virtual waiting room with intake questions and equipment is tested serves as a pre-examination mode before switching to an examination mode mentioned in P0053-P0055. Also, see Fig. 8B, P0064-P0065 button 886 initiates the audio assessment.).
Regarding claim 19, Swetlitz discloses the article of manufacture of claim 18, wherein the operations, wherein in response to initiating the hearing test, the set of tones are simultaneously output through a remote speaker (See Fig. 11A-11B confirming a tone has been heard during the hearing test mentioned in P0068 with sound play abilities.).
Regarding claim 20, Swetlitz discloses the article of manufacture of claim 18, wherein in response to the switching the hearing test system from the pre-examination mode to the examination mode, a speaker disposed in the local location is auditorily de-coupled from the remote microphone (See Fig. 4A-4B, Fig. 5A-5E where the patient is in a virtual waiting room with intake questions and equipment is tested serves as a pre-examination mode. See heard sound and speaker in P0034, P0037.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swetlitz (US 2021/0329393 A1) in view of Vumbaco (US 2013/0177176 A1).
Claim 1:
Swetlitz discloses a test system for use by a virtual-health practitioner (“VHP”), the test system (See systems as Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B mentioned in P0037-P0038 see and Fig. 5B, Fig. 7B, Fig. 8B, P0053 a video chat 540 showing video of a patient and provider with audio for conducting a virtual appointment.) comprising:
a hearing test device including one or more test headphones, the one or more test headphones operably coupled to a controller, the hearing test device configured to facilitate a hearing test of a patient (See P0035-P0037 exemplary graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for display (Fig. 4A-4B, Fig. 7A-7B) used during the administration of a hearing test include headphones and testing equipment mentioned in P0052.);
at least one of a VHP speaker and VHP headphones (See speaker and headphones in P0037, P0056.);
a VHP device configured to facilitate a virtual-health visit (The video chat 540 showing video of a patient and provider with audio for conducting a virtual appointment in Fig. 5B, P0053, virtual waiting room (P0044) and a session with a virtual receptionist before an appointment with the provider (P0085) construe using a VHP device to facilitate a virtual-health visit.); and
a unit auditorily coupled to the VHP speaker, the hearing test device, and the VHP device, the unit configured to switch an auditory output from the VHP speaker to the hearing test device (See P0037 where the components include coupled headphones, speakers and microphones as hearing test devices and camera (P0084) used during a video call for the hearing test. See Fig. 6A, P0056 a button 615 allows the provider control to start or stop audio calibration on the patient device.).
Although Swetlitz discloses the test system to include an auditorily coupled speaker, hearing test device, and a VHP device allowing a virtual-health practitioner to switch an auditory output from the VHP speaker to the hearing test device as mentioned above, Swetlitz does not explicitly teach an A/B switch where the A/B switch is being used. Vumbaco teaches in P0045 an A/B switch where the A/B switch is controlled remotely and depends on the setting of the audio amplifier's A/B switch shown in Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wireless audio switching before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, method and software of Swetlitz to using an A/B switch as taught by Vumbaco for connecting effects pedals into an audio signal system which avoids the need for long cables mentioned in Vumbaco’s P0004.
Regarding claim 2, although Swetlitz and Vumbaco teach the test system of claim 1, for use with a virtual-health practitioner and auditorily coupled to the hearing test device and the VHP device mentioned above, with some sound mixing abilities mentioned in P0082, Swetlitz does not explicitly teach using an audio mixer. Vumbaco teaches further comprising an audio mixer (See in Abstract and P0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wireless audio switching before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Swetlitz to using an audio mixer as taught by Vumbaco for having the option of blending music during a hearing test.
Regarding claim 5, Swetlitz and Vumbaco teach the test system of claim 1 mentioned above, and Vumbaco further teaches wherein: the A/B switch further comprises a first data input and a second data input, responsive to engaging the first data input, the auditory output from the A/B switch transitions from the hearing test device to the VHP speaker, and responsive to engaging the second data input, the auditory output transitions from the VHP speaker to the hearing test device in Vumbaco’s P0006 and [P0045] the audio amplifier 140 may have two signal inputs 145, and its output may correspond to the first or the second input depending on the setting of the audio amplifier's A/B switch, shown in Fig. 1. Also, see audio amplifier and speakers in P0041.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wireless audio switching before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Swetlitz to using an A/B switch with two data inputs include responsive auditory output from the A/B switch and speaker as taught by Vumbaco when connecting effects pedals into an audio signal system which avoids the need for long cables mentioned in Vumbaco’s P0004.
Regarding claim 6, Swetlitz discloses the test system of claim 1, wherein the hearing test device is auditorily coupled to the one or more test headphones and the VHP device (See speaker and headphones in P0037, P0056.).
Regarding claim 7, Swetlitz discloses the test system of claim 6, wherein the VHP device comprises a VHP microphone and a VHP controller, the VHP controller configured to:
receive a set of tones from the hearing test device (See Fig. 8B, Fig. 9, P0064, P0067.);
receive audio data from the VHP microphone; mix the set of tones and the audio data to form a single audio output; and transmit the single audio output through one or more servers to an audiologist speaker (See P0037 where the components include coupled headphones, speakers and microphones as hearing test devices and camera (P0084) used during a video call for the hearing test. See Fig. 6A, P0056 a button 615 allows the provider control to start or stop audio calibration on the patient device. Also, see Fig. 11A-11B where a patient confirms a tone mentioned in P0068.).
Regarding claim 8, Swetlitz discloses the test system of claim 7, further comprising the audiologist speaker, wherein the audiologist speaker is disposed in remote location relative to the VHP microphone (See the components include coupled headphones, speakers and microphones as hearing test devices and camera (P0084) used during a video call for the hearing test mentioned in P0037-P0038 see and Fig. 5B, Fig. 7B, Fig. 8B, P0053 a video chat 540 showing video of a patient and provider with audio for conducting a virtual appointment.).
Regarding claim 9, Swetlitz discloses the test system of claim 1, further comprising:
a pre-examination configuration including an audiologist microphone used for communication with local VHP speaker; and an examination configuration including the audiologist microphone and the hearing test device used for communication with the one or more test headphones (See Fig. 4A-4B, Fig. 5A-5E where the patient is in a virtual waiting room with intake questions and equipment is tested serves as a pre-examination mode before switching to an examination mode mentioned in P0053-P0055. Also, see Fig. 8B, P0064-P0065 button 886 initiates the audio assessment.)
Claim 10:
Swetlitz discloses a method for conducting a remote hearing test (See and Fig. 5B, Fig. 7B, Fig. 8B, P0053 a video chat 540 showing video of a patient and provider with audio for conducting a virtual appointment.), the method comprising: a hearing test system from a pre-examination mode to an examination mode, wherein in response to the switching the hearing test system from the pre- examination mode to the examination mode (See Fig. 4A-4B, Fig. 5A-5E where the patient is in a virtual waiting room with intake questions and equipment is tested serves as a pre-examination mode before switching to an examination mode mentioned in P0053-P0055. Also, see Fig. 8B, P0064-P0065 button 886 initiates the audio assessment.), a remote microphone is auditorily coupled to test headphones of the hearing test system, the hearing test system disposed in a local location; and initiating, by a one or more processors, a hearing test, wherein in response to initiating the hearing test, a set of tones are output through the test headphones (See P0037 where the components include coupled headphones, speakers and microphones as hearing test devices and camera (P0084) used during a video call for the hearing test. See Fig. 6A, P0056 a button 615 allows the provider control to start or stop audio calibration on the patient device. Also, see Fig. 11A-11B where a patient confirms a tone mentioned in P0068.).
Although Swetlitz discloses the test method to include switching the hearing test system from the pre- examination mode to the examination mode, microphone auditorily coupled to test headphones of the hearing test system and initiating the hearing test as mentioned above, Swetlitz does not explicitly teach an A/B switch being used. Vumbaco teaches in P0045 switching, by an A/B switch where the A/B switch is controlled remotely and depends on the setting of the audio amplifier's A/B switch shown in Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wireless audio switching before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system, method and software of Swetlitz to include switching, by an A/B switch as taught by Vumbaco for connecting effects pedals into an audio signal system which avoids the need for long cables mentioned in Vumbaco’s P0004.
Regarding claim 11, Swetlitz and Vumbaco teach the method of claim 10 mentioned above, and Swetlitz further teaches wherein in response to initiating the hearing test, the set of tones are simultaneously output through a remote speaker (See Fig. 9 and [P0065] In an automatic assessment, portions of the hearing test may be automated. For example, the selection of and playing of different tones may be automated. In another example, placing marks in the audiogram 810 may be automated when the patient indicates they hear sound at the same time a tone is being played.).
Regarding claim 12, Swetlitz and Vumbaco teach the method of claim 11 mentioned above,
and Swetlitz further teaches wherein the remote speaker and the remote microphone are physically decoupled from the VHP device (See Fig. 1A-1B, P0037 where the components such as headphones, speakers and microphones as hearing test devices and camera (P0084) used during a video call for the hearing test are not coupled.).
Regarding claim 15, Swetlitz and Vumbaco the method of claim 10 mentioned above, and Swetlitz teaches further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors (See processors in Abstract, P0086.), from the remote microphone, and through one of a server or a Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, audio data (See and Fig. 5B, Fig. 7B, Fig. 8B, P0053 a video chat 540 showing video of a patient and provider with audio for conducting a virtual appointment.); and
transmitting, by the one or more processors, audio corresponding to the audio data through the test headphones (See headphone used while administering the hearing test in P0037.).
Regarding claim 16, Swetlitz teaches further comprising transmitting, by the one or more processors, an audio output corresponding to the audio data through (VHP) headphones (See headphones in P0037, P0056.).
Regarding claim 17, Swetlitz teaches wherein in response to the switching the hearing test system from the pre-examination mode to the examination mode, a speaker disposed in the local location is auditorily de-coupled from the remote microphone (See configuration of speakers and microphones and headphones in P0037 and Fig. 4A-4B, Fig. 5A-5E where the patient is in a virtual waiting room with intake questions and equipment is tested serves as a pre-examination mode before switching to an examination mode mentioned in P0053-P0055.).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swetlitz (US 2021/0329393 A1) in view of Vumbaco (US 2013/0177176 A1) further in view of Spittle (US 2023/0300532 A1).
Regarding claim 3, although Swetlitz and Vumbaco teach the test system of claim 2 mentioned above, Swetlitz and Vumbaco do not explicitly teach an audio mixer, receiving a first and second audio input, forming a mixed audio output, and transmitting the mixed audio output to an audiologist device through a server. Spittle teaches further comprising a VHP microphone, wherein: the audio mixer is configured to receive a first audio input from the hearing test device and a second audio input from the VHP microphone and form a mixed audio output, and transmit the mixed audio output to an audiologist device through one or more servers (See Fig. 19, P0465 with gains to both left and right ears, exemplary interfaces such as mobile phone, tablet, smartwatch, or neck worn control pod in Fig. 20B where the user mixer controller tests hearing mentioned in P0470-P0471, transmitting audio data via server in P0189, P0945.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of developing ear worn devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Swetlitz and Vumbaco to include an audio mixer, receiving a first and second audio input, forming a mixed audio output, and transmitting the mixed audio output to an audiologist device through a server as taught by Spittle to allow the user to select more than one of a few pre-determined settings mentioned in Spittle’s P0009.
Regarding claim 4, although Swetlitz and Vumbaco teach the test system of claim 2 mentioned above, Swetlitz and Vumbaco do not explicitly teach an audio mixer disposed within the VHP device. Spittle teaches wherein the audio mixer is disposed within the VHP device (See P0536- P0536 where the digital mixer includes integrating compatible auditory overlays with augmented reality and virtual reality applications.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of developing ear worn devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Swetlitz and Vumbaco to include an audio mixer disposed within the VHP device as taught by Spittle to allow the user to select more than one of a few pre-determined settings mentioned in Spittle’s P0009.
Regarding claim 13, although Swetlitz and Vumbaco teach the method of claim 11 mentioned above, Swetlitz and Vumbaco do not explicitly teach tones transmitted through the mixer. Spittle teaches wherein the set of tones are transmitted through a mixer (See [P0177] the system enables the user to control the properties (e.g., content, tone, level, spatial location, etc.) of the sound signals transmitted to the ear pieces. Also, see P0465, Fig. 20B user mixer controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of developing ear worn devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Swetlitz and Vumbaco to include a set of tones are transmitted through a mixer as taught by Spittle to allow the user to select more than one of a few pre-determined settings mentioned in Spittle’s P0009.
Regarding claim 14, Swetlitz, Vumbaco and Spittle teach the method of claim 13 mentioned above, and Swetlitz teaches:
receiving an audio data through a local microphone disposed in the local location (See 1A, speaker and microphone in P0037.); and transmitting out the remote speaker, wherein an audio output corresponding to the audio data and the set of tones is output together from the remote speaker (See Fig. 9 and P0065.).
Although Swetlitz and Vumbaco teach received audio data through a microphone disposed locally and an audio output corresponding to the audio data and the set of tones is output together from the remote speaker mentioned above, Swetlitz and Vumbaco do not explicitly teach transmitting the audio data through the mixer. Spittle teaches transmitting the audio data through the mixer (See [P0177] the system enables the user to control the properties (e.g., content, tone, level, spatial location, etc.) of the sound signals transmitted to the ear pieces. Also, see P0465, Fig. 20B user mixer controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of developing ear worn devices before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Swetlitz and Vumbaco to include transmitted through a mixer as taught by Spittle to allow the user to select more than one of a few pre-determined settings mentioned in Spittle’s P0009.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5509. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am -6:30 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/T.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3687 09/24/2025
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687