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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 12, and 16 are currently amended.
Claims 9 and 19-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21-23 are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-10, filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are
not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. 101:
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the claim does not recite a mental process and is
directed to a correction system that includes an electronic device that has a component that provides haptic feedback in response to determining a body part is not at a determined position in relation to an electronic device. The examiner respectfully argues that although the additional element of a haptic feedback component is claimed, it is recited as extra-solution activity (like a speaker or display device) to perform the mental process of a diagnostic step.
Applicant argues that the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application when evaluating the additional elements individually and in combination to one another. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that the combination of additional elements with the correction system recite generic computer components used to perform the abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Specifically, the applicant’s specification [27] recite “a corrective alert can include a voice command, audible noise, haptic vibration or feedback, intermittent lighting or flashing, or the like to alert the user that their body part is not in a correct location.” Therefore, the haptic feedback component recites nothing more than extra-solution activity to perform a diagnostic step. The haptic feedback component is a generic computer component configured to perform physical stimuli, rather than visual or auditorial stimuli performed by a display or speaker, respectively.
Furthermore, the examiner argues that the step of “determining a body part is not at a determined position in relation to an electronic device,” is an abstract idea and cannot provide the improvement under Step 2A Prong 2. Applicant is reminded that abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). Both Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B require an additional element, not an abstract idea, to provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). See Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir 2016). Here, the additional elements of claims 1 and 12 are merely generically recited computer elements used as tools for executing the abstract ideas or insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 3/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of
claim(s) 1-13 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Petterson.
35 U.S.C. 102 and 103:
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Proud, alone or in combination with the prior art, does
not teach “determine whether the position of the body part is at a determined position in relation to the electronic device related to ensuring physical health of the body part.” After further search and consideration, the examiner respectfully argues that Proud teaches the necessary structure of this limitation with newly added paragraphs to support (paragraphs 112-113, 117-118, 139-143, 231-232). Specifically, it is disclosed in [118] that “the accelerometer/gyroscope detects movement and orientation and the GPS sensor is used to determine location of the user.” Therefore, the device is fully capable of “determining whether the position of the body part is at a determined position in relation to the electronic device” by using body fusion algorithms. Petterson (paragraph 50-51) teaches “a sensor fusion algorithm weights the data recorded by the accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer of the IMU to calculate the orientation of the wearable sensor 112 in space using quaternion representation. In some embodiments, a sensor fusion algorithm includes a Kalman filter algorithm to process the recorded accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer measurements” to calculate sensor position from an electronic device.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processing algorithm of Proud to add the Kalman filter algorithm from Petterson for the benefit of minimize standard sensor noise, transform the quaternion representation, and to determine relative distance of positional sensors from an electronic device.
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 1-8, 10-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 12 and 21 recite two apparatuses and a non-transitory computer with instructions for performing operations of the device comprising:
determine a position of the body part of the user;
determine whether the position of the body part is at a determined position in relation to the electronic device related to ensuring physical health of the body part;
alert the user to vary the position of the body part when determining the body part is not at the determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part.
To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is
evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.05. The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus, claim 12 is directed to another apparatus and claim 21 is
directed to a computer readable storage medium storing instructions to perform the steps of the method and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural
phenomenon?
Claims 1, 12 and 21 recite two apparatuses and a non-transitory computer with instructions
for performing operations of the device comprising:
determine a position of the body part of the user;
determine whether the position of the body part is at a determined position in relation to the electronic device related to ensuring physical health of the body part;
alert the user to vary the position of the body part when determining the body part is not at the determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the
limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, claims 1, 12 and 21 recite an abstract idea of a mental process.
Claims 1, 12 and 21 recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations as drafted in the
claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the claimed steps in the mind, but for the recitation of a generic processor. Other than reciting a generic processing system and memory, nothing in the elements of the claims precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or manually by a clinician. For example:
“Determine a position of the body part of the user;” A physician may observe a body position of a patient and determine a position.
“Determine whether the position of the body part is at a determined position in relation to the electronic device related to ensuring physical health of the body part;” A physician may make a diagnosis based on an observed body position of the patient in relation to another electronic device.
“Alert the user to vary the position of the body part when determining the body part is not at the determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part.” A physician may alert a patient by displaying on a clipboard or verbally communicating the patients’ health symptoms.
Furthermore claims 7-8 recite additional steps that can be manually performed by the
Clinician.
“wherein to determine whether the position of the body part is at the determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part includes obtaining user characteristics related to the body part and determining the determined position based on the user characteristics.” A physician can determine a characteristic relating to the body based on observed body position of the patient.
“determine whether the position of the body part is at the determined position at a first time; and update the determined position after receiving additional body part positions of additional other users at a second time that is later than the first time.” A physician may observe the body part position of a patient at different times and adjust their determination based on the observed patient’s posture.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application?
Claims 1, 12, 16 and 21 recite the additional elements of a “sensors”, “haptic feedback
component,” “processor”, “data storage” and “popup display” which are being interpreted as a processor of a data gathering device.
Sensors are recited as pre-solution activity to the step of data gathering.
“Actuate the component to provide the haptic feedback in response to determining the body part is not at the determined position in relation to the electronic device,” is recited as post-solution activity to a diagnostic step, which a physician is capable of doing.
Popup display is recited as post-solution activity to a diagnostic step, which a physician is capable of doing.
However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality performing the function of
generic data processing such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to simply implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(b) and (f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception?
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination are not enough to
qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, “sensors”, “haptic feedback component,” “processor”, “data storage” and “popup display” which are being interpreted as a processor of a data gathering device.
Sensors are recited as pre-solution activity to the step of data gathering.
“Actuate the component to provide the haptic feedback in response to determining the body part is not at the determined position in relation to the electronic device,” is recited as post-solution activity to a diagnostic step, which a physician is capable of doing.
Popup display is recited as post-solution activity to a diagnostic step, which a physician is capable of doing.
as recited to perform the steps of:
determine a position of the body part of the user;
determine whether the position of the body part is at a determined position in relation to the electronic device related to ensuring physical health of the body part;
alert the user to vary the position of the body part when determining the body part is not at the determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part.
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer
components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. These additional elements are well‐understood, routine (For example Proud et al. US Pub.: US 20140245790 A1, hereinafter Proud) teaches a data gathering device with a processor and memory, and conventional limitations that amount to mere instructions or elements to implement the abstract idea. In addition, the end result of the system/method, the essence of the whole, is a patent-ineligible concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 1-8, 12, 14-16 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
by Proud et al. US Pub.: US 20140245790 A1, hereinafter Proud in view of Petterson et al. US Pub.: US 20170296129 A1, hereinafter Petterson.
Regarding claim 1, Proud teaches a correction system (32) comprising: a sensor system
comprising a sensor (14) configured to obtain sensor data related to a position of a body part of a user in relation to an electronic device (fig. 3; paragraph 139-143);
the electric device including a component configured to provide haptic feedback (fig. 3; paragraph 280); Tactile feedback such as vibration equates to an haptic feedback component.
and the electronic device including one or more processors (52) and a data storage device having executable instructions accessible by the one or more processors (fig. 3; paragraph 157-159);
wherein, responsive to execution of the instructions, the one or more processors (52) are configured to: determine a position of the body part of the user based on the sensor data obtained from the sensor (fig. 21; paragraph 272-274); The monitoring system may generate various physiological parameters including body position indicative of health information for a user.
determine whether the position of the body part is at a determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part (fig. 21; paragraph 272-274); The monitoring system may receive body position data, which is analyzed relative to a base standards. These base standards are updateable and may include physical health of a patient.
and alert the user to vary the position of the body part when determining the body part is not at the determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part (fig. 21-22; paragraph 248-271). Alert signals may be specific to different body locations of the patient. The alert signals provide feedback on health condition of a patient based on measured parameter values.
However, Proud does not explicitly teach to actuate the component to provide the haptic feedback in response to determining the body part is not at the determined position in relation to the electronic device.
Petterson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to actuate the component to provide the haptic feedback in response to determining the body part is not at the determined position in relation to the electronic device(paragraph 50-51). “A sensor fusion algorithm weights the data recorded by the accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer of the IMU to calculate the orientation of the wearable sensor 112 in space using quaternion representation. In some embodiments, a sensor fusion algorithm includes a Kalman filter algorithm to process the recorded accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer measurements” to calculate sensor position from an electronic device.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processing algorithm of Proud to add the Kalman filter algorithm from Petterson for the benefit of minimize standard sensor noise, transform the quaternion representation, and to determine relative distance of positional sensors from an electronic device.
Regarding claim 2, Proud in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention and Proud further
teaches wherein the sensor system further comprises a magnet (12) configured to be detected by the sensor (fig. 1a-g; paragraph 84).
Regarding claim 3, Proud in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention and Proud further
teaches wherein the magnet (12) is coupled to a wearable device (10) configured to be worn by the user (fig. 1a-g; paragraph 84).
Regarding claim 4, Proud in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention and Proud further
teaches wherein the wearable device is at least one of glasses, headband, headphones, necklace, earring, bracelet, ring, or cufflink (fig. 1a-g; paragraph 65).
Regarding claim 5, Proud in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention and Proud further
teaches wherein the sensor is coupled to at least one of a wearable device or a wrist support retractably coupled within the electronic device (fig. 1a-g; paragraph 84).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Proud in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention and
Proud further teaches wherein to determine whether the position of the body part is at the determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part includes analyzing, utilizing artificial intelligence, body part positions of other users and determining the determined position based on the body part positions of the other users (paragraph 120 and 272-274); The monitoring system may generate various physiological parameters including body position, which may utilize artificial intelligence to indicate health information for a user.
Regarding claim 7, Proud in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention and Proud further
teaches wherein to determine whether the position of the body part is at the determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part includes obtaining user characteristics related to the body part and determining the determined position based on the user characteristics (fig. 21; paragraph 272-274); The monitoring system may receive body position data, which is analyzed relative to a base standards. These base standards are updateable and may include physical health of a patient. Other body part characteristics, such as core body temperature, body fat, pressure on muscles, and galvanic skin response are disclosed to be used in combination with the position data.
Regarding claim 8, Proud in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention and Proud further
teaches the one or more processors further configured to determine whether the position of the body part is at the determined position at a first time; and update the determined position after receiving additional body part positions of additional other users at a second time that is later than the first time (fig. 21; paragraph 272-274); The monitoring system may receive body position data, which is analyzed relative to a base standards. These base standards are updateable and may include physical health of a patient.
Regarding claim 16, Proud in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention and Proud further
teaches wherein alerting the user to correct the position of the body part includes at least one of a popup on a display (244) of the electronic device, an auditory message from a speaker of the electronic device, haptic feedback from a component of the electronic device, or haptic feedback from a wearable device that includes the sensor (fig. 16; paragraph 232).
Regarding claim 12, Proud teaches a correction system, comprising: a first wearable device (10)
configured to be worn by a user of an electronic device, the first wearable device including a magnet (fig. 1-3; paragraph 84 and 139-143);
a second wearable device (10) configured to be worn by the user of the electronic device, the second wearable device including a sensor configured to obtain sensor data based on detecting the magnet (fig. 1-3; paragraph 84, 133, and 139-143); It is disclosed [133] that multiple wearable bands may be used at the same time.
the electronic device including one or more processors and a data storage device having executable instructions accessible by the one or more processors;
wherein, responsive to execution of the instructions, the one or more processors (52) are configured to: obtain, from the sensor (14), the sensor data related to the body part of the user of the electronic device (fig. 3; paragraph 157-159);
determine a position of the body part of the user based on the sensor data obtained from the sensor (fig. 21; paragraph 272-274); The monitoring system may generate various physiological parameters including body position indicative of health information for a user.
determine whether the position of the body part is at a determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part (fig. 21; paragraph 272-274); The monitoring system may receive body position data, which is analyzed relative to a base standards. These base standards are updateable and may include physical health of a patient.
and alert the user to vary the position of the body part when determining the body part is not at the determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part (fig. 21-22; paragraph 248-271). Alert signals may be specific to different body locations of the patient. The alert signals provide feedback on health condition of a patient based on measured parameter values.
However, Proud does not explicitly teach alert the user, with the electronic device, in response to determining the body part is not at the determined position in relation to the electronic device.
Petterson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches to alert the user by actuating the electronic component to provide the haptic feedback in response to determining the body part is not at the determined position in relation to the electronic device (paragraph 50-51). “A sensor fusion algorithm weights the data recorded by the accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer of the IMU to calculate the orientation of the wearable sensor 112 in space using quaternion representation. In some embodiments, a sensor fusion algorithm includes a Kalman filter algorithm to process the recorded accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer measurements” to calculate sensor position from an electronic device.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processing algorithm of Proud to add the Kalman filter algorithm from Petterson for the benefit of minimize standard sensor noise, transform the quaternion representation, and to determine relative distance of positional sensors from an electronic device.
Regarding claim 14, Proud in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention and Proud
further teaches wherein the first wearable device is a ring, and the second wearable device is a bracelet, and the one or more processors are configured to determine the position of the wrist of the user based on the sensor data (fig. 1-3; paragraph 84, 133, and 139-143); It is disclosed [133] that multiple wearable bands may be used at the same time. The bands may be a ring or bracelet, which are configured to measure position data.
Regarding claim 21, Proud teaches correction system (32) comprising: a sensor system (14)
comprising a sensor configured to obtain sensor data related to a position of a body part of a user in relation to an electronic device (fig. 3; paragraph 139-143);
the electric device including a display (244) configured to provide a popup (fig. 16; paragraph 232);
and the electronic device including one or more processors (52) and a data storage device having executable instructions accessible by the one or more processors (52) (fig. 21; paragraph 157-159);
wherein, responsive to execution of the instructions, the one or more processors (52) are configured to: determine a position of the body part of the user based on the sensor data obtained from the sensor (fig. 21; paragraph 272-274); The monitoring system may generate various physiological parameters including body position indicative of health information for a user.
determine whether the position of the body part is at a determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part (fig. 21; paragraph 272-274); The monitoring system may receive body position data, which is analyzed relative to a base standards. These base standards are updateable and may include physical health of a patient.
and provide the popup of the display (244) in response to determining the body part is not at the determined position in relation to the electronic device to alert the user to vary the position of the body part when determining the body part is not at the determined position related to ensuring physical health of the body part (fig. 21-22; paragraph 232, 248-271, and 280). Alert signals may be specific to different body locations of the patient. The alert signals provide feedback on health condition of a patient based on measured parameter values.
However, Proud does not teach determine or alert whether the position of the body part is at a determined position in relation to the electronic device related to ensuring physical health of the body part.
Petterson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determine or alert whether the position of the body part is at a determined position in relation to the electronic device related to ensuring physical health of the body part (paragraph 50-51). “A sensor fusion algorithm weights the data recorded by the accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer of the IMU to calculate the orientation of the wearable sensor 112 in space using quaternion representation. In some embodiments, a sensor fusion algorithm includes a Kalman filter algorithm to process the recorded accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer measurements” to calculate sensor position from an electronic device.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processing algorithm of Proud to add the Kalman filter algorithm from Petterson for the benefit of minimize standard sensor noise, transform the quaternion representation, and to determine relative distance of positional sensors from an electronic device.
Regarding claim 22, Proud in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention and Proud
further teaches wherein the sensor system (14) further comprises a magnet (12) configured to be detected by the sensor (fig. 1a-g; paragraph 84).
Regarding claim 23, Proud in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention and Proud
further teaches wherein the magnet (12) is coupled to a wearable device configured to be worn by the user (fig. 1a-g; paragraph 84).
Claims 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proud in
view of Petterson in view of Sternglass et al. US Pat.: US 6025986 A, hereinafter Sternglass.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Proud in view of Petterson does not teach wherein the electronic
device further comprises a retractable wrist support configured to extend from the electronic device.
Sternglass, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the electronic device further
comprises a retractable wrist support configured to extend from the electronic device (fig. 1A-F; col. 2-3, lines 65-67 and 1-14).
Therefore, 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 electronic device of Proud in view of Petterson to add a retractable wrist support from Sternglass for the benefit of reducing strain to an operator's hand or hands during use of the keyboard and which can be easily stored to minimize the overall size of the personal computer.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Proud teaches in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention
and Proud further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to utilizing artificial intelligence to automatically determine body part positions of other users and determining the determined position based on the body part positions of the other users (paragraph 120 and 272-274); The monitoring system may generate various physiological parameters including body position, which may utilize artificial intelligence to indicate health information for a user.
Sternglass, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more processors are
further configured to automatically extend the retractable wrist support based on at least one of the sensor data or a user characteristic (fig. 1A-F; col. 2-3, lines 65-67 and 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to program the AI of the processors and the retractable wrist support of Proud in view of Petterson with the program from Sternglass to automatically be extended based on sensor data for the benefit of efficiently and quickly reducing strain to an operator's hand or hands during use of the keyboard, without having to manually extend the support.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proud in view of
Petterson in view of Brown et al. US Pub.: US 20210049652 A1, hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 13, Proud in view of Petterson teaches the claimed invention and Proud further
teaches wherein the first wearable device is an earring and the second wearable device is a necklace and the one or more processors are configured to determine the position of a head of the user based on the sensor data.
However, Proud in view of Petterson does not teach wherein the first wearable device is an
earring.
Brown, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first wearable device is an earring
(paragraph 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of the wearable devices from Proud in view of Petterson to be an earring from Brown for the benefit of collecting position signals of the head of the patient.
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 THIEN J TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights