Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
a) As an initial matter, Applicant argues:
“The Examiner argues that the terms "detection module," "estimation module," and "adjustment module" are generic placeholders. (Office Action at pgs. 3-4). Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Applicant does not use "means" or "step" in the claims, meaning there is a rebuttable presumption that the claims are not to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). It is the Examiner's obligation to provide an argument that means-plus-function treatment is appropriate in view of the rebuttable presumption. However, the Office Action only recites the legal standard and provides no reasoned argument for the Office's position. Therefore, no prima facie case has been made showing that means-plus-function treatment is appropriate, and therefore, means- plus-function treatment is not appropriate.
Moreover, in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 770 F.3d 1339, at 1349, the Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit held that the term "module" was not the equivalent of "means" because "module" is a structural term. Therefore, the alleged placeholders are in fact structural terms that recite sufficient structure. “
Applicant mischaracterizes the holding of Williamson v. Citrix Online. The holding did not find that the term module is a “structural” term. To the contrary, Williamson expressly states that “module” is a well-known nonce word that can operate as a substitute for “means” in the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and further explains that generic terms such as “mechanism,” “element,” “device” and other nonce words may invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because they do not connote sufficiently definite structure.
The holding further found that the proper inquiry is “whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” The absence of the word “means” merely creates a rebuttable presumption against application of 112(f), however, that presumption is overcome where the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or merely recites function without sufficient structure for performing that function. Here, the claim terms “detection module,” “estimation module” and “adjustment module” are recited purely in terms of the functions they perform, namely detecting, estimating and adjusting respectively, without reciting any definite structure for performing those functions. Similar to the “distributed learning control module” limitation in Williamson, the present limitations merely replaces the word “means” with the nonce word “module” while reciting functional language. The modifiers “detection”, “estimation” and “adjustment” merely describe the intended functions of the modules and do not impart sufficiently definite structural meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Further, Applicant’s assertion that the Office Action “merely recites the legal standard and provides no reasoned argument” is not persuasive. The Office Action identified the claimed “module” limitations as functional nonce terminology lacking recited structure and explained that the claims do not describe how the modules are structurally implemented or interact with other claim components in a manner that would convey sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the Examiner established a prima facie basis that the limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
b) Applicant argues that Chhetri does not teach generating the second audio signal exclusively from the first audio signal because Chhetri’s Acoustic Echo Cancellation (AEC) embodiment uses far-end reference signal X(n, k). This argument is not persuasive because the now present rejection relies on Chhetri’s alternative Adaptative Reference Algorithm (ARA) and Acoustic Interface Cancellation (AIC), not the AEC embodiment relied upon for Applicant’s argument.
Chhetri teaches generating microphone derived target and reference signals from microphone signal Z(n, k), selecting a target signal including speech, selecting including echo or acoustic noise and performing AIC by removing the reference signal from the target signal. Therefore, the claimed first audio signal corresponds to Chhetri’s signal Z(n, k) and the claimed second audio signal corresponds to the AIC processed target signal generated from the microphone signal. Accordingly, Chhetri teaches generating the second audio signal exclusively from the first audio signal.
To the extend the amended claims require detecting a level difference between the first and second signals and then performing sub band signal to noise ratio and mixing ratio processing, Eatwell and Furata supply those teachings, because they do these limitations using signals that came from exclusively the first signal, whereas these limitations only have explicit support in Chhetri for use of a separate reference signal. Eatwell teaches comparing a noisy input signal with a processed signal generated from that input, including e(n) = x(n) – p(n). Furata teaches sub band based signal to noise ratio and mixture ratio processing, including calculating input signal spectrum Sa[i], estimated noise spectrum Na[i], mixture ratio m and sub band signal to noise ratio SNR[i], then using the sub ban signal to noise ratio to determine spectral suppression and output a noise-suppressed signal.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive with the rejection as presently set forth. Chhetri teaches the first and second audio signal relationship, Eatwell teaches determining the difference between the original and processed signal commensurate with this relationship and Furata teaches the claimed sub band SNR and mixing ratio processing. The rejection is therefore maintained.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a detection module in claim 8 and 15;
an estimation module in claim 8 and 15;
an adjustment module in claim 8-11 and 15-18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chhetri (US 12,272,369), in view of Eatwell (US 5,742,694) and further in view of Furata (US 2008/0056509).
Regarding Claim 1:
Chhetri discloses a method for processing audio signals, the method comprising:
receiving a first audio signal including a background noise (Chhetri: Col 2:26-38 and 6:21-28 Receives microphone signal mixed up with unwanted signals, remote speech, echo, ambient noise etc. labeled Z(n,k));
generating, from exclusively the first audio signal, a second audio signal with a reduced signal level from the first audio signal, the second audio signal being a processed version of the first audio signal (Chhetri: Col 7 line 52 – Col 8 line 12 explicitly says that as an alternative to performing acoustic echo cancellation (AEC) using far end reference X(n,k), the device may generate a reference signal based on beamforming and may use adaptive reference algorithm (ARA) using the microphone signal Z(n, k) to generate directional audio signals, selects one as a target signal including speech, selects another as a reference signal including echo/acoustic noise and performing adaptive interference (AIC) by remove the reference signal from the target signal, therefore the claimed second audio signal corresponds to the AIC processed target signal, not Chhetri’s AEC output M(n, k) which is explicitly generated from the microphone signal Z(n, k) because both the target signal and the reference signal used in the AIC process are generated from the Z(n, k). the AIC processed target signal has a reduced signal level relative to the first audio signal because Chhetri removes a reference signal representing echo or acoustic noise from the target signal);
Chhetri does not explicitly disclose:
detecting a level difference between the first audio signal and the second audio signal
However, Eatwell discloses detecting a level difference between the first audio signal and the second audio signal (Eatwell: Col 2 lines 41 - 42 Col 5 lines 12-25 discloses a noisy input signal is processed to determine a predictable component teaching that the concept of comparing a first noisy signal and a second processed signal to determine a difference between them, this is seen in the equation e(n) = x(n) – p(n), e(n) which is a difference between the first and second signals, applied to Chhetri, the difference between Chhetri’s microphone signal Z(n, k) and its AIC processed target signal represents the reduced removed noise or interference component);
Chhetri and Eatwell are combinable because they both focus on noise reduction through filtering noisy audio signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chhetri’s speech enhancement processing to include Eatwell’s comparison of a noisy input signal with a processed “predictable component” i.e., the second signal which is generated exclusively from the first signal. Chhetri contemplates in one embodiment comparing signals generated using multiple signals, it merely does not explicitly state that the in the embodiment where the second signal is created using exclusively the first signal, that this second signal is compared to the first. Eatwell teaches that a noisy signal is passed through an adaptive prediction filter to obtain a predictable signal component and a prediction error component and that the first and second signal components are attenuated according to the levels of signal and noise in each component and then recombined to form an enhanced signal. The motivation for combining this teaching is “one object of the invention is to provide a noise reduction filter with low computation and memory requirements,” “very little or no throughput delay and a high degree of noise attenuation” as disclosed in Col 3 lines 26-33 of Eatwell.
Chhetri and Eatwell do not explicitly disclose
in each of a plurality of predetermined frequency bands (Furata: ¶68-74 teaches converting an input signal into a spectrum, dividing it into sub bands, calculating an input signal average spectrum Sa[i] for each sub band calculating a mixture ration m and calculating a sub band, calculating a mixture ration m and calculating a sub ban SN ratio SNR[i] using the input signal average spectrum, estimated noise spectrum and mixture ration);
estimating a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the second audio signal for each of the plurality of predetermined frequency bands based on a detected level difference (Furata: ¶75 discloses calculating the sub band signal to noise ratio SNR[i] using the input signal average spectrum Sa[i], the estimated noise spectrum Na[i] and the mixture ratio m. Furata ¶76 further explains that the input signal average spectrum and estimated noise spectrum are used to obtain the sub band SN ratio and reduce inappropriate estimation and underestimation of the SN ratio);
adjusting a mixing ratio of the first audio signal to the second audio signal based on an estimated SNR independently for each of the plurality of predetermined frequency bands to generate an output audio signal having a balanced SNR throughout the plurality of predetermined frequency bands (Furata discloses a mixture ratio m and sub band mixture ratios m[i]. Furata ¶72 teaches calculating a mixture ratio of the estimated noise spectrum to the input signal average spectrum and ¶97-102 discloses controlling the mixture ratio on a sub band basis such that m[i] can have a different value for each sub band.¶88-95 discloses that calculating a spectral suppression amount, applying the suppression amount to the input spectrum to obtain a noise removed spectrum, converting it to the time domain and outputting a noise removed signal).
Chhetri and Eatwell in view of Furata are combinable because they both focus on noise reduction through filtering noisy audio signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined Chhetri-Eatwell system to use Furata’s sub band signal noise ratio and mixture ratio processing because Furata explicitly teaches that its noise suppression device reduces residual noise by calculating a sub band based signal to noise ratio. Furata teaches that its sub ban signal to noise ratio calculation unit calculates “a sub band-based mixture ratio of the received estimated noise spectrum to the thus calculated input signal average spectrum” and “calculates the sub ban based signal to noise ratio on the basis of the received sub band based estimated noise spectrum, the calculated sub band-based input signal average spectrum and the calculated mixture ratio.” Furata motivates using this disclosure by stating that this provides the benefit that “noise can be suppressed uniformly over the whole frequency band and therefore residual noise occurrence can be reduced” in ¶[0031].
Regarding Claim 2:
The proposed combination of Chhetri, Eatwell and Furata further discloses the method of claim 1 outputting the output audio signal with the adjusted mixing ratio for each of the plurality of predetermined frequency bands (Furata: ¶97 discloses that the frequency band is divided into a plurality of sub bands and that the sub ban SN ratio calculation unit calculates a sub band based mixture ratio, ¶98 further teaches the equation, setting respective mixture ratios for individual sub bands and ¶102 explains that the sub band mixture ratio m[i] is capable of having a different value for each sub band i).
Chhetri and Eatwell in view of Furata are combinable because they both focus on noise reduction through filtering noisy audio signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined Chhetri-Eatwell system to use Furata’s sub band signal noise ratio and mixture ratio processing because Furata explicitly teaches that its noise suppression device reduces residual noise by calculating a sub band based signal to noise ratio. Furata teaches that its sub ban signal to noise ratio calculation unit calculates “a sub band-based mixture ratio of the received estimated noise spectrum to the thus calculated input signal average spectrum” and “calculates the sub ban based signal to noise ratio on the basis of the received sub band based estimated noise spectrum, the calculated sub band-based input signal average spectrum and the calculated mixture ratio.” Furata motivates using this disclosure by stating that this provides the benefit that “noise can be suppressed uniformly over the whole frequency band and therefore residual noise occurrence can be reduced” in ¶[0031].
Regarding Claim 3:
The proposed combination of Chhetri, Eatwell and Furata further discloses the method of claim 1 wherein adjusting the mixing ratio includes increasing a portion of the first audio signal in a predetermined frequency band where a SNR of the second audio signal is relatively higher than the other predetermined frequency bands (Furata: ¶74 discloses calculating a sub band signal to noise ratio SNR[i] for each sub band using the input signal average spectrum Sa[i] , the estimated noise spectrum Na[i] and the mixture ratio m. Furata ¶88 then further discloses using the sub band signal to noise ratio to calculate a spectral suppression amount, ¶91 further shows performing spectral amplitude suppression therefore when the sub band SNR indicates relatively less noise and more speech content, less suppression is applied, increasing or preserving more of the signal in that frequency band).
Chhetri and Eatwell in view of Furata are combinable because they both focus on noise reduction through filtering noisy audio signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined Chhetri-Eatwell system to use Furata’s sub band signal noise ratio and mixture ratio processing because Furata explicitly teaches that its noise suppression device reduces residual noise by calculating a sub band based signal to noise ratio. Furata teaches that its sub ban signal to noise ratio calculation unit calculates “a sub band-based mixture ratio of the received estimated noise spectrum to the thus calculated input signal average spectrum” and “calculates the sub ban based signal to noise ratio on the basis of the received sub band based estimated noise spectrum, the calculated sub band-based input signal average spectrum and the calculated mixture ratio.” Furata motivates using this disclosure by stating that this provides the benefit that “noise can be suppressed uniformly over the whole frequency band and therefore residual noise occurrence can be reduced” in ¶[0031].
Regarding Claim 4:
The proposed combination of Chhetri, Eatwell and Furata further discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the adjusting the mixing ratio includes decreasing a portion of the first audio signal in a predetermined frequency band where a SNR is relatively lower than the other predetermined frequency bands (Furata: ¶74 discloses calculating a sub band SN ratio SNR[i] and calculating a spectral suppression amount based on the sub band SN ratio. ¶88 further discloses applying the spectral suppression amount to the input signal spectrum to generate the noise removed spectrum. Accordingly, where the sub ban SN ratio is relatively lower, the suppression amount decreases the signal portion in that band to reduce noise).
Chhetri and Eatwell in view of Furata are combinable because they both focus on noise reduction through filtering noisy audio signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combined Chhetri-Eatwell system to use Furata’s sub band signal noise ratio and mixture ratio processing because Furata explicitly teaches that its noise suppression device reduces residual noise by calculating a sub band based signal to noise ratio. Furata teaches that its sub ban signal to noise ratio calculation unit calculates “a sub band-based mixture ratio of the received estimated noise spectrum to the thus calculated input signal average spectrum” and “calculates the sub ban based signal to noise ratio on the basis of the received sub band based estimated noise spectrum, the calculated sub band-based input signal average spectrum and the calculated mixture ratio.” Furata motivates using this disclosure by stating that this provides the benefit that “noise can be suppressed uniformly over the whole frequency band and therefore residual noise occurrence can be reduced” in ¶[0031].
Regarding Claim 5:
The proposed combination of Chhetri, Eatwell and Furata further discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the second audio signal is obtained by a speech enhancement device that reduces the background noise included in the first audio signal. (Chhetri: Col 7 line 52 – Col 8 line 12 discloses ARA/AIC processing in which microphones signal(s) Z(n, k) are used to generate microphone derived target and reference signals, where the target signal includes speech and the reference signal includes echo or acoustic noise and AIC is performed by removing the reference signal from the target signal. Therefore, the resulting AIC processed target signal is obtained by a speech enhancement device and has reduced background noise relative to the microphone input).
Regarding Claim 6:
The proposed combination of Chhetri, Eatwell and Furata further discloses the method of claim 1 wherein adjusting the mixing ratio is performed periodically according to a pre-configured period of time (Furata: ¶68 discloses the input signal is sampled at a predetermined sampling frequency and divided into frames having a predetermined length. Furata then performs frame based time and frequency conversion and calculates sub band signal to noise ratios and mixture ratios for each frame).
Regarding Claim 7:
The proposed combination of Chhetri, Eatwell and Furata further discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the first audio signal is a raw speech signal of a user (Chhetri: Col 2:28-31 discloses the microphone audio data may include local speech from the user).
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 has been considered and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 8 recites substantially analogous limitations in device form. The claimed input nodes correspond to the audio signal inputs discussed above with respect to claim 1 and the claimed modules perform the same corresponding signal processing operations discussed above. Accordingly, the teachings of Chhetri in view of Eatwell and Furata apply to claim 8 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
It is noted that Chhetri discloses a device and system for processing audio signals at least at Fig. 1 and Col 1 lines 42 – 53.
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 has been analyzed with regard to claims 2 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 has been analyzed with regard to claims 3 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 has been analyzed with regard to claims 4 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 has been analyzed with regard to claims 5 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 has been analyzed with regard to claims 6 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 has been analyzed with regard to claims 7 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 has been considered and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 15 recites substantially analogous limitations in computer readable medium form as claim 1. The claimed instructions cause performance of the same signal processing operations discussed above with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, the teachings of Chhetri in view of Eatwell and Furata apply to claim 15 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
It is noted that Chhetri discloses a device and system for processing audio signals at least at Fig. 1 and Col 1 lines 42 – 53.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 has been analyzed with regard to claims 2 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 has been analyzed with regard to claims 3 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 has been analyzed with regard to claims 4 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 has been analyzed with regard to claims 5 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 has been analyzed with regard to claims 6 (see rejection above) and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IAN SCOTT MCLEAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4599. The examiner can normally be reached "Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 EST, off Every 2nd Friday".
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571) 272-6338. 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.
/IAN SCOTT MCLEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2654
/HAI PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights