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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 29 April, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 29 April, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 06 April, 2026 has been fully considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “whether an interference signal or a target motion is present” which is suggested to be amended to “whether [[an]]the interference signal or [[a]]the target motion is present”.
Claim 20 recites “a target motion” which is suggested to be amended to “[[a]]the target motion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 14-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman et al. (DoppleSleep: a contactless unobtrusive sleep sensing system using short-range Doppler radar. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 39–50), in view of Wahl et al. (US 2020/0326768 A1 “WAHL”).
Regarding claim 1, RAHMAN discloses (Examiner’s note: What RAHMAN does not explicitly disclose is ) an apparatus, comprising:
interface circuitry configured to receive data indicating a measurement signal of a radar sensor (recorded physical activity data using the radar module [pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements]); (reflected signal R(t) received by the radar [pg. 3, Section: Fundamentals of Doppler Radar])
and processing circuitry (DoppleSleep is implemented on an ARM microcontroller [pg. 1, Abstract]) configured to:
determine a rate at which the measurement signal crosses a predefined value based on the data (zero crossing rate [pg. 4, FIG. 3])
determine that target motion is present in a field of view of the radar sensor in response to the rate being below a first threshold; determine that an interference signal is present in the field of view in response to the rate exceeding a second threshold greater than the first threshold (the scatter plot of no physical movement, physical movement and external vibrations in a two-dimensional feature space formed by frame-level RMS energy and zero crossing rate [pg. 4, FIG. 3]); (the challenge of using Doppler radar to track physical movements is that we must be able to isolate noise due to vibrations from appliances such as fan, air-conditioning unit or a speaker within the radar’s range from human body movements […] simulated three scenarios: no physical movement, common sleep related body movements, and environmental noise induced by appliances and used as data for motion classifier […] the zero-crossing rate and the RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal are used as features for every 30 second frame. A leave-one-subject-out cross-validation experiment with a very simple threshold-based classifier indicates that these two features extracted in a frame level can easily discriminate among the three categories with an average recall of 94.5% [pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WAHL teaches that detection process 100 is executed at a wake-up circuit to detect a physical stimulus and wake up an electronic device from a sleep mode in response to the detected physical stimulus. More particularly, detection process 100 is executed to detect the physical stimulus, and when the physical stimulus is initially detected, additional measurements are performed to obtain higher precision values in order to reject noise-induced false positive wake-up events [0047]. Furthermore, WAHL teaches that wake-up circuit 22 and electronic device 24 may be incorporated into a single device, e.g., system 20. Hence, system 20 may be, for example, an access control key fob for a vehicle or building, a wireless computer mouse, a hearing aid, a TV/stereo remote control, a fitness tracker, a parcel tracking tag, a game controller, and so forth [0035].
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 system of RAHMAN to include the teachings of WAHL, because doing so would result in a significant reduction in power consumption to thereby extend battery life and/or to enable the use of smaller and less expensive batteries, as recognized by WAHL.
Regarding claim 2, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the interface circuitry is further configured to receive second data indicating that a target motion is potentially detected in the field of view, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the rate upon receiving the second data (the frame-level RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal mostly corresponds to the presence or absence of body movements (figure 3). However, there may be some frames where relatively high RMS energy may be caused due to aperiodic changes in the machine (e.g., when the machine switches) (figure 3). In order to isolate these frames, the zero-crossing rate and the RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal are used as features for every 30 second frame [RAHMAN pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements]).
Regarding claim 3, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the apparatus of claim 1 wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine potential presence of a target motion based on the data; and in response to determining potential presence of the target motion, determine the rate (the frame-level RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal mostly corresponds to the presence or absence of body movements (figure 3). However, there may be some frames where relatively high RMS energy may be caused due to aperiodic changes in the machine (e.g., when the machine switches) (figure 3). In order to isolate these frames, the zero-crossing rate and the RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal are used as features for every 30 second frame [RAHMAN pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements]).
Regarding claim 4, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the apparatus of claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine potential presence of a target motion based on at least one of a peak-to-peak value of the measurement signal, a sum of at least one amplitude value of the measurement signal in a frequency domain of the measurement signal, or a maximum amplitude value of the measurement signal in the frequency domain (the frame-level RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal mostly corresponds to the presence or absence of body movements (figure 3). However, there may be some frames where relatively high RMS energy may be caused due to aperiodic changes in the machine (e.g., when the machine switches) (figure 3) [RAHMAN pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 3). It is further noted that the limitation is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 11, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the rate by determining a number of crossings of the predefined value per at least one frame of the data (the zero-crossing rate and the RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal are used as features for every 30 second frame [RAHMAN pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, RAHMAN discloses an electronic device, comprising: an apparatus including:
interface circuitry configured to receive data indicating a measurement signal of a radar sensor (recorded physical activity data using the radar module [pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements]); (reflected signal R(t) received by the radar [pg. 3, Section: Fundamentals of Doppler Radar])
and processing circuitry (DoppleSleep is implemented on an ARM microcontroller [pg. 1, Abstract]) configured to:
determine a rate at which the measurement signal crosses a predefined value based on the data (zero crossing rate [pg. 4, FIG. 3])
determine that target motion is present in a field of view of the radar sensor in response to the rate being below a first threshold; determine that an interference signal is present in the field of view in response to the rate exceeding a second threshold greater than the first threshold; and generate an output signal indicating whether it has been determined that the target motion is present in the field of view and whether the interference signal is present in the field of view (the scatter plot of no physical movement, physical movement and external vibrations in a two-dimensional feature space formed by frame-level RMS energy and zero crossing rate [pg. 4, FIG. 3]); (the challenge of using Doppler radar to track physical movements is that we must be able to isolate noise due to vibrations from appliances such as fan, air-conditioning unit or a speaker within the radar’s range from human body movements […] simulated three scenarios: no physical movement, common sleep related body movements, and environmental noise induced by appliances and used as data for motion classifier […] the zero-crossing rate and the RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal are used as features for every 30 second frame. A leave-one-subject-out cross-validation experiment with a very simple threshold-based classifier indicates that these two features extracted in a frame level can easily discriminate among the three categories with an average recall of 94.5% [pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WAHL teaches that detection process 100 is executed at a wake-up circuit to detect a physical stimulus and wake up an electronic device from a sleep mode in response to the detected physical stimulus. More particularly, detection process 100 is executed to detect the physical stimulus, and when the physical stimulus is initially detected, additional measurements are performed to obtain higher precision values in order to reject noise-induced false positive wake-up events [0047]. Furthermore, WAHL teaches that wake-up circuit 22 and electronic device 24 may be incorporated into a single device, e.g., system 20. Hence, system 20 may be, for example, an access control key fob for a vehicle or building, a wireless computer mouse, a hearing aid, a TV/stereo remote control, a fitness tracker, a parcel tracking tag, a game controller, and so forth [0035].
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 system of RAHMAN to include the teachings of WAHL, because doing so would result in a significant reduction in power consumption to thereby extend battery life and/or to enable the use of smaller and less expensive batteries, as recognized by WAHL.
Regarding claim 15, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the electronic device of claim 14, further comprising a radar sensor for generating the measurement signal (recorded physical activity data using the radar module [RAHMAN pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements]), cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14).
Regarding claim 16, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the electronic device of claim 15, wherein the electronic device comprises one of a consumer device including a home assistant device, a speaker, a smartphone, a television receiver, an air conditioning unit, a smart light, or a tablet computer, an Internet of Things (IoT) device, or an industrial device (wake-up circuit 22 and electronic device 24 may be incorporated into a single device, e.g., system 20. Hence, system 20 may be, for example, an access control key fob for a vehicle or building, a wireless computer mouse, a hearing aid, a TV/stereo remote control, a fitness tracker, a parcel tracking tag, a game controller, and so forth [WAHL 0035], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14).
Regarding claim 17, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the control circuitry is configured to control operation of the electronic device based on the output signal by at least one of activating and deactivating the electronic device, changing an operational mode of the electronic device, or changing an operational parameter of the electronic device (detection process 100 is executed at a wake-up circuit to detect a physical stimulus and wake up an electronic device from a sleep mode in response to the detected physical stimulus. More particularly, detection process 100 is executed to detect the physical stimulus, and when the physical stimulus is initially detected, additional measurements are performed to obtain higher precision values in order to reject noise-induced false positive wake-up events [WAHL 0047], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14).
Regarding claim 18, RAHMAN discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving data indicating a measurement signal of a radar sensor (recorded physical activity data using the radar module [pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements]); (reflected signal R(t) received by the radar [pg. 3, Section: Fundamentals of Doppler Radar])
determining a rate at which the measurement signal crosses a predefined value based on the data (zero crossing rate [pg. 4, FIG. 3])
comparing the rate to a first threshold and to a second threshold greater than the first threshold; classifying, based on the comparing, whether a target motion or an interference signal is present in a field of view of the radar sensor, wherein the target motion is identified in response to the rate being below the first threshold and the interference signal is identified in response to the rate exceeding the second threshold (the scatter plot of no physical movement, physical movement and external vibrations in a two-dimensional feature space formed by frame-level RMS energy and zero crossing rate [pg. 4, FIG. 3]); (the challenge of using Doppler radar to track physical movements is that we must be able to isolate noise due to vibrations from appliances such as fan, air-conditioning unit or a speaker within the radar’s range from human body movements […] simulated three scenarios: no physical movement, common sleep related body movements, and environmental noise induced by appliances and used as data for motion classifier […] the zero-crossing rate and the RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal are used as features for every 30 second frame. A leave-one-subject-out cross-validation experiment with a very simple threshold-based classifier indicates that these two features extracted in a frame level can easily discriminate among the three categories with an average recall of 94.5% [pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, WAHL teaches that detection process 100 is executed at a wake-up circuit to detect a physical stimulus and wake up an electronic device from a sleep mode in response to the detected physical stimulus. More particularly, detection process 100 is executed to detect the physical stimulus, and when the physical stimulus is initially detected, additional measurements are performed to obtain higher precision values in order to reject noise-induced false positive wake-up events [0047]. Furthermore, WAHL teaches that wake-up circuit 22 and electronic device 24 may be incorporated into a single device, e.g., system 20. Hence, system 20 may be, for example, an access control key fob for a vehicle or building, a wireless computer mouse, a hearing aid, a TV/stereo remote control, a fitness tracker, a parcel tracking tag, a game controller, and so forth [0035].
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 system of RAHMAN to include the teachings of WAHL, because doing so would result in a significant reduction in power consumption to thereby extend battery life and/or to enable the use of smaller and less expensive batteries, as recognized by WAHL.
Regarding claim 19, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 18 further comprising: receiving second data indicating that a target motion is potentially detected in the field of view; and determining the rate upon receiving the second data (the frame-level RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal mostly corresponds to the presence or absence of body movements (figure 3). However, there may be some frames where relatively high RMS energy may be caused due to aperiodic changes in the machine (e.g., when the machine switches) (figure 3). In order to isolate these frames, the zero-crossing rate and the RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal are used as features for every 30 second frame [RAHMAN pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements]).
Regarding claim 20, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 18, further comprising: determining a potential presence of a target motion based on the data; and determining the rate in response to determining the potential presence of a target motion (the frame-level RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal mostly corresponds to the presence or absence of body movements (figure 3). However, there may be some frames where relatively high RMS energy may be caused due to aperiodic changes in the machine (e.g., when the machine switches) (figure 3). In order to isolate these frames, the zero-crossing rate and the RMS energy of the filtered baseband signal are used as features for every 30 second frame [RAHMAN pg. 4, Section: Sensing Physical Movements]).
Regarding claim 21, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 18, wherein controlling the power consumption of the electronic device comprises: waking up the electronic device from a standby mode in response to determining that the target motion is present in the field of view; and switching the electronic device to the standby mode in response to determining that the interference signal is present in the field of view (detection process 100 is executed at a wake-up circuit to detect a physical stimulus and wake up an electronic device from a sleep mode in response to the detected physical stimulus. More particularly, detection process 100 is executed to detect the physical stimulus, and when the physical stimulus is initially detected, additional measurements are performed to obtain higher precision values in order to reject noise-induced false positive wake-up events [WAHL 0047], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 18).
Regarding claim 22, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to control the power consumption of the electronic device by: waking up the electronic device from a standby mode in response to determining that the target motion is present in the field of view; and switching the electronic device to the standby mode in response to determining that the interference signal is present in the field of view (detection process 100 is executed at a wake-up circuit to detect a physical stimulus and wake up an electronic device from a sleep mode in response to the detected physical stimulus. More particularly, detection process 100 is executed to detect the physical stimulus, and when the physical stimulus is initially detected, additional measurements are performed to obtain higher precision values in order to reject noise-induced false positive wake-up events [WAHL 0047], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 23, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the control circuitry is configured to control the power consumption of the electronic device by: waking up the electronic device from a standby mode in response to the signal indicating that target motion is present in the field of view; and switching the electronic device to the standby mode in response to the signal indicating that the interference signal is present in the field of view (detection process 100 is executed at a wake-up circuit to detect a physical stimulus and wake up an electronic device from a sleep mode in response to the detected physical stimulus. More particularly, detection process 100 is executed to detect the physical stimulus, and when the physical stimulus is initially detected, additional measurements are performed to obtain higher precision values in order to reject noise-induced false positive wake-up events [WAHL 0047], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAHMAN, in view of WAHL, and further in view of LU-DAC et al. (US 2020/0180472 A1 “LU-DAC”).
Regarding claim 8, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LU-DAC teaches that an R-value lying between R1 and R2 is inconclusive: there is either a sleeping baby present or a strong influence from external sources [0057].
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 system of RAHMAN to include the teachings of LU-DAC, because doing so would reduce instances of false detections and improve detection accuracy, as recognized by LU-DAC.
Regarding claim 9, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LU-DAC teaches that an R-value lying between R1 and R2 is inconclusive: there is either a sleeping baby present or a strong influence from external sources; and a subsequent breathing pattern extraction algorithm must be executed to determine which is the case [0057].
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 system of RAHMAN to include the teachings of LU-DAC, because doing so would reduce instances of false detections and improve detection accuracy, as recognized by LU-DAC.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAHMAN, in view of WAHL, and further in view of Lopez Martin et al. (EP 2,101,458 A1 “LOPEZ MARTIN”).
Regarding claim 10, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data indicates an in-phase component and a quadrature component of the measurement signal (in a quadrature receiver, R(t) is split into two components and multiplied by two copies of transmitted signal that are 90o out of phase with each other [RAHMAN pg. 4, Section. Fundamentals of Doppler Radar),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LOPEZ MARTIN teaches the in-phase i(t) and quadrature q(t) components [0031]. Furthermore, LOPEZ MARTIN teaches that transitions from quadrant to quadrant are detected when either i(t) or q(t) change sign, i.e., at the zero crossings of either i(t) or q(t). For instance, transition from the first to the second quadrant happens at the zero crossing of i(t) when q(t) is positive [0033].
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 system of RAHMAN to include the teachings of LOPEZ MARTIN, because doing so would increase system robustness and sensitivity, as recognized by LOPEZ MARTIN.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAHMAN, in view of WAHL, and further in view of Ivchenko et al. (US 2011/0227556 A1 “IVCHENKO”).
Regarding claim 12, RAHMAN/ WAHL discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, IVCHENKO teaches that the zero-cross detection facility 218 may include several software programmable configuration options, such as zero level, enable zero-cross detection, number of samples to average for the purposes of detecting the input signal 208 had crossed the programmed zero level, and other options associated with detecting a zero crossing. Zero-cross facility 218 may provide a zero signal 222 indicative of a when the evaluated signal crosses the programmed zero level [0061]. Additionally, IVCHENKO teaches that the digital sample provided by the analog to digital converter facility 210 may be simultaneously or contemporaneously applied to moving sum facility 220, wherein a running average of samples may be calculated. The running average of samples may be provided to an ALU 228 for computing various mathematical functions related to the inputs [0062].
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 system of RAHMAN to include the teachings of IVCHENKO, because doing so would provide important features that can affect accurate position detection and simulation reproduction, as recognized by IVCHENKO.
Regarding claim 13, RAHMAN/ WAHL/ IVCHENKO discloses the apparatus of claim 12 further comprising: memory configured to store a respective number of crossings of the predefined value for each of a predefined number of subsequent frames of the data, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the average number of crossings based on the respective number of crossings stored in the memory (the digital sample provided by the analog to digital converter facility 210 may be simultaneously or contemporaneously applied to moving sum facility 220, wherein a running average of samples may be calculated. The running average of samples may be provided to an ALU 228 for computing various mathematical functions related to the inputs [IVCHENKO 0062], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chiou et al. (US 2020/0196866 A1) is cited as pertinent art for the disclosure of a non-contact vital-sign monitoring system having a radar disposed in vicinity of a monitored subject includes a data buffer storing output signals of the radar sampled in sequence during a predetermined period; a status classifier determining status of the monitored subject; and a vital-sign detector determining a vital sign of the monitored subject according to the output signals of stationary status.
DeSalvo et al. (US 11,221,404 B1) is cited as pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of transmitting, by at least one radar device, a frequency-modulated radar signal to at least one transponder located within a physical environment surrounding a user; detecting, by a processing device communicatively coupled to the at least one radar device a signal returned to the at least one radar device from the at least one transponder in response to the frequency-modulated radar signal; determining a beat frequency of the returned signal by performing a zero-crossing analysis of the returned signal in the time domain; and calculating, based at least in part on the beat frequency of the returned signal, a distance between the at least one transponder and the at least one radar device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights