Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 13 should be amended to recite “…[[a]] the plurality of apparatus force sensors…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besnard et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0174899, hereinafter “Besnard”) in view of Giovangrandi (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0374618), Thillainadarajah et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0299021, hereinafter “Thillainadarajah”), and Poulos (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0237949).
Regarding Claim 1, Besnard teaches a system for calibrating a force sensor in a wearable device worn by a user (paragraph [0029], force; paragraph [0051], calibration using electronic scale), wherein the force sensor is positioned underfoot (Fig. 2, sensors 3, 4), the system comprising: a force sensing apparatus comprising an upper surface, wherein the upper surface is configured to receive the wearable device while the wearable device is worn by the user (paragraph [0051], scale includes upper surface that the user can stand on while wearing the slipper); one or more processors in communication with the wearable device (Fig. 5, processor 5); and a non-transitory storage memory (processor 5 and emitter/receiver 6 include memory for receiving and performing pretreatment/analysis of data from sensors 3,4, see paragraph [0046]); wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine a first measured force value (paragraph [0029], force; paragraph [0046]), wherein the first measured force value is determined based a measured sensor reading from the force sensor while the wearable device is worn by the user while standing on the upper surface (paragraph [0051]); determine a second measured force value, wherein the second measured force value is determined based on the force sensing apparatus while the wearable device is worn by the user while standing on the upper surface (paragraph [0051], electronic scale); and calibrating the force sensor by comparing the first measured force value and the second measured force value (paragraph [0051], calibration).
Besnard does not specifically teach that the force sensor in the wearable device is a plurality of force sensors, and wherein the first measured force value is determined based on a first plurality of measured sensor readings from the plurality of force sensors. However, Besnard does teach a force sensor (paragraph [0029]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a plurality of force sensors, which would have an associated plurality of measured sensor readings, in the slipper of Besnard, because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Besnard does not specifically teach that the force sensing apparatus comprises a plurality of apparatus force sensors, the plurality of apparatus force sensors are arranged below the upper surface, and the plurality of apparatus force sensors are configured to sense a force applied to the upper surface, and wherein the second measured force value is determined based on a second plurality of measured sensor readings from the plurality of apparatus force sensors. However, Besnard does teach using measurements from a scale for calibration of a force sensor (paragraph [0051]). Further, Giovangrandi teaches in paragraphs [0092] and [0115] that force sensors (equated to the claimed plurality of apparatus force sensors) are located within the platform region (equated to the claimed upper surface) of a scale. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the force sensors of Giovangrandi in the scale of Besnard, in order to detect forces associated with a user (see Giovangrandi, paragraphs [0092] and [0115]).
Besnard does not specifically teach that the calibrating includes determining a calibration model. However, Thillainadarajah teaches, in paragraph [0127], a calibration model that calibrates values generated by a pressure sensor in a shoe insole. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the calibration model of Thillainadarajah in the system of Besnard, in order to ensure the accuracy of data is gathered from the shoe sensors.
Besnard does not specifically teach a charging unit operable to charge an energy storage device of the wearable device when the wearable device is received on the upper surface. However, Besnard does teach a rechargeable battery 9 in Fig. 2, and that the charging may be inductive charging in paragraph [0048]. Further, Poulos teaches, in Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0040]-[0041], an inductive charging mat for footwear that receives a boot 20 in a hole 73 in its surface. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to integrate a charging mat, as is taught in Poulos, with the scale of Besnard, because charging mats are known to be used for charging electronic devices, such as cell phones, laptops, and footwear (see Poulos, paragraph [0041]), and as evidenced by Walker et al, U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0208865, paragraph [0243], which teaches calibrating a sensor each time footwear is charged in order to maintain effectiveness over time.
Regarding Claim 3, Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Besnard does not specifically teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to store the calibration model in the non-transitory storage memory, wherein the non-transitory storage memory is contained within the wearable device. However, Thillainadarajah teaches in paragraph [0127] that the calibration model is stored in an internal processing unit 605/memory unit 610 of Fig. 6, which is located in a control circuit 130 in shoe insole 105 (see Fig. 1B and paragraphs [0124]-[0128]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the stored calibration model of Thillainadarajah in the system of Besnard, in order to ensure the accuracy of data is gathered from the shoe sensors.
Regarding Claim 4, Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Besnard does not specifically teach wherein the wearable device is an insole. However, Besnard does teach that the wearable device is a slipper (Fig. 2). Further, Thillainadarajah teaches an insole including a pressure sensor (Fig. 1B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the insole of Thillainadarajah in the system of Besnard, in order to identify foot conditions in order to propose treatment using orthotics, physical therapy, and/or surgery, or to optimize sports performance (see Thillainadarajah, paragraphs [0058]-[0059]).
Regarding Claim 5, Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Besnard does not specifically teach wherein the force sensing apparatus is portable and foldable. However, Giovangrandi teaches a foldable scale for improved portability and storage in paragraph [0131]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the foldable, portable scale of Giovangrandi in the system of Besnard, since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art (In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952)).
Regarding Claim 6, Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Besnard does not specifically teach wherein the force sensing apparatus further comprises a receptacle within which the wearable device is receivable when the wearable device is not being worn by the user. However, Besnard does teach a scale in paragraph [0051], a rechargeable battery 9 in Fig. 2, and that the charging may be inductive charging in paragraph [0048]. Further, Poulos teaches, in Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0040]-[0041], an inductive charging mat for footwear that receives a boot 20 in a hole 73 in its surface; the inductive charging mat may charge the boots of Poulos when the user is not working (see paragraph [0040]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to integrate a charging mat, as is taught in Poulos, with the scale of Besnard, because charging mats are known to be used for charging electronic devices such as cell phones, laptops, and footwear (see Poulos, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 7, Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Besnard does not specifically teach wherein the charging unit is operable to charge the energy storage device, and the plurality of apparatus force sensors are concurrently operable to sense the force applied to the upper surface when the wearable device is received on the upper surface. However, Besnard teaches inductive charging (paragraph [0048]), and that the slipper may be placed on a scale that would operate to sense the force applied to the upper surface (paragraph [0051]). Poulos further teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0040]-[0041], an inductive charging mat for footwear that receives a boot 20 in a hole 73 in its surface. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to integrate a charging mat, as is taught in Poulos, with the scale of Besnard, which would concurrently charge the footwear and sense force applied to the scale (as evidenced by Walker et al, U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0208865, paragraph [0243], which teaches calibrating a sensor each time footwear is charged in order to maintain effectiveness over time), because charging mats are known to be used for charging electronic devices such as cell phones, laptops, and footwear (see Poulos, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 8, Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Besnard further teaches wherein the charging unit is a wireless charging unit (paragraph [0048], inductive charging).
Regarding Claim 9, Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Besnard does not specifically teach wherein the charging unit is operable to charge the wearable device over a defined portion of the upper surface and the upper surface includes an alignment guide indicating the defined portion of the upper surface upon which the wearable device is receivable to undergo charging by the charging unit. However, Besnard teaches inductive charging (paragraph [0048]). Further, Poulos teaches wherein the charging unit is operable to charge the wearable device over a defined portion of the upper surface and the upper surface includes an alignment guide indicating the defined portion of the upper surface upon which the wearable device is receivable to undergo charging by the charging unit (Fig. 7, hole 73, paragraphs [0040]-[0041]; hole is equated to claimed alignment guide). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to integrate a charging mat, as is taught in Poulos, with the scale of Besnard, because charging mats are known to be used for charging electronic devices such as cell phones, laptops, and footwear (see Poulos, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 10, Besnard et al in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Besnard does not specifically teach further comprising a housing containing the plurality of apparatus force sensors and the charging unit, the housing defining the upper surface. However, Besnard does teach a scale including an upper surface that a user may stand on (paragraph [0051]). Further, Giovangrandi teaches in paragraphs [0092] and [0115], and Figs. 1A-C that force sensors (equated to the claimed plurality of apparatus force sensors) are located within the housing of a scale that includes an upper surface a user may stand on. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the force sensors and housing of Giovangrandi in the scale of Besnard, in order to detect forces associated with a user (see Giovangrandi, paragraphs [0092] and [0115]).
Besnard and Giovangrandi do not specifically teach that the charging unit is contained in the housing. However, Besnard teaches inductive charging (paragraph [0048]). Further, Poulos teaches a charging mat that includes a charging unit for footwear that is located underneath the footwear when the footwear is being charged (Fig. 7, paragraphs [0040]-[0041]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to integrate a charging mat, as is taught in Poulos, into the scale housing of Besnard and Giovangrandi, because charging mats are known to be used for charging electronic devices such as cell phones, laptops, and footwear (see Poulos, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 15, Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed below with respect to Claim 12. Besnard does not specifically teach further comprising charging an energy storage device of the wearable device when the wearable device is received on the upper surface. However, Besnard does teach a rechargeable battery 9 in Fig. 2, and that the charging may be inductive charging in paragraph [0048]. Further, Poulos teaches, in Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0040]-[0041], an inductive charging mat for footwear that receives a boot 20 in a hole 73 in its surface. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to integrate a charging mat, as is taught in Poulos, with the scale of Besnard, because charging mats are known to be used for charging electronic devices, such as cell phones, laptops, and footwear (see Poulos, paragraph [0041]), and as evidenced by Walker et al, U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0208865, paragraph [0243], which teaches calibrating a sensor each time footwear is charged in order to maintain effectiveness over time.
Regarding Claim 16, Besnard et al in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Besnard does not specifically teach wherein the energy storage device is charged concurrently while the first plurality of measured sensor readings are obtained. However, Besnard teaches inductive charging (paragraph [0048]), and that the slipper may be placed on a scale that would operate to sense the force applied to the upper surface (paragraph [0051]). Poulos further teaches in Fig. 7 and paragraphs [0040]-[0041], an inductive charging mat for footwear that receives a boot 20 in a hole 73 in its surface. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to integrate a charging mat, as is taught in Poulos, with the scale of Besnard, which would concurrently charge the footwear and sense force applied to the scale (as evidenced by Walker et al, U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0208865, paragraph [0243], which teaches calibrating a sensor each time footwear is charged in order to maintain effectiveness over time), because charging mats are known to be used for charging electronic devices such as cell phones, laptops, and footwear (see Poulos, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding Claim 17, Besnard et al in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Besnard in view of Poulos further teaches wherein the energy storage device is charged at a time other than when the first plurality of measured sensor readings are obtained (the first measured sensor readings correspond to a single instance of calibration; the system of Besnard and Poulos would also perform charging at other times during the lifecycle of the footwear).
Regarding Claim 18, Besnard et al in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Besnard further teaches wherein the energy storage device is charged wirelessly (paragraph [0048], inductive charging).
Regarding Claim 19, Besnard et al in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Besnard does not specifically teach further comprising aligning the wearable device with a defined portion of the upper surface using an alignment guide, wherein the defined portion is a region of the upper surface upon which the wearable device is receivable to undergo charging. However, Besnard teaches inductive charging (paragraph [0048]). Further, Poulos teaches wherein the charging unit is operable to charge the wearable device over a defined portion of the upper surface and the upper surface includes an alignment guide indicating the defined portion of the upper surface upon which the wearable device is receivable to undergo charging by the charging unit (Fig. 7, hole 73, paragraphs [0040]-[0041]; hole is equated to claimed alignment guide). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to integrate a charging mat, as is taught in Poulos, with the scale of Besnard, because charging mats are known to be used for charging electronic devices such as cell phones, laptops, and footwear (see Poulos, paragraph [0041]).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah, Poulos, and Dahl et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0408199, hereinafter “Dahl”).
Regarding Claim 2, Besnard et al in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Besnard does not specifically teach wherein the force sensing apparatus further comprises an apparatus inertial measurement unit (IMU) and the one or more processors are configured to: obtain concurrent first IMU angle measurement and second IMU angle measurement, wherein the first IMU angle measurement is obtained from a wearable device IMU provided by the wearable device while the wearable device is worn by the user while standing on the upper surface and the second IMU angle measurement is obtained from the apparatus IMU; determine a device IMU angle for the wearable device IMU by comparing the first IMU angle measurement and the second IMU angle measurement; and output the device IMU angle. However, Besnard does teach that the footwear that is worn by the user can include an acceleration sensor (equated to the claimed wearable device IMU, see paragraph [0011]), and that calibration can be performed while the user is standing on an upper surface of a calibration device, i.e., a scale (see paragraph [0051]). Further, Dahl teaches, in paragraph [0146], self-checking a calibration an IMU sensor (equated to the claimed wearable device IMU) based on another IMU sensor (equated to the claimed apparatus IMU) during charging of a device; the self-checking includes comparing angle measurements between the two IMUs. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the IMU calibration checking of Dahl in the system of Besnard, in order to ensure that the IMUs are calibrated correctly (see Dahl, paragraph [0146]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah. Poulos, and Gerber et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0005770, hereinafter “Gerber”).
Regarding Claim 11, Besnard et al in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 10. Besnard does not specifically teach wherein the force sensing apparatus comprises an electronics module associated with the plurality of apparatus force sensors. However, Besnard does teach a scale used for calibration (paragraph [0051]). Further, Giovangrandi teaches that a scale includes force sensors 107 and processor circuitry 109 (equated to the claimed electronics module) associated with the force sensors 107, that are located within the housing of a scale (see Figs. 1A-C). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the processor circuitry of Giovangrandi in the scale of Besnard, in order to process data from the sensors (see Giovangrandi, paragraph [0055]).
Besnard in view of Giovangrandi does not specifically teach the charging unit comprises a transmitter coil, and the housing further comprises shielding arranged to shield the transmitter coil from the electronics module. However, Besnard teaches inductive charging in paragraph [0048]. Further, Gerber teaches in paragraph [0040] that a shield is positioned between a charging coil and electronics in an inductive charging system. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the charging coil and shield taught in Gerber in the inductive charging system of Besnard, in order to improve coupling and reduce eddy currents induced in the electronics (see Gerber, paragraph [0040]).
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, and Thillainadarajah.
Regarding Claim 12, Besnard teaches a method of calibrating a force sensor in a wearable device worn by a user (paragraph [0029], force; paragraph [0051], calibration using electronic scale), wherein the force sensor is positioned underfoot (Fig. 2, sensors 3, 4), the method comprising: determining a first measured force value (paragraph [0029], force; paragraph [0046]), wherein the first measured force value is determined based on a measured sensor reading from the force sensor while the wearable device is worn by the user while standing on an upper surface of a force sensing apparatus (paragraph [0051], standing on scale); determining a second measured force value, wherein the second measured force value is determined while the wearable device is worn by the user while standing on the upper surface (paragraph [0051], electronic scale); and calibrating the force sensor by comparing the first measured force value and the second measured force value (paragraph [0051], calibration).
Besnard does not specifically teach that the force sensor in the wearable device is a plurality of force sensors, and wherein the first measured force value is determined based on a first plurality of measured sensor readings from the plurality of force sensors. However, Besnard does teach a force sensor (paragraph [0029]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a plurality of force sensors, which would have an associated plurality of measured sensor readings, in the slipper of Besnard, because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Besnard does not specifically teach that wherein the force sensing apparatus comprises a plurality of apparatus force sensors arranged below the upper surface and the plurality of apparatus force sensors are configured to sense a force applied to the upper surface, and wherein the second measured force value is determined based on a second plurality of measured sensor readings from the plurality of apparatus force sensors. However, Besnard does teach using measurements from a scale for calibration of a force sensor (paragraph [0051]). Further, Giovangrandi teaches in paragraphs [0092] and [0115] that force sensors (equated to the claimed plurality of apparatus force sensors) are located within the platform region (equated to the claimed upper surface) of a scale. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the force sensors of Giovangrandi in the scale of Besnard, in order to detect forces associated with a user (see Giovangrandi, paragraphs [0092] and [0115]).
Besnard does not specifically teach that the calibrating includes determining a calibration model. However, Thillainadarajah teaches, in paragraph [0127], a calibration model that calibrates values generated by a pressure sensor in a shoe insole. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the calibration model of Thillainadarajah in the system of Besnard, in order to ensure the accuracy of data is gathered from the shoe sensors.
Regarding Claim 14, Besnard et al in view of Giovangrandi, and Thillainadarajah teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 12. Besnard does not specifically teach wherein the force sensing apparatus is portable and foldable. However, Giovangrandi teaches a foldable scale for improved portability and storage in paragraph [0131]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the foldable, portable scale of Giovangrandi in the system of Besnard, since it has been held that making an old device portable or movable without producing any new and unexpected result involves only routine skill in the art (In re Lindberg, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952)).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah, and Dahl.
Regarding Claim 13, Besnard et al in view of Giovangrandi, and Thillainadarajah teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 12. Besnard does not specifically teach wherein the force sensing apparatus further comprises an apparatus inertial measurement unit (IMU) and the one or more processors are configured to: obtain a first IMU angle measurement from a wearable device IMU provided by the wearable device while the wearable device is worn by the user while standing on the upper surface; obtain a second IMU angle measurement from an apparatus IMU of the force sensing apparatus, wherein the first IMU angle measurement and the second IMU angle measurement are concurrent; determine a device IMU angle for the wearable device IMU by comparing the first IMU angle measurement and the second IMU angle measurement; and output the device IMU angle. However, Besnard does teach that the footwear that is worn by the user can include an acceleration sensor (equated to the claimed wearable device IMU, see paragraph [0011]), and that calibration can be performed while the user is standing on an upper surface of a calibration device, i.e., a scale (see paragraph [0051]). Further, Dahl teaches, in paragraph [0146], self-checking a calibration an IMU sensor (equated to the claimed wearable device IMU) based on another IMU sensor (equated to the claimed apparatus IMU) during charging of a device; the self-checking includes comparing angle measurements between the two IMUs. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the IMU calibration checking of Dahl in the system of Besnard, in order to ensure that the IMUs are calibrated correctly (see Dahl, paragraph [0146]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Besnard in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah, Poulos, and Adamczyk et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0241608, hereinafter “Adamczyk”).
Regarding Claim 20, Besnard et al in view of Giovangrandi, Thillainadarajah and Poulos teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Besnard does not specifically teach further comprising outputting a visual indicator while the wearable device is undergoing charging. However, Besnard does teach inductive charging (paragraph [0048]). Further, Adamczyk teaches, in paragraph [0033], charging indicator lights for inductive charging modules. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the charging indicator lights of Adamczyk in the system of Besnard, in order to indicate that the inductive charging module is inductively transferring power (see Adamczyk, paragraph [0033]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857