Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khenkin et al. (US 11076226 B2, hereinafter “Khenkin”).
Regarding claim 1, Khenkin teaches an acoustic device comprising: an audio system including: a microphone having a microphone output, (see Fig. 1: microphone 102 and output)
and a processing circuit having a wakeup input, (see Column 14, line 8-25: Digital Signal Processor DSP 106/212 comprises a wake-up component configured to wake up device according to a trigger or wake event)
an audio input, and an audio output, the audio input coupled to the microphone output; (see Column 8 line 5-35: audio input from MEMs acoustic sensor or microphone 102)
an acoustic sensor separate from the microphone and configured to detect acoustic signals, the acoustic sensor having a sensor output; (see claim 1: MEMS acoustic sensor configured to generate an audio signal, which can be the sensor output. MEMS acoustic sensor or microphone teaches either can be applied separately.)
and a wakeup circuit outside of the processing circuit and having a sensor input and a wakeup output, the sensor input coupled to the sensor output, wherein the wakeup output of the wakeup circuit is coupled to the wakeup input of the processing circuit to control operation of the processing circuit. (see Fig. 11, Column 15, line 47-55: step 1104-1110 transmit signal from the MEMS acoustic sensor to a DSP enclosed within the sensor package, meaning the sensor input and output are coupled together while the wakeup output and input respectively.)
Regarding claim 2, Khenkin is silent to the processing circuit is configured to enter a first mode responsive to the wakeup input in a first state, and to enter a second mode responsive to the wakeup input in a second state.
The application discloses that the 1st mode is the lack of audio sensed and 2nd mode is the sensing of audio. The lack of sensed audio placing the processor to sleep while the sensing of audio waking the processor [0040] of applicant’s spec. Khenkin explicitly mentions that the processing circuit can be in a 2nd mode when the processing circuit receives a wakeup signal due to the detection of audio by the acoustic sensor which is the wake-up signal (see Column 16, line 3-24). The 1st mode is inherent to Khenkin for the following reason: Khenkin discloses the processing circuit can be in the sleep state when there is lack of audio input being sensed by the acoustic sensor , this means that Inherently the processing circuit must have been able to enter the first mode which is a sleep mode in responsive to the lack of audio input being sensed.
Regarding claim 6, Khenkin teaches the processing circuit includes an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) and a digital signal processor (DSP), the ADC having an ADC input and an ADC output, the DSP having a DSP input and a DSP output, the ADC input coupled to the audio input, the DSP input coupled to the ADC output, and the DSP output coupled to the audio output; and wherein at least one of the ADC or the DSP has the wakeup input. (see Fig. 1-2, Column 6, line 44-64: ADC 110/208 and DSP 106 are coupled through decimator 112 wherein the DSP has the wakeup input by the control signals 104 based on wake events)
Regarding claim 7, Khenkin teaches the acoustic sensor includes a piezoelectric cantilever or a capacitive sensor. (see Fig. 2, Column 6, line 64 – Column 7, line 8: MEMS motion sensor 202 is a type of capacitive sensor.)
Regarding claim 8, Khenkin teaches a plurality of sensor unit outputs, and a plurality of sensor unit inputs, wherein each plurality of sensor units having a sensor unit output, the plurality of sensor unit outputs being part of the sensor output, wherein the sensor input includes the plurality of sensor unit inputs, and wherein each sensor unit input of the plurality of sensor unit inputs is coupled to a respective one of the plurality of sensor unit outputs. sensors (see Column 3, line 42 – Column 4, line 16: one or more MEMS sensors. Various aspects of smart sensors associated generate control signals based on one or more signals of the sensors. It can be based on inputs from one or more acoustic sensor units and the inputs and outputs of one or more acoustic sensor units 206, 108 . One or more sensor units has one or more inputs and outputs from each of the sensor units and one combined output which is the decision signal. Based on the designer's needs if you need one output for each sensor or just one combined coupled to another based on the users’ needs and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 21, Khenkin teaches The acoustic device of claim 1, wherein the microphone and the acoustic sensor are on a same die. (see Column 9, line 11-32: sensor and/or microphone can be implemented on a separate die, inherently on the same.)
Regarding claim 22, Khenkin teaches The acoustic device of claim 1, further comprising a case that encloses the microphone, the acoustic sensor, and a back volume space that surrounds the microphone and the acoustic sensor. (see Column 9, line 11-62: enclosure or back cavity of MEMS acoustic sensor and microphone 102)
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) 4, 10, 13-17, 20, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khenkin et al. (US 11076226 B2, hereinafter “Khenkin”).
Regarding claim 4, Khenkin is silent to the processing circuit is configured to: in the first mode, sample an audio signal at the audio input at a first rate; and in the second mode, sample the audio signal at the audio input at a second rate, in which the first rate is lower than the second rate.
However, Official notice is taken that in audio signal processing system, using audio signal sampling to determine whether there is audio signal being sensed by the acoustic sensor is a well-known practice in order to reduce cost and improve accuracy for such decision making. Thus, it would have been obvious for one skill in the art to sample the input signals being collected by the acoustic sensor at a reasonable rate before deriving at the decision of whether the input signals being sensed by the acoustic sensor contain audio signals to reduce cost and improve accuracy for such decision making. It would also have been obvious that the designer could have used a lower sampling rate in the first mode and a higher sampling rate in the second mode since there are only limited number of choices for the designer to try : i.e., the designer could have chosen a lower sampling rate for the first mode than the second mode, or chosen a higher sampling rate for the first mode than the second mode, or the same sampling rate for both the first mode and the second mode. No unexpected results would have been yielded from any of the above three choices.
Regarding claim 10, Khenkin is silent to the plurality of sensor units includes: a first sensor unit having a first sensor surface having a first dimension; and a second sensor unit having a second sensor surface having a second dimension different from the first dimension.
However, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art that the designer could have chosen such arrangement for based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced. This is a mere design choice that yields no unexpected result or enhancement to the device.
Regarding claim 13, Khenkin is silent to the audio system and the acoustic sensor have different frequency responses.
It is inherent that the audio system and acoustic sensor each has frequency responses because that is how each of the audio system and acoustic sensor operates. It would have been obvious to one skill in the art could have chosen different frequency responses for the audio system and the acoustic sensor based on designer’s needs in order to make the audio system and acoustic sensor operate effectively.
Regarding claim 14, Khenkin is silent to the audio system has a first sensitivity within a frequency range, wherein the acoustic sensor has a second sensitivity within the frequency range, and wherein the second sensitivity is higher than the first sensitivity.
However, as recited in claim 13, it would have been obvious to try to have chosen such arrangement due to different purposes being served between the audio system and acoustic sensor because there are finite choices, there would be a higher sensitivity.
Regarding claim 20, Khenkin is silent to the microphone is coupled to the first audio port, and wherein the acoustic sensor is coupled to the second audio port.
Khenkin mentions at least one audio port, see port 308, which could also be adjusted based on the designer’s choice to have chosen such arrangement. Official notice is taken that audio ports are well known electrical components in use with acoustic sensors, such as a microphone, for effective signal communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to include different audio ports coupled to the microphone and acoustic sensor in order to enable signal communication between.
Regarding claim 25, Khenkin teaches A method comprising: receiving an acoustic signal by an acoustic sensor separate from a microphone, (see Fig. 11, Column 15 lines 13-27 : receive acoustic signal by sensor from a microphone)
generating a wakeup signal for an audio system including the microphone and a processing circuit configurable to process output signals of the microphone, based on at least one of an amplitude or a frequency of the acoustic signal received by the acoustic sensor; (see Column 9, line 11-33: DSP integrated with one or more of buffer amplifier 108, inherently will process based on at least an amplitude of the acoustic signal)
and providing the wakeup signal to the audio system to cause the processing circuit to transition from a first mode to a second mode. (see Fig. 11, Column 16, line 3-24: method 1112 calibrate, adjust performance of or change operating mode of acoustic sensor by DSP)
Khenkin is silent to the acoustic sensor having a higher sensitivity than the microphone in a frequency band.
However, as recited in claim 13, it would have been obvious to try to have chosen such arrangement due to different purposes being served between the audio system and acoustic sensor because there are finite choices, there would be a higher sensitivity.
Claim(s) 5, 9, 15-17, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khenkin et al. (US 11076226 B2, hereinafter “Khenkin”) in view of Griffin (US 10481672 B1, hereinafter “Griffin”).
Regarding claim 5, Khenkin fails to teach the wakeup circuit includes a comparator having a first comparator input, a reference input, and a comparator output, the first comparator input coupled to the sensor input, and the comparator output coupled to the wakeup output.
However, Griffin teaches the wakeup circuit includes a comparator having a first comparator input, a reference input, and a comparator output, the first comparator input coupled to the sensor input, and the comparator output coupled to the wakeup output. (see Fig. 6, Column 9, line 27-46: comparator 600. Comparator circuit including an input node, comparator output 1508, coupled to the sensor input then output.)
Khenkin and Griffin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of using a sensor and wake-up device for an acoustic system, enabling low-power, driven sound detection in devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Griffin of a comparator unit to the sensor input/output and wake up input/output to Khenkin in order to trigger the wake-up system when the voltage exceeds a threshold. It is well known in the art to use devices such as a comparator to take two input singles and produce a binary output based on which input is greater.
Regarding claim 9, Khenkin is silent to the plurality of sensor units includes a first sensor unit having a first resonant frequency, and a second sensor unit having a second resonant frequency, and wherein the first resonant frequency is different from the second resonant frequency.
However, Griffin teaches the plurality of sensor units includes a first sensor unit having a first resonant frequency, and a second sensor unit having a second resonant frequency, and wherein the first resonant frequency is different from the second resonant frequency. (see Fig. 20, Column 11, line 4-18: two sensors with two different resonant frequency 2002 and 2004.)
Khenkin and Griffin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of using a sensor and wake-up device for an acoustic system, enabling low-power, driven sound detection in devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Griffin of two different resonant frequencies respective to each separate sensor of Khenkin in order to improve separation of the desired audio signal and noise.
Regarding claim 15, Khenkin is silent to the microphone has a first resonant frequency, wherein the acoustic sensor has a second resonant frequency, and wherein the second resonant frequency is lower than the first resonant frequency.
However, Griffin teaches a first resonant frequency, wherein the acoustic sensor has a second resonant frequency, and wherein the second resonant frequency is lower than the first resonant frequency. (see Fig. 20, Column 11, line 4-18: two sensors with two different resonant frequency 2002 and 2004.)
Khenkin and Griffin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of using a sensor and wake-up device for an acoustic system, enabling low-power, driven sound detection in devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Griffin of two different resonant frequencies respective to each separate sensor of Khenkin in order to improve separation of the desired audio signal and noise,
Regarding claim 16, Khenkin is silent to wherein the second resonant frequency is within the frequency range.
However, Griffin teaches a first resonant frequency, wherein the acoustic sensor has a second resonant frequency, and wherein the second resonant frequency is lower than the first resonant frequency. (see Fig. 20, Column 11, line 4-18: two sensors with two different resonant frequency 2002 and 2004.)
Khenkin and Griffin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of using a sensor and wake-up device for an acoustic system, enabling low-power, driven sound detection in devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Griffin of two different resonant frequencies respective to each separate sensor of Khenkin in order to improve separation of the desired audio signal and noise.
The frequency range is based on the designer’s choice to choose a specified range. The claimed limitation “within the frequency range” has been interpreted reasonably broadly to reach this conclusion.
Regarding claim 17, Khenkin is silent to wherein the second resonant frequency is below 4 kHz.
However, Griffin teaches a first resonant frequency, wherein the acoustic sensor has a second resonant frequency, and wherein the second resonant frequency is lower than the first resonant frequency. (see Fig. 20, Column 11, line 4-18: two sensors with two different resonant frequency 2002 and 2004.)
Khenkin and Griffin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of using a sensor and wake-up device for an acoustic system, enabling low-power, driven sound detection in devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Griffin of two different resonant frequencies respective to each separate sensor of Khenkin in order to improve separation of the desired audio signal and noise,
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to ensure that the resonant frequency is below 4kHz in order to avoid harshness and prevent unwanted artifacts. The limit to the resonant frequency is based on the designer’s needs.
Regarding claim 23, Khenkin teaches an audio system including a microphone and a processing circuit; (see Fig. 1: microphone 102 and output)
an acoustic sensor separate from the microphone and having a sensor output, the acoustic sensor configured to detect acoustic signals (see claim 1: MEMS acoustic sensor configured to generate an audio signal, which can be the sensor output. MEMS acoustic sensor or microphone teaches either can be applied separately.)
and a wakeup circuit outside of the processing circuit and having a sensor input and a wakeup output, the sensor input coupled to the sensor output of the acoustic sensor, the wakeup output coupled to the audio system, wherein the wakeup circuit is configured to, based on outputs at the sensor output of the acoustic sensor, generate a wakeup signal at the wakeup output to control operation of the audio system. (see Fig. 11, Column 15, line 47-55: step 1104-1110 transmit signal from the MEMS acoustic sensor to a DSP enclosed within the sensor package, meaning the sensor input and output are coupled together while the wakeup output and input respectively.)
Khenkin is silent to an acoustic sensor having a sensor output, the acoustic sensor having a resonant frequency at or below 4 kHz; and a wakeup circuit having a sensor input and a wakeup output, the sensor input coupled to the sensor output.
However, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to ensure that the resonant frequency is below 4kHz. The limit to the resonant frequency is merely a design choice.
Regarding claim 24, Khenkin teaches the acoustic sensor includes a piezoelectric cantilever or a capacitive sensor. (see Fig. 2, Column 6, line 64 – Column 7, line 8: MEMS motion sensor 202 is a type of capacitive sensor.)
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khenkin et al. (US 11076226 B2, hereinafter “Khenkin”) in view of Griffin (US 10481672 B1, hereinafter “Griffin”) and Kenney (WO 2019066863 A1, hereinafter “Kenney”).
Regarding claim 11, Khenkin in view of Griffin is silent to the plurality of sensor units includes: a first sensor unit having a first piezoelectric bimorph flap having a first bimorph structure; and a second sensor unit having a second piezoelectric bimorph flap having a second bimorph structure different from the first bimorph structure.
However, Kenney teaches to the plurality of sensor units includes: a first sensor unit having a first piezoelectric bimorph flap having a first bimorph structure; and a second sensor unit having a second piezoelectric bimorph flap having a second bimorph structure different from the first bimorph structure. (see [0041]: a sensitive piezoelectric bimorph)
Khenkin and Kenney are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of using a sensor and wake-up device for an acoustic system, enabling low-power, driven sound detection in devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Kenney of a piezoelectric bimorph to Khenkin in order to convert the stress into an electrical signal. It is well known in the art to use such technology to enhance and enable to perform more efficient work and processing.
Regarding claim 12, Khenkin in view of Griffin is silent to the wakeup circuit includes a weight and summation circuitry having a plurality of weighing inputs and a summation output, each of the plurality of weighing inputs coupled to a respective one of the plurality of sensor unit outputs, and the summation output is coupled to the wakeup output.
However, Kenney teaches the wakeup circuit includes a weight and summation circuitry having a plurality of weighing inputs and a summation output, each of the plurality of weighing inputs coupled to a respective one of the plurality of sensor unit outputs, and the summation output is coupled to the wakeup output. (see [0065]: adding circuit sends the summed signal of adding circuit to the one or more power amplifiers. The input and output are coupled inherently.)
Khenkin and Kenney are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of using a sensor and wake-up device for an acoustic system, enabling low-power, driven sound detection in devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Kenney of weight and summation circuitry to Khenkin in order compare and scale the voltage of an array.
Claim(s) 3, 18-19 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khenkin et al. (US 11076226 B2, hereinafter “Khenkin”) in view of Griffin (US 10481672 B1, hereinafter “Griffin”), Kenney (WO 2019066863 A1, hereinafter “Kenney”) and Sengupta (US 20200026342 A1, hereinafter “Sengupta”).
Regarding claim 3, Khenkin in view of Griffin and Kenney is silent to the processing circuit is disabled in the first mode.
Disabling is not explicitly mentioned. Sengupta teaches a disabling signal (see [0033]) In order to reduce power consumption so that the processing can be disabled. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to choose such arrangement to disable the processing circuit in the first mode because it is a well-known way in the art to reduce power consumption.
Regarding claim 18, Khenkin in view of Griffin and Kenney is silent to the acoustic sensor has a control input, wherein the wakeup circuit has a control output coupled to the control input, and wherein the wakeup circuit is configured to provide a disable signal at the control output, after the wakeup output is set to the second state.
Sengupta teaches the acoustic sensor has a control input, wherein the wakeup circuit has a control output coupled to the control input, and wherein the wakeup circuit is configured to provide a disable signal at the control output, after the wakeup output is set to the second state. (see [0033]: the wake event analyzer 122 disables the user appendage detection sensor 112 when the device 102 enters the connected standby mode to reduce power consumption of the user device when not in use.)
Khenkin and Sengupta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of using a sensor and wake-up device for an acoustic system, enabling low-power, driven sound detection in devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have chosen to apply the broad teachings of Sengupta disabling the sensor once the device wakes up to Khenkin in order to reduce power consumption of the device when not in use. It is well known in the art to couple these sensor and control input to the wakeup circuit to provide a disable signal to set to the second state, where the monitoring sensor is not in use.
Regarding claim 19, Khenkin teaches The acoustic device of claim 18, wherein the acoustic sensor has a sensor surface, and wherein the acoustic sensor is configured to clamp the sensor surface at a particular position responsive to the disable signal.
However, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to include a sensor surface to the acoustic sensor, wherein the sensor clamps the surface at a particular position responsive to the disable signal. It is well known in the art to apply a disable signal to change between set states.
Regarding claim 26, Khenkin is silent to disabling the processing circuit in the first mode.
Sengupta teaches a disabling signal (see [0033]) It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to choose such arrangement to disable the processing circuit in the first mode, based on the design choice.
Regarding claim 27, Khenkin is silent to the first mode, sampling an audio signal from the microphone at a first rate; and in the second mode, sampling the audio signal from the microphone at a second rate, wherein the first rate is lower than the second rate.
However, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to choose such arrangement to sample an audio signal from the microphone at a first rate, then a second rate, wherein the first rate is lower than the second rate to distinguish two different samples of an audio signal from the microphone. It meets the limitation for the same reason as claim .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 7-10 of applicant’s remarks, applicant mainly argues that the art of record fails to disclose an audio system including a microphone and a processing circuit; an acoustic sensor separate from the microphone and having a sensor output, the acoustic sensor configured to detect acoustic signals and having a resonant frequency at or below 4 kHz, the acoustic sensor having a higher sensitivity at the resonant frequency than the microphone; and a wakeup circuit outside of the processing circuit and having a sensor input and a wakeup output, the sensor input coupled to the sensor output of the acoustic sensor, the wakeup output coupled to the audio system, wherein the wakeup circuit is configured to, based on outputs at the sensor output of the acoustic sensor, generate a wakeup signal at the wakeup output to control operation of the audio system. The Examiner disagrees and maintains as pointed out in the rejection above, Khenkin teaches an audio system including a microphone and a processing circuit; (see Fig. 1: microphone 102 and output)
an acoustic sensor separate from the microphone and having a sensor output, the acoustic sensor configured to detect acoustic signals (see claim 1: MEMS acoustic sensor configured to generate an audio signal, which can be the sensor output. MEMS acoustic sensor or microphone teaches either can be applied separately.)
and a wakeup circuit outside of the processing circuit and having a sensor input and a wakeup output, the sensor input coupled to the sensor output of the acoustic sensor, the wakeup output coupled to the audio system, wherein the wakeup circuit is configured to, based on outputs at the sensor output of the acoustic sensor, generate a wakeup signal at the wakeup output to control operation of the audio system. (see Fig. 11, Column 15, line 47-55: step 1104-1110 transmit signal from the MEMS acoustic sensor to a DSP enclosed within the sensor package, meaning the sensor input and output are coupled together while the wakeup output and input respectively.)
On pages 9 and 10, applicant stated that the cited references fails to teach or suggest all features recited in amended claims 1 and 25 without providing any specific details to describe how the cited reference fails to teach each of the limitation recited in these two amended claims. The Office does not find such arguments persuasive for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections as set forth for these two claims above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNABELLE KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/ANNABELLE KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695