DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendments filed 12/16/2025, claims 1-2, 4-15 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helwani et al, US Patent No. 9848273 B1, in view of Anderson, US Publication No. 2010/0310101 A1, further in view of Litovsky, US Publication No. 2002/0107692 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Helwani teaches, a method of self-fitting of a binaural hearing system worn by a user (Title/Abstract), comprising a first hearing device including a first output transducer for stimulating a first ear of the user (FIG. 6, Speaker 622), and a second hearing device including a second output transducer for stimulating a second ear of the user (FIG. 6, Speaker 621), the binaural hearing system further comprising at least one motion sensor (FIG. 6, Motion Sensor 641, Motion Sensor 642), the method comprising: implementing a present fitting configuration in the binaural hearing system (FIG. 3, Step 310, Column 7, Lines 53-55, “Initially, the sound played to the user includes spatialization cues that are consistent with an initial HRTF such as a generic or idealized HRTF that is suboptimal for the user.”); generating a spatialized binaural audio signal representative of a virtual auditory scene including at least a first audio source at a given angular position relative to the user (FIG. 3, Step 310, Column 7, Lines 56-59, “The sound has spatialization cues indicating a certain virtual elevation. In embodiments that include both left and right side hearing devices, the spatialization cues for the virtual elevation are provided by HRTFs for left and right sides.”); reproducing the spatialized binaural audio signal via the binaural hearing system to the user (FIG. 3, Step 310, further taught by the above quotations.); instructing the user to turn the user's head towards the first audio source (Column 8, Lines 1-8, “In some embodiments, through the interactive and iterative calibration procedure, voice prompts instruct the wearer what to do. For example, during the individualization process, e.g., before, during, or after the sound is played to the user, the virtual source may play a recorded voice that informs the user about the process, e.g., telling the user to move their head in the direction that the user perceives to be the source location.”); measuring the respective head movement of the user via the at least one motion sensor (FIG. 3, Step 320, Detect the motion of the user in the direction of the perceived location of the virtual sound source); estimating from the measured head movement the user's ability of spatial sound identification with the present fitting configuration of the binaural hearing system (FIG. 3, Step 330, Step 340, Determine a difference between the location of the virtual sound source and the perceived location, difference less than or equal to a threshold difference?); and maintaining or modifying the present fitting configuration based on the estimated user's ability of spatial sound identification (FIG. 3, Step 350, Step 360, Step 370, updates the audio profile based upon the differences between perceived audio location and actual virtual sound source location.).
Helwani does not further teach, a second audio source arranged at a second angular position relative to the user; instructing the user to turn the user’s head towards the second audio source, and the estimating of the user’s ability of spatial sound identification including estimating the user’s ability of spatial sound segregation based on an angle between the first audio source and the second audio source.
However, Anderson, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, a second audio source arranged at a second angular position relative to the user; instructing the user to turn the user’s head towards the second audio source (Paragraph 101, “In a first step, the Loudness Discomfort Levels of the patient are recorded individually for both the left and right ears. Next, the Thresholds of Hearing or MAL levels are measured and recorded. The patient is then subjected to a plurality of tones at specific frequencies at various attenuated sound levels. As the patient rotates their head in order to achieve perceived directional sameness between the left and right ears for each tone, the difference in actual sound pressure levels are recorded and the difference calculated. In order to help eliminate data errors that could occur due to repetitive behavior, the system is configured to change the azimuth location of actual equalized sound so that the patient does not return to the exact same location for each tone in order to achieve perceived sound equalization between the left and right ears.”, FIG. 1 also presents an example with one tone being output and the user turning their head to face the perceived location of said sound source.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of a second audio source, and instructing the user to turn their head towards it, as taught by Anderson, with the system as taught by Helwani. The motivation being that the data can be further refined by repeated testing as well as other metrics that may not be able to be measured using a singular tone.
Helwani in view of Anderson do not further teach, and the estimating of the user’s ability of spatial sound identification including estimating the user’s ability of spatial sound segregation based on an angle between the first audio source and the second audio source.
However, Litovsky, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, and the estimating of the user’s ability of spatial sound identification including estimating the user’s ability of spatial sound segregation based on an angle between the first audio source and the second audio source (Paragraph 11, “In one version, the method for testing speech intelligibility of a child comprises providing a set of target words for presenting to the child from an auditory target located in front of the child; selecting the set of target words from a plurality of words by determining which of said plurality of words are within a vocabulary of the child, whereby the set of target words comprises only words familiar to the child; providing a set of picture representations of each of said target words for visually presenting to the child; providing a set of competing sounds of an at least one type of competing sound… and, repeating the presenting the target word step while furthermore simultaneously presenting one type of the competing sounds at an at least one location relative to the target and to the child, over all of the at least one type of competing sounds.” Further, See abstract “A method and system for testing the speech intelligibility of a child comprises providing a set of target sounds as words in the presence and absence of competing sound(s) of a variety of types so as to enable an analysis of the aspects of competing sounds and their respective effects on the speech intelligibility of a child. Locations at which competing sound(s) is provided is varied to enable an evaluation of its effect on the spatial release from masking.”, displays the usage of competing sounds to test a user’s ability to understand a sound being output while multiple are present, while in a different embodiment, they are utilizing multiple sound signals to test the user’s ability as described, and in combination with the previously cited prior art, the described test could further be performed to better suit a user’s listening experience.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the estimating of the user’s ability of spatial sound identification including estimating the user’s ability of spatial sound segregation based on an angle between the first audio source and the second audio source, as taught by Litovsky, with the systems as taught by Helwani in view of Anderson. The motivation being that testing a user’s ability to locate sounds while experiencing competing sound signals, can allow for the hearing aid to be better suited for the user, and accounts for more real world scenarios, as experiencing noise is common within everyday use.
Regarding Claim 2, Helwani, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Helwani further teaches, wherein the method is iterated for different fitting configurations so as to optimize the fitting configuration regarding the user's ability of spatial sound identification by minimizing the deviation between an expected head movement and the measured head movements (Column 9, Lines 66-67, and Column 10, Lines 1-17, “Initially, the spatialization cues contained within the filtered electrical signal are based on an initial HRTF, which may be a generic or idealized HRTF. The user has been instructed to move in the direction that the user perceives to be the virtual location of the virtual sound source. A motion sensor 240a tracks the motion of the user. The HRTF individualization circuitry 250a determines a difference between the virtual location of the virtual sound source and the user's perceived location of the virtual sound source. If the HRTF used to filter the electrical signal 214 to provide the spatialization cues in the spatialized sound 215 is suboptimal for the user, the spatialization cues in the sound 215 are also suboptimal. As a result, the virtual location of the virtual source differs from the user's perceived location of the virtual source.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Helwani, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Helwani further teaches, wherein the user is instructed via instruction audio signals reproduced by the binaural hearing system (Column 4, Lines 56-57, “The interactive process may include instructions played to the user via the virtual source.”).
Regarding Claim 11, Helwani, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Helwani further teaches, wherein the at least one motion sensor comprises a first inertial sensor in the first hearing device and a second inertial sensor in the second hearing device, and wherein the first inertial sensor and the second inertial sensor comprise at least one of accelerometers or gyroscopes (Column 6, Lines 49-52, “In embodiments where the motion sensor is internal to the hearing device, the motion sensor 240a may comprise an internal accelerometer, magnetometer, and/or gyroscope, for example.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Helwani, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky, teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Helwani further teaches, wherein the spatialized binaural audio signal is generated by using a default set of HRTFs or by using a set of generic HRTFs selected from a plurality of pre-sets such that a selected set of HRTFs matches best with the user's perception or by using a set of HRTFs measured using the binaural hearing system worn by the user and an accessory device (Column 6, Lines 16-20, “Initially, the spatialization cues contained within the filtered electrical signal are based on an initial HRTF, which may be a generic or idealized HRTF. The user has been instructed to move in the direction that the user perceives to be the virtual location of the virtual sound source.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Helwani, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky, teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Helwani further teaches, wherein fitting parameters of the present fitting configuration include an amount of wide dynamic range compression, as determined by at least one of, compression kneepoints, a beamformer pattern, an amount of noise reduction, or an amount of reverberation reduction (Column 11, Lines 64-67, “Such algorithms include, for example, beamforming algorithms of the microphone and/or signal processing algorithms for noise suppression, signal filtering, echo cancellation, and/or dereverberation.”, Column 8 Lines, 49-56, “Depending on the sign of the error, the peaking filter may attenuate or amplify frequencies of interest (e.g. between 8 kHz-11 kHz). The magnitude and direction of such gain to be applied is dependent on the error signal. The peaking filter gain can be relatively fine, affecting a relatively narrow and specific band of frequencies, or may be relatively broad/course, affecting a broader range of frequencies, as needed.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Helwani, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky, teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Helwani further teaches, wherein at least one of the generating of the spatialized binaural audio signal representative of the virtual auditory scene; the estimating, from the measured head movements, the user's ability of spatial sound identification with the present fitting configuration of the binaural hearing system; or the maintaining or modifying of the present fitting configuration based on the estimated user's ability of spatial sound identification with the present fitting configuration are performed on an accessory device communicatively coupled with binaural hearing system (Column 10, Lines 39-48, “In some embodiments, communication circuitry 661, 662 communicatively links the two hearing devices 601, 602 to each other and/or to the smartphone 680 so that information from the motion sensors 641, 642 of the left and right hearing devices 601, 602, HRTF individualization circuitry 651, 652 of the left and right devices 601, 602, and/or microphones 671, 672 of the left and right hearing devices 601, 602 can be exchanged between the devices 601, 602 or between one or both devices 601, 602 and the smartphone 680 to facilitate the HRTF individualization.”).
Regarding Claim 15, Helwani teaches A self-fitting arrangement (Title/Abstract), comprising: a binaural hearing system comprising a first hearing device including a first output transducer for stimulating a first ear of a user (FIG. 6, Speaker 622) and a second hearing device including a second output transducer for stimulating a second ear of the user (FIG. 6, Speaker 621), the binaural hearing system further comprising at least one motion sensor (FIG. 6, Motion Sensor 641, Motion Sensor 642);
an accessory device communicatively coupled to the binaural hearing system (FIG. 2B, FIG. 6, Smartphone, 680, HRTF individualization circuitry 681); wherein the accessory device is configured to implement a present fitting configuration in the binaural hearing system (FIG. 3, Step 310, Column 7, Lines 53-55, “Initially, the sound played to the user includes spatialization cues that are consistent with an initial HRTF such as a generic or idealized HRTF that is suboptimal for the user.”) by setting respective parameters in the binaural hearing system and generate a spatialized binaural audio signal representative of a virtual auditory scene including at least a first audio source arranged at a given angular position relative to the user (FIG. 3, Step 310, Column 7, Lines 56-59, “The sound has spatialization cues indicating a certain virtual elevation. In embodiments that include both left and right-side hearing devices, the spatialization cues for the virtual elevation are provided by HRTFs for left and right sides.”) and an instruction audio signal instructing the user to turn the user's head towards the first audio source (Column 8, Lines 1-8, “In some embodiments, through the interactive and iterative calibration procedure, voice prompts instruct the wearer what to do. For example, during the individualization process, e.g., before, during, or after the sound is played to the user, the virtual source may play a recorded voice that informs the user about the process, e.g., telling the user to move their head in the direction that the user perceives to be the source location.”); wherein the binaural hearing system is configured to reproduce the spatialized binaural audio signal, the instruction audio signal, and the additional instruction audio signal to the user (FIG. 3, Step 310, further taught by the above quotations.); and wherein the accessory device is further configured to measure the respective head movements of the user via the at least one motion sensor (FIG. 3, Step 320, Detect the motion of the user in the direction of the perceived location of the virtual sound source), estimate from the measured head movements the user's ability of spatial sound identification with the present fitting configuration of the binaural hearing system (FIG. 3, Step 330, Step 340, Determine a difference between the location of the virtual sound source and the perceived location, difference less than or equal to a threshold difference?); and maintain or modify the present fitting configuration based on the estimated user's ability to of spatial sound identification (FIG. 3, Step 350, Step 360, Step 370, updates the audio profile based upon the differences between perceived audio location and actual virtual sound source location.).
Helwani et al does not further teach, a second audio source arranged at an additional given angular position relative to the user and an additional instruction audio signal instructing the user to turn the user’s head towards the second audio source; and the estimating of the user’s ability of spatial sound segregation based on an angle between the first audio source and the second audio source.
However, Anderson, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, a second audio source arranged at an additional given angular position relative to the user and an additional instruction audio signal instructing the user to turn the user’s head towards the second audio source (Paragraph 101, “In a first step, the Loudness Discomfort Levels of the patient are recorded individually for both the left and right ears. Next, the Thresholds of Hearing or MAL levels are measured and recorded. The patient is then subjected to a plurality of tones at specific frequencies at various attenuated sound levels. As the patient rotates their head in order to achieve perceived directional sameness between the left and right ears for each tone, the difference in actual sound pressure levels are recorded and the difference calculated. In order to help eliminate data errors that could occur due to repetitive behavior, the system is configured to change the azimuth location of actual equalized sound so that the patient does not return to the exact same location for each tone in order to achieve perceived sound equalization between the left and right ears.”, FIG. 1 also presents an example with one tone being output and the user turning their head to face the perceived location of said sound source.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of a second audio source, and instructing the user to turn their head towards it, as taught by Anderson, with the system as taught by Helwani. The motivation being that the data can be further refined by repeated testing as well as other metrics that may not be able to be measured using a singular tone.
Helwani in view of Anderson do not further teach, the estimating of the user’s ability of spatial sound identification including estimating the user’s ability of spatial sound segregation based on an angle between the first audio source and the second audio source.
However, Litovsky, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, the estimating of the user’s ability of spatial sound identification including estimating of the user’s ability of spatial sound segregation based on an angle between the first audio source and the second audio source (Paragraph 11, “In one version, the method for testing speech intelligibility of a child comprises providing a set of target words for presenting to the child from an auditory target located in front of the child; selecting the set of target words from a plurality of words by determining which of said plurality of words are within a vocabulary of the child, whereby the set of target words comprises only words familiar to the child; providing a set of picture representations of each of said target words for visually presenting to the child; providing a set of competing sounds of an at least one type of competing sound… and, repeating the presenting the target word step while furthermore simultaneously presenting one type of the competing sounds at an at least one location relative to the target and to the child, over all of the at least one type of competing sounds.” Further, See abstract “A method and system for testing the speech intelligibility of a child comprises providing a set of target sounds as words in the presence and absence of competing sound(s) of a variety of types so as to enable an analysis of the aspects of competing sounds and their respective effects on the speech intelligibility of a child. Locations at which competing sound(s) is provided is varied to enable an evaluation of its effect on the spatial release from masking.”, displays the usage of competing sounds to test a user’s ability to understand a sound being output while multiple are present, while in a different embodiment, they are utilizing multiple sound signals to test the user’s ability as described, and in combination with the previously cited prior art, the described test could further be performed to better suit a user’s listening experience.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the estimating of the user’s ability of spatial sound identification including estimating the user’s ability of spatial sound segregation based on an angle between the first audio source and the second audio source, as taught by Litovsky, with the systems as taught by Helwani in view of Anderson. The motivation being that testing a user’s ability to locate sounds while experiencing competing sound signals, can allow for the hearing aid to be better suited for the user, and accounts for more real world scenarios, as experiencing noise is common within everyday use.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helwani et al, US Patent No. 9848273 B1, in view of Anderson, US Publication No. 2010/0310101 A1, further in view of Litovsky, US Publication No. 2002/0107692 A1, even further in view of Anderson (II), US Publication No. 2011/0075853 A1.
Regarding Claim 6, Helwani, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky, teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not further teach wherein parameters of the virtual auditory scene including at least one of levels, distances, yaw angles of at least one of the first audio source or the second audio source or the level of diffuse noise, are varied for performing different head movement measurements
However, Anderson (II), in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein parameters of the virtual auditory scene, in particular levels, distances and/or yaw angles of the first audio source and/or the second audio source and/or the level of diffuse noise, are varied for performing different head movement measurements (FIG. 5, “Repeat the “Practice Test Routine” 5 times or until the last 2 localizations using random source locations are within 0.2 dB for each ear.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of varying levels, distances, and/or yaw angles of the audio sources or diffuse noise, to perform different head movement measures, as taught by Anderson (II), with the system as taught by Helwani et al, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky. The motivation being to allow for a variety in measurement conditions, which would allow for a more usable result from the testing procedure, as maintaining those values would lead to similar or identical results each test.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helwani et al, US Patent No. 9848273 B1, in view of Anderson, US Publication No. 2010/0310101 A1, further in view of Litovsky, US Publication No. 2002/0107692 A1, even further in view of Anderson (II), US Publication No. 2011/0075853 A1, further in view of Boretzki, WO 2008025858 A2.
Regarding Claim 4, Helwani et al, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky, even further in view of Anderson (II) teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not further teach, wherein the first audio source is a target talker and the second audio source is a competing talker
However, Boretzki, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the first audio source is a target talker and the second audio source is a competing talker (See Page 8, “it is composed in such a way that there are portions of the audio sequence when two or more sound objects sound simultaneously.”, See Page 9, “Fig. 4 is a schematic illustration of a visualization 6 with an offering of parameters to be adjusted. In step 120, the user has - at a certain instant, e.g., while the woman (Ql) and the man (Q2) talk simultaneously”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the two audio sources being a target talker and a competing talker, as taught by Boretzki, with the system as taught by Helwani et al, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky, even further in view of Anderson (II). The motivation being to allow for the test to be performed in a more realistic use case, allowing for more directly applicable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helwani et al, US Patent No. 9848273 B1, in view of Anderson, US Publication No. 2010/0310101 A1, further in view of Litovsky, US Publication No. 2002/0107692 A1, even further in view of Riggs et al, US Publication No. 2017/0332186 A1.
Regarding Claim 5, Helwani et al, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not further teach, wherein the virtual auditory scene includes diffuse noise.
However, Riggs et al, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the virtual auditory scene includes diffuse noise (Paragraph 42, “Techniques may include using a known stimulus or input signal for a calibration process that the listener participates in, or can involve using noises naturally present in the environment of the listener,”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the virtual auditory scene includes diffuse noise, as taught by Riggs et al, with the system as taught by Helwani et al, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky. The motivation being to allow for the test to be performed in a more realistic use case, allowing for more directly applicable results, as noise is typically present in situations in which a hearing device would be utilized.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helwani et al, US Patent No. 9848273 B1, in view of Anderson, US Publication No. 2010/0310101 A1, further in view of Litovsky, US Publication No. 2002/0107692 A1, even further in view of Krause et al, WO 2005018275 A2.
Regarding Claim 8, Helwani et al, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky teaches all the limitations of claim 7, but does not further teach, wherein the user provides voice feedback to the instruction audio signals which is recognized via automatic speech recognition
However, Krause et al, in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches, wherein the user provides voice feedback to the instruction audio signals which is recognized via automatic speech recognition (See Paragraph 0007, “During this tuning period, users of such systems are asked to provide feedback on how they feel the device is performing. The tuning process, however, is not a user-specific process. Rather, the tuning process is geared to the average user.”, See Paragraph 0032, “In another embodiment, the monitor system 110 can be a speech recognition system configured to speech recognize, or convert to text, user responses.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of voice feedback using automatic speech recognition, as taught by Krause et al, with the system as taught by Helwani et al, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky. The motivation being to allow for a further method of ensuring audio reproduction quality for the user, by ensuring they are further able to understand the audio signals, as well as the direction of arrival.
Regarding Claim 9, Helwani et al, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky, even further in view of Krause et al teaches all the limitation of claim 8, and Krause et al further teaches, wherein each of the hearing devices comprises a microphone arrangement for capturing the user's voice feedback, and wherein the binaural hearing system transmits audio signals representative of the user's voice feedback to an accessory device which performs the automatic speech recognition (FIG. 4, FIG. 5, See Paragraph 0032, “In another embodiment, the monitor system 110 can be a speech recognition system configured to speech recognize, or convert to text, user responses.”, while not explicitly shown, a microphone would be required to perform speech recognition within the speech recognition system.).
Regarding Claim 10, Helwani et al, in view of Anderson, further in view of Litovsky, even further in view of Krause et al teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and Krause et al further teaches, wherein the instruction audio signals include key words presented by the first audio source, wherein the user is instructed to repeat the key words, and wherein the voice feedback includes the repetition of the key words by the user (FIG. 5, See Paragraph 0032, “For example, after hearing a word and/or syllable, the user can repeat the perceived test audio aloud.”, See Paragraph 0056, “In another embodiment, the user could be asked to repeat the test audio. In that case the monitor system can be implemented as a speech recognition system for recognizing the user's responses.”).
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 DYLAN M NEECE whose telephone number is (703)756-1941. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 7pm.
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, CAROLYN EDWARDS can be reached at (571)-270-7136. 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.
/DYLAN MAGUIRE NEECE/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights