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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, and 16-22 have 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 Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: the last two lines of claim 1 require the display of “at least one of the one or more motion values, at least one of the one or more motion values, and the workout performance value.” The applicant has recited displaying the motion value twice. It appears that applicant might have rather intended that that the motion value, health value, and workout performance value be displayed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 9-14 and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20130282155) in view of Jones (US 20120108394) and further in view of Alberts (US 20110082397).
With respect to claim 1, Li discloses, a computer-implemented method executed using a first computer (102 in fig. 1) and comprising:
receiving first motion data (para. 20 details receipt of “motion sensor data” from a plurality of sensors), wherein the first motion data is detected via a first set of one or more sensors (para. 58; 1210, 1212 in fig. 13b);
initializing one or more motion variables associated with a particular motion (para. 11, details motion “parameters” which are seen as equivalent to the claimed “motion variables”), the one or more motion variables comprising one or more of repetition count, speed, power, and form (para. 11 details, number of punches, punch speed, punch force seen as equivalent to power; and para. 66 details punch trajectory and form);
analyzing the first motion data to identify one or more instances of the particular motion and to determine one or more motion values corresponding to the one or more motion variables (Li throughout details analyzing motion data to identify specific punches and determines, for example, punch type (para. 11); see additionally discussion in para. 15 of an “analysis module”, and step 708 in fig. 15); and
generating and transmitting display instructions which, when rendered using a second computer (120 in fig. 2; para. 77-78 details rendering of the instructions by the mobile device), cause the second computer to display at least one of the one or more motion values (752 in fig. 15).
While Li discloses the above elements Li does not generally disclose specifics of health variables.
Jones discloses, using a first computer (para. 43), receiving health data, wherein the health data is detected via the first set of one or more sensors (para. 78 details heart rate and calorie indicators);
initializing one or more health variables, the one or more health variables comprising one or more of heart rate, calories burned, distance travelled, and workout frequency (para. 78 details heart rate, calories burned, para. 93 details if the user has moved their head a sufficient distance or not; and para. 49, 53 detail recordation of time / sequences of workout);
analyzing the health data to determine one or more health values corresponding to the one or more health variables (para. 88 and 92 detail analyzing health data to provide feedback to the user including for example calories expended);
generating a workout performance value (Jones discloses a points-based performance metric that is seen in fig. 10, for example; also note para. 53, 89, 93).
generating and transmitting display instructions which, when rendered using the second computer, cause the second computer to display at least one of the one or more health values and the workout performance value (para 92 details display of the health data on a display; this can additionally be seen in fig. 10; also note para. 88 which discloses display on a secondary computer the control unit feedback).
Jones and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the additional health components and corresponding analyzation of Jones in the device of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been provide additional user feedback about their exercise routine; and allow for better training (Jones; para. 7-8).
Li in view of Jones does not specifically disclose a workout performance value based at least in part on a weighted combination of the one or more motion values and the one or more health values, the one or more motion values and the one or more health values weighted based at least in part on one or more user preferences.
Alberts discloses a workout performance value (“summary score” para. 36) based at least in part on a weighted combination (“summary score” para. 39; “each factor in the summary score is given a certain weighting”) of the one or more motion values and the one or more health values (para. 36; “weighted contributions from some or all of the sources of feedback data.” Para. 37; describes including exercise movement and heart-rate in the weighted summary score), the one or more motion values and the one or more health values weighted based at least in part on one or more user preferences (para. 39, “certain weighting, which are set in such a manner as to give a summary score… to provide clinically beneficial treatment.” Para. 42 details different weights based on the measure of power as well. Finally applicant is directed to para. 41 which details user-selected different coefficient weights).
Jones, Li, and Alberts are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included weighted and combined the motion and health values of Jones/Li as taught by Alberts. The motivation for doing so would have been provide the user the maximum benefit of the exercise (Alberts; para. 21).
With respect to claim 2, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see above).
Li further discloses, wherein the particular motion is a boxing punch (fig. 15), and wherein the one or more motion variables consist of one or more of punch count as the repetition count motion variable, punch speed as the speed motion variable, punch power as the power motion variable, and punch form as the form motion variable (para. 11 details, number of punches, punch speed, punch force seen as equivalent to power; and para. 66 details punch trajectory and form).
With respect to claim 3, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see above).
Li further discloses, wherein the one or more motion values comprise at least one power value (para. 102 details collection of force which is seen as equivalent to the claimed power value), and wherein the at least one power value is determined by analyzing the force of acceleration of at least one motion (para. 102 details use of a three-dimensional accelerometer to collect force data).
With respect to claim 4, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see above).
Li further discloses, further comprising:
storing two or more particular motions in non-transitory computer-readable media (112 in 102 in fig. 1) of the first computer (para. 168-169; details a plurality of stored model strike trajectories; para. 175-176);
receiving, via a user interface, a selection of at least one motion from among the two or more particular motions (1702 in fig. 17; para. 169 details the user selection of a model strike trajectory);
analyzing one or more differences between the one or more instances of the particular motion and the at least one motion (see for example 1710 in fig. 17); and
outputting a form value based at least in part on the analysis of the one or more differences (Li’s method generates reports (1712 in fig. 17) and provides auditory feedback as well after comparison based on the level of similarity between selected pre-stored trajectories and collected movement data; see para. 172-174).
With respect to claim 5, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the computer-implemented method of claim 4 (see above).
Li further discloses, further comprising generating and transmitting second display instructions (1714 in fig. 17) which, when rendered using the second computer (120 in fig. 2; para. 77-78 details rendering of the instructions by the mobile device), cause the second computer to display advice for improving a form of the at least one motion (para. 172), wherein the advice is determined based at least in part on the analysis of the one or more differences (para. 172 details advice by providing visual prompts or recommendations based on how well the thrown strikes matched the model trajectory).
With respect to claim 6, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the computer-implemented method of claim 4 (see above).
Li further discloses, further comprising receiving second motion data from a second set of one or more sensors, and initializing the particular motion based at least in part on the second motion data (para. 58-59 discusses inclusion of sensors on both left and right hand gloves; for purposes of examination, the left hand glove and its sensors are mapped to the first sensors, and right hand glove sensors/motions are mapped to the second set/second motion).
With respect to claim 9, Li discloses, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more sequences of instructions (102, 104 in fig. 1; also see para. 17) which, when executed using one or more processors of a first computer (110 in fig.1), cause the one or more processors to execute:
receiving first motion data (para. 20 details receipt of “motion sensor data” from a plurality of sensors), wherein the first motion data is detected via a first set of one or more sensors (para. 58; 1210, 1212 in fig. 13b);
initializing one or more motion variables associated with a particular motion (para. 11, details motion “parameters” which are seen as equivalent to the claimed “motion variables”), the one or more motion variables comprising one or more of repetition count, speed, power, and form (para. 11 details, number of punches, punch speed, punch force seen as equivalent to power; and para. 66 details punch trajectory and form);
analyzing the first motion data to identify one or more instances of the particular motion and to determine one or more motion values corresponding to the one or more motion variables (Li throughout details analyzing motion data to identify specific punches and determines, for example, punch type (para. 11); see additionally discussion in para. 15 of an “analysis module”, and step 708 in fig. 15); and
generating and transmitting display instructions which, when rendered using a second computer (120 in fig. 2; para. 77-78 details rendering of the instructions by the mobile device), cause the second computer to display at least one of the one or more motion values (752 in fig. 15).
While Li discloses the above elements Li does not generally disclose specifics of health variables.
Jones discloses, using a first computer (para. 43), receiving health data, wherein the health data is detected via the first set of one or more sensors (para. 78 details heart rate and calorie indicators);
initializing one or more health variables, the one or more health variables comprising one or more of heart rate, calories burned, distance travelled, and workout frequency (para. 78 details heart rate, calories burned, para. 93 details if the user has moved their head a sufficient distance or not; and para. 49, 53 detail recordation of time / sequences of workout);
analyzing the health data to determine one or more health values corresponding to the one or more health variables (para. 88 and 92 detail analyzing health data to provide feedback to the user including for example calories expended);
generating a workout performance value (Jones discloses a points-based performance metric that is seen in fig. 10, for example; also note para. 53, 89, 93).
generating and transmitting display instructions which, when rendered using the second computer, cause the second computer to display at least one of the one or more health values and the workout performance value (para 92 details display of the health data on a display; this can additionally be seen in fig. 10; also note para. 88 which discloses display on a secondary computer the control unit feedback).
Jones and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the additional health components and corresponding analyzation of Jones in the device of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been provide additional user feedback about their exercise routine; and allow for better training (Jones; para. 7-8).
Li in view of Jones does not specifically disclose a workout performance value based at least in part on a weighted combination of the one or more motion values and the one or more health values, the one or more motion values and the one or more health values weighted based at least in part on one or more user preferences.
Alberts discloses a workout performance value (“summary score” para. 36) based at least in part on a weighted combination (“summary score” para. 39; “each factor in the summary score is given a certain weighting”) of the one or more motion values and the one or more health values (para. 36; “weighted contributions from some or all of the sources of feedback data.” Para. 37; describes including exercise movement and heart-rate in the weighted summary score), the one or more motion values and the one or more health values weighted based at least in part on one or more user preferences (para. 39, “certain weighting, which are set in such a manner as to give a summary score… to provide clinically beneficial treatment.” Para. 42 details different weights based on the measure of power as well. Finally applicant is directed to para. 41 which details user-selected different coefficient weights).
Jones, Li, and Alberts are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included weighted and combined the motion and health values of Jones/Li as taught by Alberts. The motivation for doing so would have been provide the user the maximum benefit of the exercise (Alberts; para. 21).
With respect to claim 10, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 9 (see above).
Li further discloses, wherein the particular motion is a boxing punch (fig. 15), and wherein the one or more motion variables consist of one or more of punch count as the repetition count motion variable, punch speed as the speed motion variable, punch power as the power motion variable, and punch form as the form motion variable (para. 11 details, number of punches, punch speed, punch force seen as equivalent to power; and para. 66 details punch trajectory and form).
With respect to claim 11, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 9 (see above).
Li further discloses, wherein the one or more motion values comprise at least one power value (para. 102 details collection of force which is seen as equivalent to the claimed power value), and wherein the at least one power value is determined by analyzing the force of acceleration of at least one motion (para. 102 details use of a three-dimensional accelerometer to collect force data).
With respect to claim 12, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 9 (see above).
Li further discloses, further comprising:
storing two or more particular motions in non-transitory computer-readable media (112 in 102 in fig. 1) of the first computer (para. 168-169; details a plurality of stored model strike trajectories; para. 175-176);
receiving, via a user interface, a selection of at least one motion from among the two or more particular motions (1702 in fig. 17; para. 169 details the user selection of a model strike trajectory);
analyzing one or more differences between the one or more instances of the particular motion and the at least one motion (see for example 1710 in fig. 17); and
outputting a form value based at least in part on the analysis of the one or more differences (Li’s method generates reports (1712 in fig. 17) and provides auditory feedback as well after comparison based on the level of similarity between selected pre-stored trajectories and collected movement data; see para. 172-174).
With respect to claim 13, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 12 (see above).
Li further discloses, , further comprising generating and transmitting second display instructions (1714 in fig. 17) which, when rendered using the second computer (120 in fig. 2; para. 77-78 details rendering of the instructions by the mobile device), cause the second computer to display advice for improving a form of the at least one motion (para. 172), wherein the advice is determined based at least in part on the analysis of the one or more differences (para. 172 details advice by providing visual prompts or recommendations based on how well the thrown strikes matched the model trajectory).
With respect to claim 14, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 12 (see above).
Li further discloses, further comprising receiving second motion data from a second set of one or more sensors, and initializing the particular motion based at least in part on the second motion data (para. 58-59 discusses inclusion of sensors on both left and right hand gloves; for purposes of examination, the left hand glove and its sensors are mapped to the first sensors, and right hand glove sensors/motions are mapped to the second set/second motion).
With respect to claim 17, Li discloses, a computer-implemented method using a first computer (102 in fig. 1) and comprising:
storing two or more particular motions in non-transitory computer-readable media (112 in 102 in fig. 1; para. 168-169; details a plurality of stored model strike trajectories; para. 175-176);
determining a particular motion, wherein the particular motion is determined by:
receiving, via a user interface, a selection of the particular motion (1702 in fig. 17; para. 169 details the user selection of a model strike trajectory); or
determining which of the two or more particular motions is most similar to a first motion (para. 130 details type of punch determination);
receiving sensor data (para. 58; 1210, 1212 in fig. 13b), the sensor data comprising first punch data, wherein the health data and the first punch data are detected via a first set of one or more sensors (para. 58; 1210, 1212 in fig. 13b);
initializing four or more punch variables corresponding to the particular motion, the four or more punch variables comprising punch count, punch speed, punch power, and punch form (para. 11 details, number of punches, punch speed, punch force seen as equivalent to power; and para. 66 details punch trajectory and form);
analyzing the first punch data to identify one or more instances of the particular motion and to determine one or more punch values corresponding to one or more of the four or more punch variables (Li throughout details analyzing motion data to identify specific punches and determines, for example, punch type (para. 11); see additionally discussion in para. 15 of an “analysis module”, and step 708 in fig. 15), the one or more punch values comprising a punch form value, wherein the punch form value is determined by analyzing one or more differences between the first motion and the particular motion (Li’s method generates reports (1712 in fig. 17) and provides auditory feedback as well after comparison based on the level of similarity between selected pre-stored trajectories and collected movement data; see para. 172-174);
generating and transmitting display instructions which, when rendered using the second computer, cause the second computer to display at least one of the one or more punch values (120 in fig. 2; para. 77-78 details rendering of the instructions by the mobile device; 752, in fig. 15).
While Li does disclose tracking workout frequency, Li is mostly silent with regards to health data and values.
Jones discloses, receiving health data, wherein the health data is detected via a first set of one or more sensors (para. 78 details heart rate and calorie indicators);
initializing four or more health variables, the four or more health variables comprising heart rate, calories burned, distance travelled, and workout frequency (para. 78 details heart rate, calories burned, para. 93 details if the user has moved their head a sufficient distance or not; and para. 49, 53 detail recordation of time / sequences of workout)
analyzing the health data to determine one or more health values corresponding to the one or more of the four or more health variables (para. 88 and 92 detail analyzing health data to provide feedback to the user including for example calories expended); and
generating a workout performance value (Jones discloses a points-based performance metric that is seen in fig. 10, for example; also note para. 53, 89, 93).
generating and transmitting display instructions which, when rendered using the second computer, cause the second computer to display at least one of the one or more health values and the workout performance value (para 92 details display of the health data on a display; this can additionally be seen in fig. 10; also note para. 88 which discloses display on a secondary computer the control unit feedback).
Jones and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the additional health components and corresponding analyzation of Jones in the device of Li. The motivation for doing so would have been provide additional user feedback about their exercise routine; and allow for better training (Jones; para. 7-8).
Li in view of Jones does not specifically disclose a workout performance value based at least in part on a weighted combination of the one or more motion values and the one or more health values, the one or more motion values and the one or more health values weighted based at least in part on one or more user preferences.
Alberts discloses a workout performance value (“summary score” para. 36) based at least in part on a weighted combination (“summary score” para. 39; “each factor in the summary score is given a certain weighting”) of the one or more motion values and the one or more health values (para. 36; “weighted contributions from some or all of the sources of feedback data.” Para. 37; describes including exercise movement and heart-rate in the weighted summary score), the one or more motion values and the one or more health values weighted based at least in part on one or more user preferences (para. 39, “certain weighting, which are set in such a manner as to give a summary score… to provide clinically beneficial treatment.” Para. 42 details different weights based on the measure of power as well. Finally applicant is directed to para. 41 which details user-selected different coefficient weights).
Jones, Li, and Alberts are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included weighted and combined the motion and health values of Jones/Li as taught by Alberts. The motivation for doing so would have been provide the user the maximum benefit of the exercise (Alberts; para. 21).
With respect to claim 18, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the computer-implemented method of claim 17 (see above).
Li further discloses, wherein the one or more punch values comprise at least one power value (para. 102 details collection of force which is seen as equivalent to the claimed power value), and wherein the at least one power value is determined by analyzing the force of acceleration of at least one motion (para. 102 details use of a three-dimensional accelerometer to collect force data).
With respect to claim 19, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the computer-implemented method of claim 17 (see above).
Li further discloses, further comprising generating and transmitting second display instructions (1714 in fig. 17) which, when rendered using the second computer (120 in fig. 2; para. 77-78 details rendering of the instructions by the mobile device), cause the second computer to display advice for improving a form of the particular motion (para. 172), wherein the advice is determined based at least in part on the analysis of the one or more differences (para. 172 details advice by providing visual prompts or recommendations based on how well the thrown strikes matched the model trajectory).
With respect to claim 20, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the computer-implemented method of claim 17 (see above).
Li further discloses, further comprising receiving second motion data from a second set of one or more sensors, and initializing the particular motion based at least in part on the second motion data (para. 58-59 discusses inclusion of sensors on both left and right hand gloves; for purposes of examination, the left hand glove and its sensors are mapped to the first sensors, and right hand glove sensors/motions are mapped to the second set/second motion).
With respect to claim 21, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see above).
Li further discloses, receiving second motion data from a second set of one or more sensors (para. 58-59 discusses inclusion of sensors on both left and right hand gloves; for purposes of examination, the left hand glove and its sensors are mapped to the first sensors, and right hand glove sensors/motions are mapped to the second set/second motion), the second motion data comprising the particular motion;
analyzing one or more differences between the one or more instances of the particular motion and the particular motion (Li throughout details analyzing motion data to identify specific punches and determines, for example, punch type (para. 11); see additionally discussion in para. 15 of an “analysis module”, and step 708 in fig. 15); and
outputting a form value based at least in part on the analysis of the one or more differences (Li’s method generates reports (1712 in fig. 17) and provides auditory feedback as well after comparison based on the level of similarity between selected pre-stored trajectories and collected movement data; see para. 172-174).
With respect to claim 22, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see above).
Li further discloses, wherein the one or more motion variables comprise a power motion count variable, and wherein analyzing the first motion data comprises:
determining whether a power of the one or more instances of the particular motion meets or exceeds a threshold power level (para. 96; “threshold values may comprise… force in a certain direction… and/or total force.”), wherein the power motion count variable tracks a quantity of instances of the particular motion that meet or exceed the threshold power level (para. 96; describes using threshold values as identifying events as particularly motions which would then be cataloged and save. Also note para. 11 discussion of tracking the total number of punches).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20130282155) in view of Jones (US 20120108394) and Alberts (US 20110082397) and further in view of Mather (US 2016/0263458).
With respect to claim 8, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the computer-implemented method of claim 7 (see above).
Neither Li, Jones, nor Alberts expressly disclose, further comprising determining the distance travelled as a first distance that a body travels, or a second distance that a first portion of the body travels while a second portion of the body is at rest.
Mather discloses, determining the distance travelled as a first distance that a body travels (para. 71, 110 detail determining a distance a boxer’s hand has moved; see also fig. 20), or a second distance that a first portion of the body travels while a second portion of the body is at rest.
Mather, Jones, Alberts and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the distance travelled determination of Mather to assist in punch type determination in the device of Li/Jones/Alberts. The motivation for doing so would have been provide punch specific determinations and feedback (Mather; fig. 20; para. 110)
With respect to claim 16, Li, Jones and Alberts disclose, the one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media of claim 15 (see above).
Neither Li, Jones nor Alberts expressly disclose, further comprising determining the distance travelled as a first distance that a body travels, or a second distance that a first portion of the body travels while a second portion of the body is at rest.
Mather discloses, determining the distance travelled as a first distance that a body travels (para. 71, 110 detail determining a distance a boxer’s hand has moved; see also fig. 20), or a second distance that a first portion of the body travels while a second portion of the body is at rest.
Mather, Jones, Alberts, and Li are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor namely exercise devices.
At the time of filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the distance travelled determination of Mather to assist in punch type determination in the device of Li/Jones/Alberts. The motivation for doing so would have been provide punch specific determinations and feedback (Mather; fig. 20; para. 110)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olaoluwa – US 20240058648 – details health and punch tracking
Cains – US 20140372440 – details punch tracking gloves and display
Yun – US 8282481 – details martial art tracking and comparison
Kantorivich – US 11478681 – details punch recognition and tracking
Kantarevic – US 8221291 – details health and punch tracking
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 William L Boddie whose telephone number is (571)272-0666. The examiner can normally be reached 8 - 4:15 M-F.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/WILLIAM BODDIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2625