DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are indicated in the table below, along with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB citation)
“radio-frequency module”
35
An RF transmitter, receiver or transceiver [0027]
“wireless module”
35
a wireless transmitter, receiver, and/or transceiver [0026]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 1-3, 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan et al. 2016/0001085.
Regarding claim 1, Pan discloses a method comprising:
transmitting power from an external device to an implantable medical device via a power link [pars. 33-34; fig. 2, 13 of external device 1 produces field M1 which induces M2 at 23 of implantable medical device 2]; and
receiving, at the external device, data from the implantable medical device via a data link that is separate from the power link [fig. 2, 15 receives status info from 25, separate from the inductive power channel], wherein the data indicates a real-time power requirement of the implantable medical device [fig. 2; par. 41; 22 detects a power value, and if power value is not within designated (needed/required) range then controller 11 adjusts the transmitted power thus the data from 2 indicates a real-time power requirement (“indicates” in the broad sense)].
Regarding claim 2, Pan discloses further comprising:
regulating the power transmitted via the power link using the real-time power requirement of the implantable medical device indicated in the data received from the implantable medical device [par. 41].
Regarding claim 3, Pan discloses wherein regulating the power transmitted via the power link comprises:
changing an amplitude of a carrier signal of the power link based on the real-time power requirement of the implantable medical device [par. 41-42; the power signal is adjusted (magnitude) of the inductive signal; inductive power transfer uses an alternating current signal (i.e. that is rectified at 232 of 2)].
Regarding claim 9, Pan discloses wherein transmitting the power to the implantable medical device via the power link comprises: using a continuous carrier signal to transmit the power [fig. 2; inductive power transfer uses an alternating signal (“time-varying”) to transmit power (continuous) while power is being transferred; pars. 38-39].
Regarding claim 10, Pan discloses wherein the continuous carrier signal is unmodulated [fig. 1; power over channel m1/m2 data between 15/25; data over separate channel so signal is not modulated with data].
Regarding claim 14, Pan discloses wherein the power link is a closely-coupled inductive link [fig. 2; pars. 7 & 37-38].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. 2016/0001085 in view of Kim et al. US PGPUB 2014/0152251.
Regarding claim 4, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the real-time power requirement is associated with a compliance voltage of the implantable medical device.
However, Kim discloses a medical device using inductive charging [par. 60; fig. 1] wherein the real-time power requirement is associated with a compliance voltage of the implantable medical device [par. 87 & 157; the receiver communicates to the transmitter a power amount received which is associated with loading and rated voltage].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the real-time power requirement is associated with a compliance voltage of the implantable medical device
for the purpose of allowing a source to compute the needed power amount and adjust as taught by Kim (par. 87).
Regarding claim 5, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the real-time power requirement is associated with a load of the implantable medical device.
However, Kim discloses a medical device using inductive charging [par. 60; fig. 1] wherein the real-time power requirement is associated with a load of the implantable medical device [par.86- 87 & 157; the receiver communicates to the transmitter a power amount received which is associated with loading and rated voltage].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the real-time power requirement is associated with a load of the implantable medical device for the purpose of allowing a source to compute the needed power amount and adjust as taught by Kim (par. 87).
Regarding claim 6, Pan does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
sensing the load at the implantable medical device; and
generating the data based on the sensing of the load.
However, Kim as applied in claim 5 discloses sensing the load at the implantable medical device; and generating the data based on the sensing of the load [fig. 1; voltage/current detection at the load; pars. 86-87].
Claim 7, 35-37, 40-42 and 46-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. 2016/0001085 in view of Cook et al. US PGPUB 2010/0127660.
Regarding claim 7, Pan discloses wherein transmitting the power to the implantable medical device via the power link comprises: transmitting only power via a first frequency channel [fig. 1; power over channel m1/m2 data between 15/25].
Pan does not explicitly disclose the frequency of the first channel is radio (RF).
However, Cook discloses a medical device charging via inductive charging wherein the frequency of the first channel is radio (RF) [pars. 45; claim 9; a RF frequency of about 6.78 MHz].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the frequency of the first channel is radio (RF) for the purpose of using ISM frequency bands, as taught by Cook (par. 45).
Regarding claim 35, Pan discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a frequency module configured to send power to an implantable medical device via a closely-coupled power link [pars. 33-34; fig. 2, 13 of external device 1 produces field M1 which induces M2 (close coupled power link) at 23 of implantable medical device 2];
a wireless module configured to receive power-regulation data from the implantable medical device, where the power-regulation data is received via a data link that is separate from the closely-coupled power link [fig. 2, 15 receives status info from 25, separate from the inductive power channel]; and
an external power regulator configured to regulate the power sent to the implantable medical device based on the power-regulation data received from the implantable medical device [fig. 2; par. 41; 22 detects a power value, and if power value is not within designated (needed/required) range then controller 11 adjusts the transmitted power thus the data from 2 indicates a real-time power requirement (“indicates” in the broad sense)].
Pan does not explicitly disclose the frequency is radio (RF).
However, Cook discloses a medical device charging via inductive charging wherein the frequency of the first channel is radio (RF) [pars. 45; claim 9; a RF frequency of about 6.78 MHz].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the frequency of the first channel is radio (RF) for the purpose of using ISM frequency bands, as taught by Cook (par. 45).
Regarding claim 36, Pan discloses wherein the power-regulation data indicates a real- time power requirement of the implantable medical device [fig. 2; par. 41; 22 detects a power value, and if power value is not within designated (needed/required) range then controller 11 adjusts the transmitted power thus the data from 2 indicates a real-time power requirement (“indicates” in the broad sense)].
Regarding claim 37, Pan discloses wherein the external power regulator is configured to change an amplitude of a carrier signal of the closely-coupled power link based on the power-regulation data [par. 41-42; the power signal is adjusted (magnitude) of the inductive signal; inductive power transfer uses an alternating current signal (i.e. that is rectified at 232 of 2)].
Regarding claim 40, Pan discloses wherein the frequency module is configured to transmit only power to the implantable medical device via a first frequency channel [fig. 1; power over channel m1/m2 data between 15/25].
Cook as applied in claim 35 discloses the frequency of the first channel is radio (RF).
Regarding claim 41, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the radio- frequency module is configured to transmit power and data to the implantable medical device via a first radio frequency channel.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the wireless charging arts to modulate a power link to also have data, thus transmitting power and data via a first radio frequency channel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the radio- frequency module is configured to transmit power and data to the implantable medical device via a first radio frequency channel for the purpose reducing the amount of parts necessary and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 42, Pan discloses wherein the frequency module is configured to transmit power to the implantable medical device using a continuous carrier signal [fig. 2; inductive power transfer uses an alternating signal (“time-varying”) to transmit power (continuous) while power is being transferred; pars. 38-39].
Cook as applied in claim 35 discloses the frequency of the first channel is radio (RF).
Regarding claim 47, Pan discloses wherein the external device apparatus is an external charger configured to at least transfer power to the implantable medical device [fig. 2; 13 transmits power to 23, thus at least power transfer].
Regarding claim 48, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the implantable medical device is at least one of a cochlear implant or a bone conduction hearing implant.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the wireless charging arts to charge medical devices which are cochlear implant or a bone conduction hearing implant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the implantable medical device is at least one of a cochlear implant or a bone conduction hearing implant for the purpose of eliminating the need to remove the implant while charging and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 46, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the external device apparatus is a sound processor configured to transfer power and data to the implantable medical device.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the wireless charging arts to use acoustic or ultrasound power transfer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the external device is a sound processor configured to transfer power and data to the implantable medical device for the purpose of using an alternative form of power transfer in applications sensitive to radio frequencies, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. 2016/0001085 in view of John et al. US PGPUB 2009/0058361.
Regarding claim 11, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving the data from the implantable medical device via a data link comprises:
receiving the data at a frequency that is different from a frequency of the power link, wherein the difference in frequency is such that spectrums of the power link and the data link do not interfere with each other.
However, John discloses a medical device charging via inductive charging wherein receiving the data from the implantable medical device via a data link comprises: receiving the data at a frequency that is different from a frequency of the power link, wherein the difference in frequency is such that spectrums of the power link and the data link do not interfere with each other [par. 53 & 58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein receiving the data from the implantable medical device via a data link comprises: receiving the data at a frequency that is different from a frequency of the power link, wherein the difference in frequency is such that spectrums of the power link and the data link do not interfere with each other for the purpose of separately transmitting power and data, as taught by John (par. 58).
Claim 8 & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. 2016/0001085.
Regarding claim 8, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the power to the implantable medical device via the power link comprises: transmitting power and data via a first radio frequency channel.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the wireless charging arts to modulate a power link to also have data, thus transmitting power and data via a first radio frequency channel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein transmitting the power to the implantable medical device via the power link comprises: transmitting power and data via a first radio frequency channel for the purpose reducing the amount of parts necessary and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the external device is a sound processor configured to transfer power and data to the implantable medical device.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the wireless charging arts to use acoustic or ultrasound power transfer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the external device is a sound processor configured to transfer power and data to the implantable medical device for the purpose of using an alternative form of power transfer in applications sensitive to radio frequencies, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 16, Pan discloses wherein the external device is an external charger configured to at least transfer power to the implantable medical device [fig. 2; 13 transmits power to 23, thus at least power transfer].
Regarding claim 17, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the implantable medical device is at least one of a cochlear implant or a bone conduction hearing implant.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the wireless charging arts to charge medical devices which are cochlear implant or a bone conduction hearing implant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the implantable medical device is at least one of a cochlear implant or a bone conduction hearing implant for the purpose of eliminating the need to remove the implant while charging and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 12 and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. 2016/0001085 in view of Cook et al. US PGPUB 2010/0127660 and further in view of John et al. US PGPUB 2009/0058361.
Regarding claim 12, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the power to the implantable medical device via the power link comprises:
transmitting the power via a closely-coupled link operating at a frequency of approximately 6.78 megahertz (MHz), and wherein receiving the data from the implantable medical device via a communications link comprises: receiving the data at a frequency that is approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz).
However, Cook discloses a medical device charging via inductive charging
including transmitting the power via a closely-coupled link operating at a frequency of approximately 6.78 megahertz (MHz) [pars. 45; claim 9; a RF frequency of about 6.78 MHz].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include transmitting the power via a closely-coupled link operating at a frequency of approximately 6.78 megahertz (MHz) for the purpose of using ISM frequency bands, as taught by Cook (par. 45).
The combination of Pan and Cook does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving the data from the implantable medical device via a communications link comprises: receiving the data at a frequency that is approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz).
However, John discloses a medical device charging via inductive charging wherein receiving the data from the implantable medical device via a communications link comprises: receiving the data at a frequency that is approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) [par. 53 & 58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein receiving the data from the implantable medical device via a communications link comprises: receiving the data at a frequency that is approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) for the purpose of separately transmitting power and data, as taught by John (par. 58).
Regarding Claim 43, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the closely-coupled power link and the data link are frequency spaced from one another such that that data link does not interfere with operation of the closely-coupled power link
However, John discloses a medical device charging via inductive charging wherein the closely-coupled power link and the data link are frequency spaced from one another such that that data link does not interfere with operation of the closely-coupled power link [par. 53 & 58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the closely-coupled power link and the data link are frequency spaced from one another such that that data link does not interfere with operation of the closely-coupled power link for the purpose of separately transmitting power and data, as taught by John (par. 58).
Regarding claim 44, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the closely- coupled power link has a frequency that is approximately 6.78 megahertz (MHz), and wherein the data link has a frequency that is approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz).
However, Cook as applied in claim 35 discloses wherein the closely- coupled power link has a frequency that is approximately 6.78 megahertz (MHz [pars. 45; claim 9; a RF frequency of about 6.78 MHz].
The combination of Pan and Cook does not explicitly disclose wherein the data link has a frequency that is approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz).
However, John discloses a medical device charging via inductive charging wherein the data link has a frequency that is approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) [par. 53 & 58].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the data link has a frequency that is approximately 2.4 Gigahertz (GHz) the purpose of separately transmitting power and data, as taught by John (par. 58).
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. 2016/0001085 in view of Cook et al. US PGPUB 2010/0127660, and further in view of Kim et al. US PGPUB 2014/0152251.
Regarding claim 38, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the power-regulation data is associated with a compliance voltage of the implantable medical device.
However, Kim discloses a medical device using inductive charging [par. 60; fig. 1] wherein the power-regulation data is associated with a compliance voltage of the implantable medical device par. 87 & 157; the receiver communicates to the transmitter a power amount received which is associated with loading and rated voltage].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the power-regulation data is associated with a compliance voltage of the implantable medical device for the purpose of allowing a source to compute the needed power amount and adjust as taught by Kim (par. 87).
Regarding claim 39, Pan does not explicitly disclose wherein the power-regulation data is associated with a load of the implantable medical device.
However, Kim discloses a medical device using inductive charging [par. 60; fig. 1] wherein the power-regulation data is associated with a load of the implantable medical device [par.86- 87 & 157; the receiver communicates to the transmitter a power amount received which is associated with loading and rated voltage].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pan to further include wherein the power-regulation data is associated with a load of the implantable medical device for the purpose of allowing a source to compute the needed power amount and adjust as taught by Kim (par. 87).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights