DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2024 is being considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-8 are under examination.
Priority
The instant application (filed on 05/29/2024) is a national stage of PCT/PL2022/050086 (filed on 11/29/2022), filed under 35 USC 371. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application PLP.439675 filed on 11/29/2021. The Examiner used a translation from Espacenet of the published PL 248787 B1 to interpret the disclosure. Instant claims 1-8 are adequately supported in the foreign application to receive an effective filing date of 11/29/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1: The terms “third electrode,” “first second electrode,” and “second third electrode” have naming conventions which assume there is a “first” and “second” electrode, where these elements are not previously identified in the claim language. Additionally, it is unclear what “first second” and “second third” signify when identifying electrodes. A more straightforward naming convention for these three electrodes would enhance the clarity of the claim.
Claim 1: The following terms lack a proper antecedent basis: “the measured echocardiographic signal”, “the first measuring wing (2),” and “the second measuring wing (3).”
Claim 6: The term “the plug (25)” lacks a proper antecedent basis.
Claims 2-5 and 7-8 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad (US 10,694,966 B1) in view of Goldstein (US 2021/0282695 A1) and Inglis (US 9,149,095 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Ahmad discloses an arm-worn electrocardiographic device in a shape of a band (Fig. 13: Col 13, Lines 19-35 – armband 1306 for measuring ECG), comprising:
• a measurement module for processing the measured electrocardiographic signal (Fig. 6: Col 8, Lines 36-43 – exploded view of the central module components; Col 10, Lines 36-58 – the microcontroller is contained in the central module where the microcontroller measures biopotentials from the electrodes),
• characterised in that the first measuring wing (2) (Fig. 4 – upper strap 206) and the second measuring wing (3) (Fig. 4 – lower strap 208) are attached to the measurement module (1) (Fig. 4: Col 8, Lines 4-22 – touchscreen display over central module enclosure 202 (see Fig. 2A) which is attached to the upper and lower straps), symmetrically with respect to each other (Fig. 4 – upper and lower straps are attached to the central module in a visibly symmetrical fashion), by means of spring connectors (7, 8) (Col 6, Lines 60-67 – straps 206 and 208, which connect with the central module as seen with the clipping mechanism in Figs. 6 and 7 (Col 8, Lines 52-54), are made of flexible rubber), for measuring the electrocardiographic signal (Col 7, Lines 6-25 – flexible strip electrodes positioned on the straps are used to measure ECG biopotentials),
Note the broadest reasonable interpretation of spring connector does not require a literal spring (such as a spring bar connector one would find in many watch designs). The instant specification describes the spring connecter in terms of its material properties with “said connectors may be made of a material capable of reversible deformation, e.g., they may be elastic blades or other means for elastically connecting two elements, known in the art. Such structure of the band forces adaptive adjustment of the shape of the band to the geometry of the arm resulting from variable muscle tension, such that the circumferential shape of the band is adjusting its shape to the current cross-section of the arm” (page 9, lines 1-9). The bands made of flexible rubber forming a connection with the central module in Ahmad are interpreted as providing an elastic connection between two elements.
• a first fastening strip (4) and a second fastening strip (5) are attached to each of the measuring wings (2, 3) used to clasp the band around the arm, respectively (Fig. 2C, Col 7, Lines 60-67 and Col 7, Lines 1-5 – the rubber studs 212 and holes 214 sections are attached to the lower and upper straps, respectively), by means of spring connectors (6, 9) (Col 6, Lines 60-67 – straps are made of flexible rubber, which means the studs and holes are surrounded by and attached via the elastic band material),
Note the broadest reasonable interpretation of the fasteners in the claim language only requires the fasteners be attached to the measuring wings, not specifically as linear extensions at the ends of the measuring wings.
• wherein the module (1), the measuring wings (2, 3), and the fastening strips (4, 5) have an inner surface for contacting the user's skin (Col 8, Lines 4-22 – the inner surface of the band faces the skin for measuring biopotentials)
• on the inner surface of the module (1) a third electrode (10) is located (Fig. 2C: Col 7, Lines 6-25 – electrodes 216, 218, and 220), on the inner surface of the first measuring wing a first second electrode (11) is located (Fig. 2C: Col 7, Lines 6-25 – electrodes 222, 224, and 226 on the upper strap 206), and on the inner surface of the second measuring wing (5) a second third electrode (12) is located (Fig. 2C, Col 7, Lines 6-25 – electrodes 222, 224, and 226 on the lower strap 208).
Note Ahmad discloses that the left and right patches can be used independently and only share information to arrive at a cleaner signal (Col 2, Lines 62-66). Ahmad also discloses the device can be a smartband applied around either the arm or wrist because the principles of use are the same in either case (Col 4, Lines 52-65; see Figure 13 for examples of different placements). However, Ahmad does not disclose:
• wherein each of the electrodes (10, 11, 12) comprises a matrix (15, 50, 51) of movable sensors (16), respectively, wherein the surface area ratio of each electrode (10, 11, 12) to the surface area of the inner surface of the first fastening strip (4) or the second fastening strip (5) is not greater than one,
• wherein the movable sensor is comprised of a conductive material (16a) bonded to an elastic substrate (14).
• an outer surface for attaching the personalising attachment (26).
The headband in Goldstein would be considered “reasonably pertinent” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)1) to the claimed invention because Goldstein teaches a band with electrodes to sense biosignals from the skin (Abstract) and a matrix of spring-loaded electrodes 4 (see Fig. 7 for a top-view of the electrode array and Fig. 2 for a depiction of the placement of the matrices in a band) with multiple contact electrodes 5 and contact heads 13, soldered to an underlying printed circuit board, to measure EEG signals from the forehead (Fig. 6, [0095-0096] – describes electrodes). Alternative biopotentials which could be recorded include electrocardiograms and electromyograms ([0002]), suggesting the band design could be adapted for acquiring ECG measurements.
Goldstein discloses “the pin-like shape of the contact electrodes may allow for penetration through hair and increase the ability to form a good contact with the scalp, thereby increasing signal quality” ([0096]). Goldstein also discloses contact electrodes are positioned on a flexible substrate to allow for better contact with the skin and improve signal collection and can include a cushion to reduce pressure exerted by the contact electrodes on the underlying circuit board ([0101]). The term flexible is defined by Goldstein: “As used herein, the term ‘flexible’ means the ability to be changed in shape by a physical force and then return back to that shape once the physical force is removed” ([0072]). The substrate is meant to reversibly deform from an original position when a compression force is applied to enhance contact with the scalp, meaning the substrate acts in an elastic manner.
Goldstein also discloses “a large amount of contact electrodes 5 may increase the probability of obtaining good quality EEG signal […] the contact electrodes 5 may take up different sizes of area, depending on how many contact electrodes 5 and the size of the electrodes” ([0100]). According to [0080], the total skin-facing surface area of the device depicted in Figure 1 ranges from a maximum of 185.5 cm2 (53 cm*3.5 cm) to a minimum of 115 cm2 (46 cm*2.5 cm). An example is provided of the contact electrodes being 1.8-2.5 cm2 each ([0100]). Goldstein also describes: “The ribbon is divided into different segments to maximize comfort for the human subject wearing the apparatus, while also providing a way to ensure good contact and collection of bio-signals. The band provides a way to fit the various human subject's head sizes” ([0008]).
Goldstein does not teach the exact surface area ratio of the electrodes and fastener regions, but the relative surface area dimensions between the two regions would constitute a result-effective variable. Goldstein recognizes the selection of total electrode surface area for a grouping of contact electrodes 5 is highly variable (dependent on the number and size of electrodes) due to the tradeoff between limitations in space for placing the electrodes and improvements in EEG signal ([0100-0101]). Sufficient space must also be provided for the fastening section of the device to provide a comfortable fit and adjust to the extremes of head sizes ([0008]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the electrode and other band segments to achieve a ratio which maximizes comfort, adjustability, and electrode contact surface area (such as achieving the ratio in the claim language). Selecting the electrode and band relative dimensions in the claim language would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization absent a showing the claimed ranges are critical or produce unexpected results. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Ahmad’s armband ECG sensor containing strip electrodes with a center module connected symmetrically to an upper and lower band by incorporating the pin electrode arrays as electrodes in Goldstein. This would have been obvious because both Ahmad and Goldstein discuss the collection of biopotentials with a band containing electrodes and Goldstein provides a solution/improvement of a matrix of spring-loaded pin electrodes to establish better contact and signal quality by deforming under pressure (as the electrode is sandwiched between the elastic device band and skin) and bypassing obstacles to skin contact (such as hair). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the electrode strips in Ahmad by incorporating the pin electrode arrays in Goldstein.
The instant application describes the personalizing attachment as having a decorative function:
The attachment (26) is fixed to the outer surface side of the band by means of snaps and allows the user to 15 individually choose the external appearance of the armband, e.g., pattern and colour. The attachment (26) may be made of metal, polymer, or another material on which a decorative pattern can be applied, or which can be covered with a solid colour using methods known in the art. (Specification: Col 9, Lines 1-9)
The wristband in Inglis would be considered “reasonably pertinent” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)1) to the claimed invention because Inglis teaches a band with recesses on the outer surface designed to be fastened with ornamental elements to incrementally customize and decorate the band to the preferences of a particular user (Fig. 3, Col 2, Lines 31-45).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Ahmad’s armband ECG sensor by incorporating customizable decorations on the outer surface of a band in Inglis. This would have been obvious because both Ahmad and Inglis discuss bands applied to the arm and Inglis provides a solution/improvement to incrementally personalize the outer surface of the band with decorations which are pleasing and comforting to the user. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Ahmad by incorporating the customizable decorations on the surface of the band in Inglis into the outer surface of the armband in Ahmad.
Regarding Claim 2, the arm-worn electrocardiographic device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Goldstein and Inglis, as indicated hereinabove. Ahmad does not disclose characterised in that each of the matrices (15, 50, 51) is comprised of N movable sensors (16).
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Goldstein yields matrices of spring-loaded electrodes 4 (see Fig. 7 for a top-view of the electrode array and Fig. 2 for a depiction of the placement of three matrices in a band) with multiple contact electrodes 5 and contact heads 13, soldered to an underlying printed circuit board, to measure EEG signals from the forehead (Fig. 6, [0095-0096]). The matrices in Goldstein were found to be an obvious modification of Ahmad’s electrode strips.
Regarding Claim 3, the arm-worn electrocardiographic device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Goldstein and Inglis, as indicated hereinabove. Ahmad does not disclose characterised in that, in the movable sensor (16), the elastic substrate (14) adheres to the conductive material (16a) on the opposite surface of the material (16a) with respect to its surface configured for contact with the skin.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Goldstein yields matrices of spring-loaded electrodes 4 (see Fig. 7 for a top-view of the electrode array and Fig. 2 for a depiction of the placement of three matrices in a band) with multiple contact electrodes 5 and contact heads 13, soldered to an underlying printed circuit board, to measure EEG signals from the forehead (Fig. 6, [0095-0096]). The matrices in Goldstein were found to be an obvious modification of Ahmad’s electrode strips.
Goldstein also discloses these contact electrodes (which are placed on the inner surface of the band) are positioned on a flexible substrate to allow for better contact with the skin (improving signal collection) and can include a cushion to reduce pressure exerted by the contact electrodes on the underlying circuit board ([0101]). Based on Goldstein’s definition of flexible ([0072]), the substrate is meant to reversibly deform from an original position when a compression force is applied to enhance contact with the scalp, meaning the substrate acts in an elastic manner.
Regarding Claim 5, the arm-worn electrocardiographic device according to Claim 2 is obvious over Goldstein and Inglis, as indicated hereinabove. Ahmad does not disclose characterised in that the conductive material (16a) of the movable sensor (16) is chosen from a group including: a metal or a conductive plastic.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Goldstein yields matrices of spring-loaded electrodes 4 (see Fig. 7 for a top-view of the electrode array and Fig. 2 for a depiction of the placement of three matrices in a band) with multiple contact electrodes 5 and contact heads 13, soldered to an underlying printed circuit board, to measure EEG signals from the forehead (Fig. 6, [0095-0096]). The matrices in Goldstein were found to be an obvious modification of Ahmad’s electrode strips. Goldstein further discloses “contact electrodes 5 may be made of conductive materials, such as copper or brass” ([0097]).
Regarding Claim 7, the arm-worn electrocardiographic device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Goldstein and Inglis, as indicated hereinabove. Ahmad further discloses characterised in that the measurement module (1) for processing the measured electrocardiographic signal (Figs. 6 and 7: Col 8, Lines 36-51 – exploded view of the central module hardware for measuring ECG) comprises
• a component for measuring the electrocardiographic signal (Col 3, Lines 52-67 – amplification and conditioning circuitry to measure the ECG signal from the band electrodes),
• a microprocessor component comprising an analogue-to-digital converter (Fig. 9: Col 10, Lines 36-58 – the microcontroller uses an analog to digital converter), and
• a component for wireless communication with an external device (Fig. 1: Col 6, Lines 31-59 – data transmitted to an external device; Fig. 9: Col 10, Lines 36-58 – wireless transceiver 918).
Regarding Claim 8, the arm-worn electrocardiographic device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Goldstein and Inglis, as indicated hereinabove. Ahmad does not disclose characterised in that the matrix (15, 50, or 51) of movable sensors in an arrangement of k columns and l rows of movable sensors (16) comprises 1 to N movable sensors (16).
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Goldstein yields matrices of spring-loaded electrodes 4 (see Fig. 7 for a top-view of the electrode array and Fig. 2 for a depiction of the placement of three matrices in a band) with multiple contact electrodes 5 and contact heads 13, soldered to an underlying printed circuit board, to measure EEG signals from the forehead (Fig. 6, [0095-0096]). The matrices in Goldstein were found to be an obvious modification of Ahmad’s electrode strips.
Claim 4 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad (US 10,694,966 B1) in view of Goldstein (US 2021/0282695 A1), Inglis (US 9,149,095 B2), and Kreuzer (US 2021/0121116 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the arm-worn electrocardiographic device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Goldstein and Inglis, as indicated hereinabove. Ahmad does not disclose characterised in that the elastic substrate (14) of the movable sensor (16) is an elastomer.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Goldstein yields matrices of spring-loaded electrodes 4 (see Fig. 7 for a top-view of the electrode array and Fig. 2 for a depiction of the placement of three matrices in a band) with multiple contact electrodes 5 and contact heads 13, soldered to an underlying printed circuit board, to measure EEG signals from the forehead (Fig. 6, [0095-0096]). The matrices in Goldstein were found to be an obvious modification of Ahmad’s electrode strips.
Goldstein discloses the contact electrodes (which are placed on the inner surface of the band) are positioned on a flexible substrate to allow for better contact with the skin and improve signal collection and can include a cushion to reduce pressure exerted by the contact electrodes on the underlying circuit board ([0101]). Based on Goldstein’s definition of flexible ([0072]), the substrate is meant to reversibly deform from an original position when a compression force is applied to enhance contact with the scalp, meaning the substrate acts in an elastic manner. However, this substrate is not explicitly identified as an elastomer.
Kreuzer, in the same field of endeavor of a wearable cuff for biosignal measurements, such as ECG, of the upper arm (Abstract), teaches an electrode placed on a reversibly compressible spring material 6 to regulate contact between the carrier material on the cuff and the skin ([0103-0104]). The reversibly compressible material is more specifically identified as being an elastomer (such as a foamed elastomeric polymer) and can be combined with a steel spring ([0108]-[0109]). This combination of spring and elastomer “allow(s) not only reversible compression, but also movement in a direction which is e.g. parallel to the skin, without losing contact to skin” ([0111]), where examples are provided of specific elastomers.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter the combination of Ahmad’s armband ECG sensor containing strip electrodes and Goldstein’s movable electrode arrays by incorporating the elastomer and spring combination for producing an electrode which can move in parallel with arm movements in Kreuzer. This would have been obvious because both Ahmad and Kreuzer discuss the collection of biosignals using an armband and Kreuzer provides a solution/improvement of an electrode which can be reversibly compressed perpendicular to the skin (which is similarly discussed in Goldstein) and additionally move parallel to the skin to better maintain skin contact with lateral movements of the arm. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the combination of Ahmad and Goldstein by incorporating the elastomer and spring combination for producing an electrode which can move in parallel with arm movements in Kreuzer.
Claim 6 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmad (US 10,694,966 B1) in view of Goldstein (US 2021/0282695 A1), Inglis (US 9,149,095 B2), Wittenberg (US 10,849,392 B1), and Adaminsin (US 2017/0033567 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the arm-worn electrocardiographic device according to Claim 1 is obvious over Goldstein and Inglis, as indicated hereinabove. Ahmad discloses the device can be a smartband applied around either the arm or wrist because the principles of use are the same in either case (Col 4, Lines 52-65; see Figure 13 for examples of different placements). Ahmad discloses a rechargeable battery contained in the central module (Col 8, Lines 36-51). The battery is charged via wireless hardware (Fig. 8, Col 8, Lines 55-61). Ahmad does not disclose characterised in that
• the first (2) and second (3) measuring wings comprise power batteries (17) and (18),
• wherein the first (2) or the second (3) measuring wing comprises a magnetic socket (13)
for attaching an electrical connector and maintaining mechanical stability of the electrical connection with the device for battery (17, 18) charging,
for a proper connection between the plug (25) and the socket (13).
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Goldstein yields matrices of spring-loaded electrodes 4 (see Fig. 7 for a top-view of the electrode array and Fig. 2 for a depiction of the placement of three matrices in a band) with multiple contact electrodes 5 and contact heads 13, soldered to an underlying printed circuit board, to measure EEG signals from the forehead (Fig. 6, [0095-0096]). The matrices in Goldstein were found to be an obvious modification of Ahmad’s electrode strips.
The wrist device band in Wittenberg would be considered “reasonably pertinent” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)1) to the claimed invention because Wittenberg teaches the placement of batteries both in the wrist device body and wrist device band (Col 2, Lines 16-46). Spatial limitations in the wrist device body constrain the battery volume which can be placed into this cavity, thereby limiting producible power for power intensive watch functions (Col 2, Lines 19-29). Wittenberg’s solution is to place additional batteries within the wrist device band to increase total producible power (Col 2, Lines 30-46). Figure 1 displays segments 122 along one wing of the wrist device. These segments 122 contain batteries embedded within to power the device, where one or both of the first band portion 130 and the second band portion 140 can contain these battery segments (Col 3, Lines 21-46). The batteries are charged by wireless power applied to inductive coils 2390 contained in the wrist device band segments (Fig. 14, Col 10, Lines 58-67 and Col 11, Lines 1-21). It should be noted that the structure and application of the wireless charger are not discussed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Ahmad’s armband ECG sensor, with upper and lower bands, containing a center module with a rechargeable battery by incorporating the battery placement in the upper and lower bands (in addition to the center module) of the wrist device in Wittenberg. This would have been obvious because both Ahmad and Wittenberg discuss smart band devices which can be worn on the arm/wrist and Wittenberg provides a solution/improvement of increasing battery volume with batteries placed into the device’s bands so as to increase available power for power-intensive smart device functions. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Ahmad with a battery in a central module by incorporating additional battery placement in the upper and lower bands of the wrist device in Wittenberg into the bands of Ahmad.
The wearable banded device in Adaminsin would be considered “reasonably pertinent” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)1) to the claimed invention because Adaminsin teaches charging of a wearable banded device (Fig. 1, [0004]) via an inductive charger with a magnetic attachment system ([0041]). One or more magnets 541 within the band device are used to connect with magnets in the inductive charger to facilitate power transfer to inductive coils 540 (Fig. 5, [0041] – magnets hold the inductive charger in the correct position relative to the loop), where the inductive charger 621 is attached via cord 622 to wall plug 623 (see Figs. 6A and 6B, [0054]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Ahmad’s (in view of Wittenberg) armband ECG sensor, with upper and lower bands, containing a center module with a rechargeable battery by incorporating the inductive charger for a wearable electronic band device with a magnetic attachment mechanism in Adaminsin. This would have been obvious because both Ahmad and Adaminsin discuss chargeable electronic band devices which can be worn on the arm/wrist and Adaminsin provides a solution/improvement to inductively charge with a magnetic attachment mechanism which allows for stable contact between the charger and device and forces a proper orientation of the charger. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the combination of Ahmad and Wittenberg by incorporating the inductive charger for a wearable electronic band device with a magnetic attachment mechanism in Adaminsin, where the charger and attachment mechanism could be applied to the location on the band with the inductive coils in Wittenberg.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights