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 .
Claims filed 07-12-2024
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10-12-2024 was filed after the mailing date of the 07-12-2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 – 4, and 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/766,618 in view of Helm, U.S. Publication 20160080861 A1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-pending case discloses A vehicle audio system, comprising: at least one memory;
and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the vehicle audio system in a vehicle to: detect a location of a first person in the vehicle, the first person located in proximity;
detect an additional location of a second person in the vehicle, the second person located closer;
based on whether the first person or the second person
Claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-pending application does not explicitly teach of a first microphone device configured to receive audio input for an audio call;
to a second microphone device than the first microphone device, the second microphone device configured to receive the audio input for the audio call;
at least one of the first microphone device or the second microphone device
helm teaches of a first microphone device configured to receive audio input for an audio call; to a second microphone device than the first microphone device, the second microphone device configured to receive the audio input for the audio call; at least one of the first microphone device or the second microphone device (In Fig 2, a plurality of microphones are placed throughout the interior cabin of the vehicle near each seat and determines who is speaking based on who is actively speaking. See para 16, 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 (co-pending) of a first microphone device configured to receive audio input for an audio call; to a second microphone device than the first microphone device, the second microphone device configured to receive the audio input for the audio call; at least one of the first microphone device or the second microphone device as taught by Helm. This modification would improve cost effectiveness, a microphone can be directed toward a group of seats rather than a single seat as suggest by Helm (para 16).
Regarding claim 2, co-pending application No. 18766618 in view of Helm disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system to mute the first microphone device when the first person is not actively speaking (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See Helm, para 18-19).
Regarding claim 3, co-pending application No. 18766618 in view of Helm disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system to detect when the first person begins actively speaking and un-mute the first microphone device (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See Helm, para 18-19).
Regarding claim 4, co-pending application No. 18766618 in view of Helm disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system to determine whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the audio call (The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, (Helm) para 20. The seat sensors [Fig 2 [124]) determine help determine if its respective seat is occupied. If it isn’t, the system assumes any noise is ambient and audio disregarded, (helm) para 21).
Regarding claim 8, co-pending application No. 18766618 in view of Helm disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system to further adjust at least one of the audio input from the first microphone device or the second microphone device in response to a change in the audio call (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, (Helm) para 20. If the audio input changes from the first mic to the second mic, then the current speaker must cease talking for the mics to switch to the next user, (Helm) para 20).
Claims 5 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18766618 in view of Helm, U.S. Publication 20160080861 A1, in further view of Gupta, U.S. Publication 202400411808 A1.
Regarding claim 5, of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-pending case discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system to determine whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the audio call.
Claim 5 of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-pending application does not explicitly teach use a machine learning model trained on prior call history
Gupta teaches use a machine learning model trained on prior call history (the generative AI system uses the user’s cache, which stores a history of conversations with the user and other responses to create a context, see para 132)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 5 (co-pending) use a machine learning model trained on prior call history as taught by Gupta. This modification would improve help the Large Language Model (LLM) generate more coherent and relevant responses by understanding the flow of the conversation as suggest by Gupta (see para 131)
Claims 6 -7 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of co-pending Application No. 18766618 in view of Helm, U.S. Publication 20160080861 A1, in further view of Ganguly, U.S. Patent 1256469 B1.
Regarding claim 6, of the instant application, claim 1 of the co-pending case discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system
Claim 6 of the instant application, claim 5 of the co-pending application does not explicitly teach to use voice recognition, at least one of
Ganguly teaches to use voice recognition (Fig 13 [1310], an audio component, which is a apart of user recognition component (Fig 2, 13 [295]), which part of the device, can match audio data from stored information to determine an identity of a user. [Ganguly] in Col 26 line 28-31, Col 54 line 15-18)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 1 (co-pending) to use voice recognition as taught by Ganguly. This modification would improve determine an identity of a user and to associate that identity with a user profile associated with the user as suggest by Ganguly (Col 54 line 21-23).
Regarding claim 7, co-pending application No. 18766618 in view of Helm, in further view of Ganguly disclose voice recognition (Fig 13 [1308], an vision component, which is a apart of user recognition component (Fig 2, 13 [295]), which part of the device, receives data from one or more sensors or sensors indicating motion to perform facial recognition. In Ganguly, Col 52 line 57-60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 8, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Helm U.S. Publication 2016/0080861 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Helm teaches a vehicle audio system (Fig 1 [100]), comprising: at least one memory (Fig 1 [104]); and at least one processor (Fig 1 [102]) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the vehicle audio system in a vehicle to: detect (Fig 1 [124]) a location of a first person in the vehicle, the first person located in proximity of a first microphone device (Fig 2 [122A]) configured to receive audio input for an audio call (In Fig 1, the computing device makes up the core of the vehicle audio system, which houses the memory and processor component coupled together through a bus connection, see para 12. In Fig 2, a plurality of microphones is placed throughout the interior cabin of the vehicle near each seat to receive audio from passenger [see para 4-5] and a seat sensor determines if there is an occupant present. See para 16); detect an additional location of a second person in the vehicle, the second person located closer to a second microphone device (Fig 1 [122B]) than the first microphone device, the second microphone device configured to receive the audio input for the audio call (In Fig 2, a microphone is placed near the passenger’s seat, configured to receive nearby audio, see para 4, 16); and adjust the audio input received by at least one of the first microphone device or the second microphone device based on whether the first person or the second person is actively speaking (The computing device can only activate one microphone at a time based on the occupant who is currently speaking, see para 18).
Regarding claim 2, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor (Fig 1 [104]) is configured to cause the vehicle audio system (Fig 1 [100]) to mute the first microphone device (Fig 2 [122A]) when the first person is not actively speaking (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See para 18-19).
Regarding claim 3, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor (Fig 1 [104]) is configured to cause the vehicle audio system (Fig 1 [100]) to detect when the first person begins actively speaking and un-mute the first microphone device (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See para 18-19).
Regarding claim 4, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor (Fig 1 [104]) is configured to cause the vehicle audio system (Fig 1 [100]) to determine whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the audio call (The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, see para 20. The seat sensors [Fig 2 [124]) determine help determine if its respective seat is occupied. If it isn’t, the system assumes any noise is ambient and audio disregarded, see para 21).
Regarding claim 8, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor (Fig 1 [104]) is configured to cause the vehicle audio system (Fig 1 [100]) to further adjust at least one of the audio input from the first microphone device or the second microphone device in response to a change in the audio call (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, see para 20. If the audio input changes from the first mic to the second mic, then the current speaker must cease talking for the mics to switch to the next user, see para 20).
Regarding claim 17, Helm teaches a system, comprising: one or more microphone devices (Fig 2 [122 (a-d)]) in a vehicle and configured to receive audio input for an audio call (In Figure 2, a plurality of microphones are placed throughout the vehicle’s cabin, see para 16. Each microphone can receive audio input from an audio call via the computing device (Fig 2 [100]), see para 25);
and a processor (Fig 1 [104]) configured to implement an audio call manager (Fig 1 [100]) to: detect a location of a first person in the vehicle, the first person located in proximity of a first microphone device (Fig 2 [122A]) of the one or more microphone devices (The audio call manager is the computing device, which regulates different components within the vehicle, see para 12. In Fig 2, a plurality of microphones is placed throughout the interior cabin of the vehicle near each seat to receive audio from passenger [see para 4-5] and a seat sensor determines if there is an occupant present. See para 16);
detect an additional location of a second person in the vehicle, the second person located in proximity of a second microphone device of the one or more microphone devices that is located closer to the second person than the first person (In Fig 2, a microphone is placed near each of the passengers’ seats, configured to receive nearby audio, see para 4, 16. There are seat sensors, with weighted sensor, to help assess if an occupant is sitting near a microphone, para 17);
and adjust at least one of the audio input from the first microphone device or the second microphone device based on whether the first person or the second person is actively speaking during the audio call (The computing device can only activate one microphone at a time based on the occupant who is currently speaking. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See para 18-19)).
Regarding claim 18, Helm teaches wherein the audio call manager (Fig 1 [100]) is configured to mute the first microphone device when the first person is not actively speaking (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See para 18-19).
Regarding claim 19, Helm teaches wherein the audio call manager (Fig 1 [100]) is configured to detect when the first person begins actively speaking and un-mute the first microphone device (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See para 18-19).
Regarding claim 20, Helm teaches wherein the audio call manager (Fig 1 [100] is configured to further adjust the audio input for at least one of the first microphone device or the second microphone device in response to a change in the audio call (The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, see para 20. The seat sensors [Fig 2 [124]) determine help determine if its respective seat is occupied. If it isn’t, the system assumes any noise is ambient and audio disregarded, see para 21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm U.S. Publication 2016/0080861 A1 in view of Gupta, U.S. Publication 2024/0411808 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor (Fig 1 [104]) is configured to cause the vehicle audio system (Fig 1 [100]) to
Helm does not explicitly teach to use a machine learning model trained on prior call history
Gupta discloses to use a machine learning model trained (Fig 3B [300]) on prior call history (the generative AI system uses the user’s cache, which stores a history of conversations with the user and other responses to create a context, see para 132
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a machine learning model trained on prior call history as taught by Gupta in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been helping the Large Language Model (LLM) generate more coherent and relevant responses by understanding the flow of the conversation. In Gupta, see para 131.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm U.S. Publication 2016/0080861 A1 in view of Ganguly, U.S. Patent 12456469 B1.
Regarding claim 6, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system
Helm does not explicitly teach to use voice recognition
Ganguly discloses to use voice recognition (Fig 13 [1310], an audio component, which is a apart of user recognition component (Fig 2, 13 [295]), which part of the device, can match audio data from stored information to determine an identity of a user. See Col 26 line 28-31, Col 54 line 15-18)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use voice recognition as taught by Ganguly in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been determining scores indicating whether speech in the audio data 211 originated from particular users. In Ganguly, see Col 54 line 21-23
Regarding claim 7, Helm teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the vehicle audio system to use facial recognition to detect at least one of the locations of the first person in the vehicle or the additional location of the second person in the vehicle.
Helm does not explicitly teach to use facial recognition
Ganguly discloses to use facial recognition (Fig 13 [1308], a vision component, which is a part of user recognition component (Fig 2, 13 [295]), which part of the device, receives data from one or more sensors [camera, Fig 3A (312, 316)] or sensors indicating motion to perform facial recognition. See para 267. See Fig 5B, para 151 for example.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use facial recognition as taught by Ganguly in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been determining an identity of a user and to associate that identity with a user profile associated with the user. In Ganguly, Col 52 line 57-60
Claims 9-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm U.S. Publication 2016/0080861 A1 in view of Chandak U. S. Publication 2026/0003563 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Helm teaches a method, comprising: detecting a location of a first person in a vehicle, the first person located in proximity of a first microphone device (Fig 2 [122A]) to receive audio input from the first person for an audio call (In Fig 2, a plurality of microphones are placed throughout the interior cabin of the vehicle near each seat to receive audio from passenger [see para 4-5] and a seat sensor determines if there is a occupant present. See para 16. In Fig 3, shows a flow chart of the method upon receiving first audio input through the microphone, para 25);
detecting an additional location of a second person in the vehicle, the second person located in proximity of a second microphone device (Fig 2 [122B]) that is located closer to the second person than the first person to receive audio input from the second person for the audio call (In Fig 2, a microphone is placed near the passenger’s seat, configured to receive nearby audio, see para 4, 16);
adjusting the audio input for at least one of the first microphone device or the second microphone device based on whether the first person or the second person is a subject of a conversation of the audio call (The computing device can only activate one microphone at a time based on the occupant who is currently speaking, see para 18);
and adjusting audio output from at least one of a first speaker device (Fig 2 [120]) or a second speaker device (Fig 2 [120]) based on whether the first person or the second person is the subject of the conversation of the audio call.
Helm does not explicitly teach and adjusting audio output from at least one of a first speaker device or a second speaker device
Chandak discloses and adjusting audio output from at least one of a first speaker device (Fig 4 [11g]) or a second speaker device (Fig 4 [11e], the system will adjust the playback volume based on the priority level. The volume of a lower priority will lower and/or the volume will increase for a higher priority. See para 74)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention and adjusting audio output from at least one of a first speaker device or a second speaker device as taught by Chandak in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been described, indicate or otherwise teach of location/presence of pedestrians, location/presence of other vehicles, location/presence of emergency vehicles, location/presence of law enforcement, current and/or forecasted weather etc. In Chandak, see para 70
Regarding claim 10, Helm teaches further comprising muting the first microphone device when the first person is not actively speaking (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. A driver receives a call, if a passenger wishes to join the call, the microphone nearest will activate once the microphone(1st) nearest the driver ceases talking and the nearby mic mutes. See para 18-19).
Regarding claim 11, Helm teaches further comprising detecting when the first person begins actively speaking and un-muting the first microphone device (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, see para 20.
Regarding claim 12, Helm teaches further comprising determining whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the audio call (The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, see para 20. The seat sensors [Fig 2 [124]) determine help determine if its respective seat is occupied. If it isn’t, the system assumes any noise is ambient and audio disregarded, see para 21).
Regarding claim 16, Helm teaches further comprising adjusting the audio input from at least one of the first microphone device (Fig 2 [122A]) or the second microphone device (Fig 2 [122B]) in response to a change in the audio call (Only one microphone can be activated at a time and the rest are muted. The microphones determine which audio input is the loudest, and the microphone nearest the loudest audio input activates, see para 20. If the audio input changes from the first mic to the second mic, then the current speaker must cease talking for the mics to switch to the next user, see para 20).
Claims 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm U.S. Publication 2016/0080861 A1 in view of Chandak U. S. Publication 2026/0003563 A1, in further view of Gupta, U. S. Publication 2024/0411808.
Regarding claim 13, Helm teaches further comprising using to determine whether the first person or the second person is relevant to the audio call.
Helm does not explicitly teach a machine learning model trained on prior call history
Gupta discloses use a machine learning model trained on prior call history (the generative AI system uses the user’s cache, which stores a history of conversations with the user and other responses to create a context, see para 132)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention a machine learning model trained on prior call history as taught by Gupta in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been help the Large Language Model (LLM) generate more coherent and relevant responses by understanding the flow of the conversation as suggest by Gupta (see para 131).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helm U.S. Publication 2016/0080861 A1 in view of view of Chandak U. S. Publication 2026/0003563 A1, in further view of Ganguly U. S. Patent 12456469 B1.
Regarding claim 14, Helm teaches further comprising using voice recognition to detect (Fig 2 [124], para 14, seat sensors to see if seat is occupied) at least one of the location of the first person in the vehicle or the additional location of the second person in the vehicle.
Helm does not explicitly teach using voice recognition
Ganguly discloses to use voice recognition (Fig 13 [1310], an audio component, which is a part of user recognition component (Fig 2, 13 [295]), which part of the device, can match audio data from stored information to determine an identity of a user. See para 151, 273
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use voice recognition as taught by Ganguly in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been determining scores indicating whether speech in the audio data 211 originated from particular users. In Ganguly, see para 274.
Regarding claim 15, Helm teaches further comprising using facial recognition to detect (Fig 2 [124], para 14, seat sensors to see if seat is occupied) at least one of the location of the first person in the vehicle or the additional location of the second person in the vehicle.
Helm does not explicitly teach using facial recognition
Ganguly discloses to use facial recognition (Fig 13 [1308], an vision component, which is a apart of user recognition component (Fig 2, 13 [295]), which part of the device, receives data from one or more sensors [camera, Fig 3A (312, 316)] or sensors indicating motion to perform facial recognition. See para 267. See Fig 5B, para 151 for example.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use facial recognition as taught by Ganguly in Helm’s invention. The motivation would have been determine an identity of a user and to associate that identity with a user profile associated with the user. In Ganguly, see para 267
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Singh (U.S. Publication No. 11930082 B1) teaches multiple zone communications and control
Porta (U.S. Publication No. 20210127204 A1) teaches facial recognition
Moon (U.S. Publication No. 20230081386 A1) teaches vehicle control, microphones
Croxford (U.S. Publication No. 20220066207 A1) teaches speech detection
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS A BARBOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-9626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm, Alternate Fridays: off.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCUS A BARBOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights