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 2 – 20 have been examined and are pending.
The application 18/794,646 is a CON of 17/823,719 (filed on 08/31/2022 and now U.S. Patent 12,126,683).
Drawings
The applicant’s submitted drawings are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 time-wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2 - 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over Claims 1 – 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0167806 (Boyd), in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0149441 (Bartscherer et al.) and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0250396 (Ahmed et al.) Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced published patent claiming common subject matter. Despite slight difference in phrasing, the claims of 18/794,646 and claims of United States Patent No. 12,126,683 and in view of the US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0167806 (Boyd) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0149441 (Bartscherer et al.) and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0250396 (Ahmed et al.) are not patentably distinct. The United States Patent No. 12,126,683 and in view of the US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0167806 (Boyd) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0149441 (Bartscherer et al.) and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0250396 (Ahmed et al.) anticipates the instant application.
Claims 2 – 20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 21 of United States Patent No. 12,126,683 and in view of the US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0167806 (Boyd), in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0149441 (Bartscherer et al.) and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0250396 (Ahmed et al.)
Claim 2: The primary structural and functional features recited in application Claim 2 are present in the Claim 1 of the ’683 patent. Both claims require:
a power source, a communication component that is removable and is coupled to the power source such that it can be powered to communicate in a non‑privacy/non‑second state, an actuator with two physical states that causes the communication component to be electrically disconnected in the privacy/second state, and processing circuitry that causes device behavior in response to actuator state.
The application’s recitation that the electronic switch is configured to electrically separate the communication component from the power source to terminate operation during the privacy mode is functionally equivalent to the ’683 patent’s recitation that the actuator causes the communication component to electrically disconnect from the power source to terminate communication.
The application adds the clause that the switch acts “responsive to actuation of the actuator and a signal from the one or more hardware processors”; this is an obvious refinement or implementation detail of the same control function recited in the ’683 patent, and does not constitute a patentably distinct limitation. A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to include processor control or gating in combination with actuator actuation for reliable switching (e.g., to debounce, delay, or validate the actuator event).
Consequently, application claim 2 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ’683 patent.
An electronic device comprising: a power source configured to provide power to one or more components of the electronic device; a communication component removably coupled with the power source via an electronic switch, the communication component configured to receive power from the power source to communicate with one or more computing devices remote to the electronic device during a non-privacy mode; an actuator configured to transition between a plurality of physical states to change a mode of operation of the electronic device between the non-privacy mode and a privacy mode; and one or more hardware processors in electrical communication with the actuator and configured to perform one or more operations to change the mode of operation responsive to actuation of the actuator, wherein the electronic switch is configured to transition between electrical states to electrically separate the communication component from the power source to terminate operation of the communication component during the privacy mode responsive to actuation of the actuator and a signal from the one or more hardware processors.
The application adds the clause that the switch acts “responsive to actuation of the actuator and a signal from the one or more hardware processors”. U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 does not explicitly disclose this limitations, however, in an analogous art, US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0167806 (Boyd) teaches wherein the electronic switch (Boyd Fig. 6 and ¶50: privacy circuitry 614 with an electrical switch 612) is configured to transition between electrical states to electrically separate the communication component from the power source to terminate operation of the communication component during the privacy mode responsive to actuation of the actuator and a signal from the one or more hardware processors (Boyd ¶53: Exit Control Circuit 606 generates a signal that sets the state latch described above, thereby opening and closing Switch 612).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 with the US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0167806 (Boyd) for the purpose of implementing privacy mode, where the mobile device behaves as if a power source for the mobile device had been completely removed, thereby increasing the mobile device's security for preventing external interrupts and penetration. Boyd adds the benefit of protecting the user’s private data. Boyd discloses a system that reduces the vulnerability of one's wearable device to ensure that user's sensitive information remains confidential (¶27).
Claim 3, the U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 discloses actuator is in the first state or in the second state (Claim 3).
Claim 4, the U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 discloses hardware processors (Claim 2).
Claim 5, the U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 discloses processing metadata and sensitivity of the sensor data (Claim 2).
Claim 6, the U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 discloses hardware processors to execute program instructions (Claim 5).
Claim 7, the U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0149441 (Bartscherer et al.) teaches Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) for location data.
Claim 8, the U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0167806 (Boyd) teaches inserting external plug into mobile device that keeps the mobile device in the privacy mode regardless of actuation of the actuator until the external plug is removed.
Claim 9, the U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 teaches actuator between the first state and the second state does not prevent the one or more sensors from obtaining data (Claim 9).
Claim 10, the U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 teaches data storage device is configured to receive the sensor data when the actuator is in the first state or the second state (Claim 4).
Claim 11, the U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0250396 (Ahmed et al.) teaches wearable physiological measurement system with sensors.
Claim 12, is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 13, is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 14, is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 15, is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 16, is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 8.
Claim 17, is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 18, is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 19, is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 8.
Claim 20, the U.S. Patent No. 12,126,683 in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0167806 (Boyd) teaches inserting modifying metadata of sensor data to reflect the association of the image or audio data based on the position or state of the privacy switch and inhibiting access using dynamic privacy monitoring system to blurred or obscured the screen portions based on the portion being detected or classified as toxic, classified, confidential based on the metadata.)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2 – 6 and 8 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0250396 to Ahmed et al. (hereinafter Ahmed) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0167806 to Boyd.
Claim 2, Ahmed discloses (¶193) a privacy switch is usefully employed to explicitly select private or restricted times when no monitoring should occur, which further includes:
electronic device (100 – fig. 1 and 600 – fig. 6) comprising:
a power source (604 – fig. 6) configured to provide power to one or more components of the electronic device Ahmed discloses (Fig. 1 & 6) a wearable mobile device and (¶66 and ¶72) a battery is powering the wearable mobile device);
a communication component (614 – fig. 6) removably coupled with the power source via an electronic switch (612 – fig. 6), the communication component configured to receive power from the power source to communicate with one or more computing devices remote to the electronic device during a non-privacy mode (i.e., shared setting) (Ahmed discloses ¶82 network interface 614 configured to wirelessly stream data from a user’s wearable system to an external network. Ahmed discloses (¶12) the privacy switch may toggle between a private setting and a shared setting. The privacy switch operable (¶66, ¶193) by the user to controllably restrict communication of fitness data obtained by the device)
an actuator configured to transition between a plurality of physical states to change a mode of operation of the electronic device between the non-privacy mode and a privacy mode (Ahmed discloses (¶12-¶13) the privacy switch (i.e. the actuator) settings includes “three or more” privacy shared settings, where the continuous heart rate data is shared to an administrator or social networking website, and a private setting, where the continuously generated heart rate data is not shared by the user and may be stored locally for private use by the user when in the private setting) and
one or more hardware processors (Ahmed discloses (¶83) wearable system 600 includes a processor 608) in electrical communication with the actuator and configured to perform one or more operations to change the mode of operation responsive to actuation of the actuator (Ahmed discloses (¶12, ¶66 & ¶193) privacy switch may be usefully employed to toggle between various privacy settings or to explicitly select private or restricted times when no monitoring should occur).
Ahmed does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic switch is configured to transition between electrical states to electrically separate the communication component from the power source to terminate operation of the communication component during the privacy mode responsive to actuation of the actuator and a signal from the one or more hardware processors. However, in an analogous art, Boyd teaches:
wherein the electronic switch (Boyd teaches (Fig. 6 and ¶50) a privacy circuitry 614 with an electrical switch 612) is configured to transition between electrical states to electrically separate the communication component from the power source to terminate operation of the communication component during the privacy mode responsive to actuation of the actuator (Boyd teaches (¶50) ‘open’ and ‘closed’ electrical states of the Switch 612. Boyd teaches (¶23) ‘on’ or ‘active’ mode, ‘off’ or ‘inactive’ or ‘deactivated’ mode, or ‘privacy’ mode. Boyd discloses (¶27 and ¶50) when in the privacy mode, which may also be referred to as “brick” mode, “black” mode, and/or “silent” mode, the mobile device 100 is configured to prevent power source 116 from providing power to at least processing circuitry 102, thereby rendering mobile device 100 non-functional. When switch 612 is open, for instance, power may be capable of being transmitted through privacy circuitry 614 from power source 602. In particular, power (e.g., current) may flow from power source 602 to processing circuit 610. When switch 612 is closed, power may not be capable of flowing from through privacy circuitry 614, and therefore no current may reach processing circuit 610. In this particular scenario, processing circuit 610 may not be capable of functioning, as no power may currently be flowing into processing circuit 610 from power source 602) and a signal from the one or more hardware processors (Boyd teaches (¶53) Exit Control Circuit 606 generates a signal that sets the state latch described above, thereby opening and closing Switch 612).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine an electronic device comprising: a power source configured to provide power to one or more components of the electronic device; a communication component removably coupled with the power source via an electronic switch, the communication component configured to receive power from the power source to communicate with one or more computing devices remote to the electronic device during a non-privacy mode; an actuator configured to transition between a plurality of physical states to change a mode of operation of the electronic device between the non-privacy mode and a privacy mode; and one or more hardware processors in electrical communication with the actuator and configured to perform one or more operations to change the mode of operation responsive to actuation of the actuator, as disclosed by Ahmed, and wherein the electronic switch is configured to transition between electrical states to electrically separate the communication component from the power source to terminate operation of the communication component during the privacy mode responsive to actuation of the actuator and a signal from the one or more hardware processors, as taught by Boyd, for the purpose of implementing privacy mode, where the mobile device behaves as if a power source for the mobile device had been completely removed, thereby increasing the mobile device's security for preventing external interrupts and penetration. Boyd adds the benefit of protecting the user’s private data. Boyd discloses a system that reduces the vulnerability of one's wearable device to ensure that user's sensitive information remains confidential (¶27).
Claim 3, Ahmed in view of Boyd, discloses all the elements of claim 2. Further, they teach:
wherein the electronic switch is configured to transition between the electrical states based on time responsive to the signal from the one or more hardware processors (Boyd teaches (¶24) to toggle the multi-mode switch, an individual may be required to press down on a particular button or buttons of mobile device 100 for a predefined period of time)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 2.
Claim 4, Ahmed in view of Boyd, discloses all the elements of claim 2. Further, they teach:
wherein the one or more hardware processors comprise a dedicated hardware processor (Ahmed discloses (¶253) the functionality is integrated into a dedicated, standalone device/hardware.)
Claim 5, Ahmed in view of Boyd, discloses all the elements of claim 2. Further, they teach:
processor configured to process data originating from one or more sensors of the electronic device (Ahmed discloses (¶6) processor may be configured to sense a condition based on a signal from the sensor and to select different modes for detecting the heart rate based on the condition.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 2.
Claim 6, Ahmed in view of Boyd, discloses all the elements of claim 2. Further, they teach:
processors are configured to execute program instructions from a read-only computer readable storage medium (i.e., media 606; ¶81) to perform the one or more operations (Ahmed discloses the sensors, actuators and hardware elements (¶6, ¶57, ¶205-¶211, and Fig. 22) disclosing a computing device with memory, processor, and one or more storage devices configured to operate the heart rate monitoring system to obtain continuous heart rate data using one of the two or more different modes and to store the continuous heart rate data in the memory.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 2.
Claim 8, Ahmed in view of Boyd, discloses all the elements of claim 2. Further, they teach:
one or more sensors electrically coupled to the power source and configured to operate in the privacy mode regardless of actuation of the actuator (Boyd teaches (Fig. 4:450 and ¶41-42) if an individual operating mobile device 400 seeks to place mobile device 400 in the privacy mode, that individual may do so by inserting external plug 450 into mobile device 400 i.e. this plug keeps the mobile device 400 in the privacy mode regardless of actuation of the actuator until the external plug 450 is removed.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 2.
Claim 9, Ahmed in view of Boyd, discloses all the elements of claim 8. Further, they teach:
wherein the actuator does not mechanically prevent the one or more sensors from obtaining data (Ahmed teaches (¶11 - ¶12) privacy switch is activated by the user to controllably restrict communication of a portion of the continuous heart rate data to the remote data repository (e.g. shared data repository may be maintained on a social networking website), and it does not mechanically prevent the sensors to monitor the continuous heart rate.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 2.
Claim 10, Ahmed in view of Boyd, discloses all the elements of claim 8. Further, they teach:
data storage configured to store sensor data from the one or more sensors during the privacy mode (Ahmed discloses (¶12) continuous heart rate data may be stored locally for private use by the user when in the private setting)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 2.
Claim 11, Ahmed in view of Boyd, discloses all the elements of claim 8. Further, they teach:
wherein the one or more sensors comprise physiological sensors.
(Ahmed discloses (Fig. 6 and ¶76) wearable physiological measurement system 600 to collect and monitor physiological data using one or more sensors 602 such as a heart rate monitor.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 2.
Claim 12, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 13, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 14, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 15, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 16, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 8.
Claim 17, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 2.
Claim 18, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 3. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 3.
Claim 19, do not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 8. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in claim 8.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0250396 to Ahmed, in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0167806 to Boyd, and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0149441 to Bartscherer et al. (hereinafter Bartscherer).
Claim 7, Ahmed in view of Boyd, discloses all the elements of claim 2. Ahmed in view of Boyd does not explicitly disclose communication component comprises a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) transceiver configured to transmit and receive location data. However, in an analogous art, Bartscherer teaches:
communication component comprises a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) transceiver configured to transmit and receive location data (Bartscherer teaches (¶242) a location module 1846 that includes a location sensor (e.g., sensor compatible with a global navigation satellite system (GNSS), e.g., global positioning system (GPS), GLONASS, Galileo, or Beidou, or another type of location sensor), and the privacy mode of the device 1800 is determined based at least partially on the location information provided by the location module 1846.)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine an electronic device comprising: a power source configured to provide power to one or more components of the electronic device; a communication component removably coupled with the power source via an electronic switch, the communication component configured to receive power from the power source to communicate with one or more computing devices remote to the electronic device during a non-privacy mode; an actuator configured to transition between a plurality of physical states to change a mode of operation of the electronic device between the non-privacy mode and a privacy mode; and one or more hardware processors in electrical communication with the actuator and configured to perform one or more operations to change the mode of operation responsive to actuation of the actuator, and wherein the electronic switch is configured to transition between electrical states to electrically separate the communication component from the power source to terminate operation of the communication component during the privacy mode responsive to actuation of the actuator and a signal from the one or more hardware processors, as disclosed by Ahmed in view of Boyd, wherein the communication component comprises a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) transceiver configured to transmit and receive location data, as taught by Bartscherer, for the purpose of implementing a lid controller hub that allows for laptops with improved and expanded user experiences, increased privacy and security, lower power consumption, and improved industrial design over existing devices (¶80).
Claim 20, Ahmed in view of Boyd, discloses all the elements of claim 17. Ahmed in view of Boyd does not explicitly disclose modifying metadata of sensor data to indicate whether the sensor data was generated during the privacy mode, determining, from the metadata, that a portion of the sensor data was generated during the privacy mode; and inhibiting access to the portion of the sensor data generated during the privacy mode. However, in an analogous art, Bartscherer teaches:
modifying metadata of sensor data to indicate whether the sensor data was generated during the privacy mode (Bartscherer teaches (¶233) metadata is being modified to reflect the association of the image or audio data based on the position or state of the privacy switch 1822) determining, from the metadata, that a portion of the sensor data was generated during the privacy mode (Bartscherer teaches (¶241) when sensors are operating in a privacy-protected mode the sensitive data is fully protected from eavesdropping and only privacy-protected metadata is provided to the host SoC) and inhibiting access to the portion of the sensor data generated during the privacy mode (Bartscherer teaches (¶347) classifying the video and/or audio or images based on the metadata and then (¶355) using dynamic privacy monitoring system to blurred or obscured the screen portions (i.e. inhibit) based on the portion being detected or classified as toxic, classified, confidential based on the metadata as described above.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 2.
Conclusion
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0063893 to Kanuganti et al. (Media streaming methods, apparatus and systems)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313) 446-6574 and fax number is (571) 483-7559. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY - THURSDAY.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Christopher L. Parry can be reached on (571) 272-8328. 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:/Awww.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.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/H. A. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451