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 11/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98(d), where the copies of the listed foreign and non-patent literature documents were provided in parent application 17/932,288. The IDS submitted on 1/26/2025, 6/18/2025, 12/01/2025, and 3/04/2026 are also in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the diaphragm is approximately a plane is indefinite.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struzik (US 2021/0067857 A1) in view of Wolfl (US 2023/0061686 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Struzik teaches:
“An acoustic output device, comprising
an acoustic driver” (see Struzik, figure 2, unit 32 and figure 9A, unit 172), “wherein the acoustic driver includes a diaphragm” (id., figure 2, unit 44) “and a magnetic circuit structure” (id., figure 2, units 46 and 48, figure 9A, unit 172, and ¶ 0030 and 0042, where a transducer includes the diaphragm and magnetic structure), “a side of the diaphragm facing away from the magnetic circuit structure forms a front side of the acoustic driver” (id., figure 2, units 36 and 44, figure 9A, units 172 and 174, and ¶ 0030 and 0042, where there is a front cavity on a side of the diaphragm that faces away from the magnetic structure), “a side of the magnetic circuit structure facing away from the diaphragm forms a back side of the acoustic driver” (id., figure 2, units 38 and 48, figure 9A, units 172 and 176 and ¶ 0030 and 0042, where there is an opposite side facing away), “the diaphragm vibrates so that the acoustic driver radiates sounds outward from its front side and back side, respectively” (id., ¶ 0030, where the acoustic radiation is provided to the front and rear cavities); and
“a housing structure configured to carry the acoustic driver” (id., figure 2, unit 34, figure 9A, unit 190, and ¶ 0030 and 0042), “wherein the back side of the acoustic driver and the housing structure define a back cavity” (id., figure 9A, units 172 and 176 and ¶ 0042, where there is a rear cavity within the housing behind the transducer).
Herein, Struzik does not appear to teach the features where “at least two side walls of the back cavity are connected by a curved structure” because Struzik appears to show that the rear portion of the housing has a rear wall with two curved sections (id., figure 9A, unit 190).
Wolfl discloses transducer arrangements for headphones and earphones (see Wolfl, abstract and figures 5A-13). Similar to Struzik, Wolfl teaches various transducer arrangements with non-curved housing structures (see Struzik, figure 8, unit 158 and ¶ 0041, and see Wolfl, figure 5C and ¶ 0051) and curved housing structures (see Struzik, figure 9C, unit 190 and ¶ 0042, and see Wolfl, figures 6 and 10, unit 20, and ¶ 0053 and 0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify Struzik with the teachings of Wolfl for the purpose of securing two transducers near each of the user’s ears for stereophonic reproduction (see Struzik, ¶ 0028 in view of Wolfl, figures 9 and 12-13, unit 52, and ¶ 0055 and 0058).
Therefore, the combination of Struzik and Wolfl makes obvious the additional features where:
“at least two side walls of the back cavity are connected by a curved structure” (see Struzik, figure 2, unit 34, figure 9A, unit 190, in view of Wolfl, figures 6 and 10, unit 20, and ¶ 0053 and 0056, where it is obvious to construct the housing with parallel side walls connected by a curved structure), “a curvature range of the curved structure is 50 m-1-100 m-1” (see Struzik, figures 9A-9B, units 190 and ¶ 0042, in view of Wolfl, figure 6, unit 20, figure 8, units 3, 301, and 304, figure 10, units 20, 301, 304, and 307, and figure 11, units 20 and dh, and ¶ 0053, 0055-0057, which makes obvious this range of curvature, because the illustrations depict the overall housing size and the curvature of the housing relative to a typical user’s anatomy (e.g., typical sizes of a user’s outer ear and associated regions thereof), such that the overall size of the housing is most likely curvature of the illustrated housings show that is it obvious to have a curvature between 50 m-1-100 m-1 (i.e., the radius of curvature in the range from 2 cm to 1 cm, respectively, where the radius of curvature is defined as the inverse of curvature));
“the housing structure includes at least one sound outlet hole, the at least one sound outlet hole is acoustically coupled with the back cavity and outputs the sound radiated to the back cavity by the acoustic driver to the outside of the acoustic output device, wherein the at least one sound outlet hole is located on at least part of the side walls of the back cavity” (see Struzik, figure 2, units 38 and 42, figure 9A, units 176, 186, and 190, and ¶ 0030 and 0042, where a sound outlet hole is provided in the rear part of the housing that allows sound to radiate out of the rear cavity).
Regarding claim 2, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 1, wherein:
the side walls of the back cavity comprise at least one first side wall and a second side wall” (see Struzik, figure 2, unit 34, figure 9A, unit 190, in view of Wolfl, figures 5C, 6, and 10-11, unit 20, and ¶ 0051, 0053, and 0056-0057, where it is obvious to design the housing such that the back cavity is formed by two or more side walls and a back wall);
“the at least one first side wall is located on a peripheral side of the housing structure” (see Struzik, figure 2, units 34 and 40, figure 9A, units 190 and 180, and ¶ 0030 and 0042, in view of Wolfl, figures 5C and 10-11, units 20, 30, and 36, figure 13, unit 30, and ¶ 0056-0057, where it is obvious to have one side wall on a peripheral side, such as the side facing away from the ear canal opening),
“the second side wall is disposed opposite to the back side of the acoustic driver” (see Struzik, figure 2, units 34 and 38, figure 9A, units 176 and 190, in view of Wolfl, figures 5C and 10-11, units 20, 30, and 36, figure 13, unit 30, and ¶ 0056-0058, where it is obvious to have another side wall opposite the back side of the acoustic driver, such as the side touching the cheeks of the user), and
“one end of the at least one first side wall away from the acoustic driver is connected to an end of the second side wall through the curved structure” (see Struzik, figure 9A, units 186, 188, and 190, in view of Wolfl, figure 10, units 30, 35, and 301, and ¶ 0056, where the two side walls are shown to be joined by the curved structure).
Regarding claim 3, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 2 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 2, wherein the at least one sound outlet hole is located on the at least one first side wall” (see Struzik, figure 9, units 186 and ¶ 0042, in view of Wolfl, figure 6, units 35 and 36, and ¶ 0053, where there is at least one opening or ventilation hole in the walls of the housing to allow sound to radiate from the rear chamber).
Regarding claim 4, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 2 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 2, wherein:
the at least one sound outlet hole comprises a first sound outlet hole and a second sound outlet hole” (see Struzik, figure 5, units 84 and 90, and ¶ 0035, where the rear cavity has two or more openings),
“the first sound outlet hole and the second sound outlet hole are located on the at least one first side wall” (see Struzik, figure 5, units 84 and 90, and ¶ 0034, in view of Wolfl, figure 6, units 35 and 40, and ¶ 0053 and 0057, where the two outlet holes are located on the side walls), and
“the first sound outlet hole and the second sound outlet hole are disposed opposite to each other” (see Struzik, figure 5, units 84 and 90, and ¶ 0035, where a first and second opening for the rear cavity are opposite each other).
Regarding claim 5, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 4 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 4, wherein a cross-sectional area of the second sound outlet hole is not greater than a cross-sectional area of the first sound outlet hole” (see Struzik, ¶ 0035 and 0037, where the sound holes are multiple sound holes opposite each other and teaches that the area of a sound outlet hole is designed to optimize front and rear resonance frequencies, in view of Wolfl, figure 6, units 32, 33, and 36, and ¶ 0049-0050, 0053, 0073, 0099, and 0102-0103, which teaches that sound holes are designed for high fidelity playback and low frequency performance, and teaches the holes are of similar shape and size, which makes obvious that at least one sound hole is not greater than the other sound hole).
Regarding claim 7, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional area of the at least one sound outlet hole is not less than 4 mm2” (see Struzik, ¶ 0037, in view of Wolfl, figure 6, units 32 and 33, and ¶ 0049, 0053, 0073, and 0102-0103, where the area of a sound outlet hole is designed to optimize front and rear resonance frequencies, teaches that the combined cross-sectional area of the sound canals, or sound outlet holes, are more than 10 mm2 for high fidelity playback, and teaches that larger cross-section area improves distortion, which makes obvious that at least one sound hole is at least 4 mm2 to improve the performance of the device).
Regarding claim 8, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. Struzik makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 1, wherein an acoustic damping structure is provided at the at least one sound outlet hole” (see Struzik, figure 4, unit 66, figure 9A, unit 188, and ¶ 0032 and 0042, where a resistance element is provided at the sound outlet hole of the rear cavity).
Regarding claim 14, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 1, wherein the front side of the acoustic driver is further disposed with a protective structure, and the protective structure is disposed opposite to the diaphragm” (see Struzik, figure 4, units 64 and 66, figure 5, unit 90 and 92, figure 9A, units 180 and 188, and ¶ 0032, 0034, and 0042, where openings are covered with screens or acoustic resistances to prevent foreign material from entering the housing).
Regarding claim 15, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 14 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device according to claim 14, wherein the protective structure is configured to separate the diaphragm from the outside and transmit the sound emitted by the diaphragm to the outside” (see Struzik, figure 9A, units 176, 180, and 188, and ¶ 0042, where sound exits the rear cavity via the opening that is covered by the screen or acoustic resistance).
Regarding claim 16, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 15 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 15, wherein the protective structure comprises a filter structure” (see Struzik, ¶ 0032, 0034, and 0042, and see Wolfl, ¶ 0092 and 0106, where the protective structures are acoustic resistances, such as a resistive screen, porous foam, cloth, or mesh that provide acoustic low-pass behavior).
Regarding claim 17, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 15 above. The combination of Struzik and Wolfl makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 15, wherein the protective structure comprises a plate body structure with at least one sound outlet hole” (see Struzik, figure 4, units 64 and 66, figure 5, unit 90 and 92, figure 9A, units 180 and 188, and ¶ 0032, 0034, 0036, and 0042, where openings are covered with acoustic resistances to prevent foreign material from entering the housing, and see Struzik, ¶ 0036, where a resistive element is formed from a perforated section of material like the housing, which makes obvious a plate body structure with at least one sound outlet hole).
Regarding claim 18, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 1, wherein:
the front side of the acoustic driver and the housing structure form a front cavity” (see Struzik, figure 2, units 32, 34, and 36, figure 9A, units 172, 174, and 190, and ¶ 0030 and 0042, where there is a front cavity in front of the transducer),
“the housing structure includes at least one fourth sound guide hole” (id., figure 2, unit 40, figure 9A, units 178 and 180, and ¶ 0030 and 0042, where there is a sound guide hole for the front cavity), and
“the fourth sound guide hole guides the sound generated by the diaphragm from the front side of the acoustic driver to the outside of the acoustic output device” (id., ¶ 0030 and 0042, where the front-side acoustic radiation exits the front cavity through the sound-emitting opening at the end of a curved transmission line).
Regarding claim 19, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 18 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 18, wherein a sound damping structure is provided at the at least one fourth sound outlet hole” (see Struzik, figure 9A, unit 180 and ¶ 0042, where the opening includes a resistive element).
Regarding claim 20, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 1, wherein a resonance peak of the back cavity is within a frequency range of 4 kHz-6 kHz” (see Struzik, figure 3 and ¶ 0031-0033, where the front and rear cavities are designed to change the resonant frequency, such that it is controlled to have a resonant peak in these ranges).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Struzik and Wolfl as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Silvestri et al. (US 2017/0223443 A1 and hereafter Silvestri).
Regarding claim 6, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 5 above. The combination of Struzik and Wolfl makes obvious the acoustic output device of claim 5, but does not appear to teach or reasonably suggest the feature wherein “a ratio of the cross-sectional area of the second sound outlet hole to the cross-sectional area of the first sound outlet hole is 0.25-0.5” (see Struzik, ¶ 0035 and 0037, where the sound holes are multiple sound holes opposite each other and teaches that the area of a sound outlet hole is designed to optimize front and rear resonance frequencies, and see Wolfl, figure 6, units 32, 33, and 36, and ¶ 0049-0050, 0053, 0073, 0099, and 0102-0103, which teaches that sound holes are designed for high fidelity playback and low frequency performance, and teaches the holes are of similar shape and size, which makes obvious that at least one sound hole is not greater than the other sound hole, or that one sound hole is smaller than another).
Silvestri teaches an earphone with a port acoustically coupling two different acoustic chambers to equalize a frequency response (see Silvestri, abstract and ¶ 0001). Herein, Silvestri teaches a rear chamber behind the acoustic driver, where the rear chamber is sealed with a shell having two ports (see Silvestri, figure 3, units 112-113, 116, 122, and 124, and ¶ 0030). Silvestri teaches that ratio of the impedance of the two ports and a front port is greater than 0.25 (see Silvestri, figure 3, units 119, 122, and 124, and ¶ 0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the combination of Struzik and Wolfl with the teachings of Silvestri for the purpose of improving active noise reduction and providing pressure equalization (see Wolfl, figure 32, units 101-106, and ¶ 0109-0110 in view of Silvestri, ¶ 0032).
Therefore, the combination of Struzik, Wolfl, and Silvestri makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 5, wherein a ratio of the cross-sectional area of the second sound outlet hole to the cross-sectional area of the first sound outlet hole is 0.25-0.5” (see Struzik, ¶ 0035 and 0037, where the sound holes are multiple sound holes opposite each other and teaches that the area of a sound outlet hole is designed to optimize front and rear resonance frequencies, in view of Wolfl, figure 6, units 32, 33, and 36, and ¶ 0049-0050, 0053, 0073, 0099, and 0102-0103, and further in view of Silvestri, figure 3, units 119, 122, and 124, and ¶ 0030-0032, which makes obvious that one sound hole is larger than the other sound hole, where an acoustic impedance is known to be proportional to the cross-sectional area, and makes obvious that the ratio between the cross-sectional area of the sound outlet holes is greater than 0.25).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Struzik and Wolfl as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (EP 0448110 A2).
Regarding claim 9, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 1 above. The combination of Struzik and Wolfl makes obvious the acoustic output device of claim 1, where the device comprises a magnetic circuit structure (see Struzik, figure 2, units 46 and 48, figure 9A, unit 172, and ¶ 0030 and 0042, where a transducer includes the diaphragm and magnetic structure). Struzik teaches that the magnetic circuit structure includes a basket and it is vented to the rear acoustic cavity (see Struzik, ¶ 0030). However, the combination does not appear to teach or reasonably suggest a specific structure for the magnetic structure (see Struzik, ¶ 0030, where electro-acoustic transducer design is well understood and not fully described therein).
Suzuki teaches a headphone apparatus having improved low frequency response (see Suzuki, column 1, lines 5-10). Herein, Suzuki teaches a conventional headphone apparatus (see Suzuki, figure 1 and column 1, lines 14-17) and an improved headphone apparatus to reduce high frequency sound leakage from a duct that enhances the low frequency response (see Suzuki, figure 1, unit 39, figure 2, units 19-20, column 2, lines 5-17 and lines 23-34, and column 6, lines 11-17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the combination of Struzik and Wolfl with the teachings of Suzuki for the purpose of improving the low frequency response and reducing high frequency sound leakage (see Suzuki, column 2, lines 23-34 and column 6, lines 11-17).
Therefore, the combination of Struzik, Wolfl, and Suzuki makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 1, wherein:
the magnetic circuit structure comprises a magnetic conductive plate disposed opposite to the diaphragm” (see Struzik, ¶ 0030, in view of Suzuki, figure 2, units 2 and 11 and column 3, line 48 - column 4, line 7),
“the magnetic conductive plate includes at least one third sound outlet hole” (see Suzuki, figure 2, units 11 and 19 and column 4, lines 36-46), and
“the at least one third sound outlet hole guides a sound generated by vibration of the diaphragm from the back side of the acoustic driver” (see Suzuki, figure 2, units 2, 10-12, 15a-b, and 19, and column 4, lines 36-46).
Regarding claim 10, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 9 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 9, wherein a sound guide tube is disposed at the at least one third sound outlet hole along a direction away from the diaphragm, the sound guide tube guides the sound radiated from the at least one third sound outlet hole into the back cavity” (see Suzuki, figure 2, units 2, 15a-b, and 19, and column 4, lines 36-46).
Regarding claim 11, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 9 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 9, wherein:
the at least one third sound outlet hole comprises a first hole portion and a second hole portion sequentially disposed from inside to outside” (see Struzik, figure 7, units 126 and 132 and ¶ 0037, in view of Wolfl, figure 31, units 38-39 and 51, and ¶ 0107-0108, and further in view of 2, units 2, 15a-b, and 19, and column 4, lines 36-46, makes obvious a sound outlet hole from the rear side of the diaphragm via the duct to ventilation openings on a hollow portion of an ear-hook)),
“the first hole portion and the second hole portion are connected to each other” (see Struzik, figure 7, units 126 and 132 and ¶ 0037, in view of Wolfl, figure 31, units 38-39 and 51, and ¶ 0107-0108, and further in view of 2, units 2, 15a-b, and 19, and column 4, lines 36-46, where a duct connects the two different openings), and
“a diameter of the second hole portion is larger than a diameter of the first hole portion” (see Wolfl, figure 31, units 38-39 and 51, and ¶ 0101-0108, where the ventilation openings are illustrated as larger than the duct, such that it is obvious to provide a larger opening at one end of the duct).
Regarding claim 12, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 11 above. The combination makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 11, wherein a shape of the diaphragm is a plane or approximately a plane” (see Wolfl, figure 6, unit 20, in view of Suzuki, figure 2, unit 2, where the diaphragm is illustrated as approximately planar).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Struzik, Wolfl, and Suzuki as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Isvan (US 7,499,555 B1).
Regarding claim 13, see the preceding rejection with respect to claim 12 above. The combination of Struzik, Wolfl, and Suzuki makes obvious the acoustic output device of claim 12, where the diaphragm is fixed on the yoke of the magnetic structure (see Suzuki, figure 2, units 2 and 17 and column 4, lines 27-30).
Isvan teaches a personal communication method and apparatus with an echo cancelling receiver, such as an ear bud, on-the-ear headset, and/or headphone (see Isvan, abstract, figures 1-8, column 2, lines 34-51, and column 4, lines 20-54). Herein, Isvan teaches the echo cancelling receiver with two drivers, each with a diaphragm, where the drivers are driven with equal volume velocity and in-phase (see Isvan, figure 6A, units 110, 112, 114, and 128a-b, and column 13, lines 6-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the combination of Struzik, Wolfl, and Suzuki with the teachings of Isvan for the purpose of improving the audio fidelity of headsets used in personal communication devices (see Isvan, column 2, line 52 - column 3, line 3, and column 3, line 48 - column 4, line 12).
Therefore, the combination of Struzik, Wolfl, Suzuki, and Isvan makes obvious the “acoustic output device of claim 12, wherein the diaphragm is fixed on the acoustic driver by a ring, and the ring is sunken in a direction away from the back cavity” (see Struzik, figure 2, units 2 and 17 and column 4, lines 27-30 in view of Isvan, figure 6A, units 110, 112, 114, and 128a-b, and column 13, lines 6-62, where it is obvious to have the diaphragm fixed to the front plate in a direction away from the back cavities, such that the diaphragms are fixed in a central location with respect to the two rear cavities).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 2021/0112329 A1 and hereafter Zhang), teaches an open earphone that is waterproof such that a user can enjoy music during swimming and/or in the rain and retain use of buttons on the earphones for controlling playback (see Zhang, abstract and ¶ 0004 and 0007), and teaches a near-far aperture ratio is taught that it is not less than 1 or the ratio is not less than 5 (see Zhang, ¶ 0226 and 0249-0250).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel R Sellers whose telephone number is (571)272-7528. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-4:00.
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, Fan S Tsang can be reached at (571)272-7547. 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.
/Daniel R Sellers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694