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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14-19 (hereinafter instant claims 1-12, 14-19) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 (hereinafter patent claims 1-17) of U.S. Patent No. 10,820,135. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claims 1-12, 14-19: Patent claims 1-17 includes all of the limitations of instant claims 1-12, 14-19 (specifically, instant claims 1-7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 are found in patent claims 1-7, 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 1, 17, 10, respectively). Hence, instant claims 1-12, 14-19 are generic to the species of invention covered by patent claims 1-17. Therefore, instant claims 1-12, 14-19 are anticipated by patent claims 1-17 and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant "application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims").
Claim 20 (hereinafter instant claim 20) is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 (hereinafter patent claims 1-17) of U.S. Patent No. 10,820,135 in view of Lowe et al. (US 2015/0073812).
Regarding instant claim 20: Patent claims 1-17 includes all of the limitations of instant claim 20 (specifically, instant claim 20 is found in patent claim 1) except that patent claims 1-17 fail to claim a system for generating an audio image, the system comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising control logic which, upon execution by the processor, causes: the method of patent claims 1-17.
Lowe discloses a system comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising control logic which, upon execution by the processor, causes: a method to be carried out.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: configure a system comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising control logic which, upon execution by the processor, causes: the method of patent claims 1-17 to be carried out,
which would also result in the system being a system for generating an audio image,
the motivation being to implement the method of patent claims 1-17 by providing structural elements that can be used to carry out such an implementation (Lowe - ¶ 0043).
Claims 1-5, 8-20 (hereinafter instant claims 1-5, 8-20) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 (hereinafter patent claims 1-20) of U.S. Patent No. 11,516,616. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claims 1-5, 8-20: Patent claims 1-20 includes all of the limitations of instant claims 1-5, 8-20 (specifically, instant claims 1, 1, 2-5, 8-10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16-18, 19, 20 are found in patent claims 1, 20, 2-5, 6-8, 10, 10, 11, 12, 9, 13-15, 9, 19, respectively). Hence, instant claims 1-5, 8-20 are generic to the species of invention covered by patent claims 1-20. Therefore, instant claims 1-5, 8-20 are anticipated by patent claims 1-20 and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant "application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims").
Claims 1 (hereinafter instant claims 1) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 (hereinafter patent claims 19) of U.S. Patent No. 12,156,015. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding instant claims 1: Patent claims 19 includes all of the limitations of instant claims 1 (although patent claim 19 does not explicitly claim “generating the audio image by executing”, it is inherent that patent claim 19’s claiming of generating the first, second, and third wavefronts to be perceived by the listener as emanating from the first, second, and third positions, respectively, generates the audio image). Hence, instant claims 1 are generic to the species of invention covered by patent claims 19. Therefore, instant claims 1 are anticipated by patent claims 19 and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant "application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims").
Claim 20 (hereinafter instant claim 20) is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 (hereinafter patent claim 19) of U.S. Patent No. 12,156,015 in view of Lowe.
Regarding instant claim 20: Patent claim 19 includes all of the limitations of instant claim 20 (although patent claim 19 does not explicitly claim “generating the audio image by executing”, it is inherent that patent claim 19’s claiming of generating the first, second, and third wavefronts to be perceived by the listener as emanating from the first, second, and third positions, respectively, generates the audio image) except that patent claim 19 fails to claim a system for generating an audio image, the system comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising control logic which, upon execution by the processor, causes: the method of patent claims 19.
Lowe discloses a system comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising control logic which, upon execution by the processor, causes: a method to be carried out.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: configure a system comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising control logic which, upon execution by the processor, causes: the method of patent claim 19 to be carried out,
which would also result in the system being a system for generating an audio image,
the motivation being to implement the method of patent claim 19 by providing structural elements that can be used to carry out such an implementation (Lowe - ¶ 0043).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11-14, 16, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGrath et al. (US 6741706 B1).
Regarding claim 1, McGrath discloses a method of generating an audio image for use in rendering audio, the method comprising:
accessing an audio stream (detx38, col. 9, lines 25-36);
accessing a first positional impulse response, the first positional impulse response being associated with a first position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1);
accessing a second positional impulse response, the second positional impulse response being associated with a second position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1);
accessing a third positional impulse response, the third positional impulse response being associated with a third position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1);
generating the audio image by executing:
generating, based on the audio stream and the first positional impulse response, a first virtual wave front to be perceived by a listener as emanating from the first position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1);
generating, based on the audio stream and the second positional impulse response, a second virtual wave front to be perceived by the listener as emanating from the second position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1);
generating, based on the audio stream and the third positional impulse response, a third virtual wave front to be perceived by the listener as emanating from the third position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1); and
wherein generating the first virtual wave front, generating the second virtual wave front and generating the third virtual wave front are executed synchronously (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, McGrath discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
generating the first virtual wave front comprises convolving the audio stream with the first positional impulse response (Fig. 1);
generating the second virtual wave front comprises convolving the audio stream with the second positional impulse response (Fig. 1); and
generating the third virtual wave front comprises convolving the audio stream with the third positional impulse response (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, McGrath discloses the method of any of claim 1, wherein:
the first positional impulse response comprises a first left positional impulse response associated with the first position and a first right positional impulse response associated with the first position (Fig. 1: LFEL and LFER);
the second positional impulse response comprises a second left positional impulse response associated with the second position and a second right positional impulse response associated with the second position (Fig. 1: CFL and CFR); and
the third positional impulse response comprises a third left positional impulse response associated with the third position and a third right positional impulse response associated with the third position (Fig. 1: RFL and RFR).
Regarding claim 6, McGrath discloses the method of claim 3, wherein generating the first virtual wave front, the second virtual wave front and the third virtual wave front comprises:
convolving the audio stream with the first left positional impulse response (Fig. 1);
convolving the audio stream with the first right positional impulse response (Fig. 1);
convolving the audio stream with the second left positional impulse response (Fig. 1);
convolving the audio stream with the second right positional impulse response (Fig. 1);
convolving the audio stream with the third left positional impulse response (Fig. 1); and
convolving the audio stream with the third right positional impulse response (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, McGrath discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising:
generating a left channel signal by mixing the audio stream convolved with the first left positional impulse response, the audio stream convolved with the second left positional impulse response and the audio stream convolved with the third left positional impulse response (Fig. 1: 10);
generating a right channel signal by mixing the audio stream convolved with the first right positional impulse response, the audio stream convolved with the second right positional impulse response and the audio stream convolved with the third right positional impulse response (Fig. 1: 11); and
rendering the left channel signal and the right channel signal to a listener (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59).
Regarding claim 8, McGrath discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the first virtual wave front, generating the second virtual wave front and generating the third virtual wave front are executed in parallel (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, McGrath discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, upon rendering the audio image to a listener, the first virtual wave front is perceived by the listener as emanating from a first virtual speaker located at the first position, the second virtual wave front is perceived by the listener as emanating from a second virtual speaker located at the second position; and the third virtual wave front is perceived by the listener as emanating from a third virtual speaker located at the third position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59).
Regarding claim 11, McGrath discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the audio stream is a first audio stream and the method further comprises accessing a second audio stream (detx38, col. 9, lines 25-36; bstx13, col. 2, lines 46-59).
Regarding claim 12, McGrath discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the audio image is a first audio image and the method further comprises:
generating a second audio image by executing the following steps:
generating, based on the second audio stream and the first positional impulse response, a fourth virtual wave front to be perceived by the listener as emanating from the first position (bstx13, col. 2, lines 46-59);
generating, based on the second audio stream and the second positional impulse response, a fifth virtual wave front to be perceived by the listener as emanating from the second position (bstx13, col. 2, lines 46-59); and
generating, based on the second audio stream and the third positional impulse response, a sixth virtual wave front to be perceived by the listener as emanating from the third position (bstx13, col. 2, lines 46-59).
Regarding claim 13, McGrath discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the audio stream is one of a mono audio stream, a stereo audio stream and a multi-channel audio stream (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, McGrath discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the audio image is defined by a combination of the first virtual wave front, the second virtual wave front and the third virtual wave front (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, McGrath discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first positional impulse response, the second positional impulse response and the third positional impulse response define a polygonal positional impulse response (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59, three virtual sources around a listener will inherently form a triangular polygon).
Regarding claim 18, McGrath discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first positional impulse response, the second positional impulse response and the third positional impulse response are each associated with a different pulse, each one of the different pulses being representative of acoustic characteristics of the acoustic space at a given position (see the different impulse responses in Fig. 1) (detx3, col. 4, lines 4-16: e.g., left front impulse response is one that would be received by left ear from a left front channel speaker in an idealized position).
Regarding claim 20, McGrath discloses a system for generating an audio image, the system comprising:
a processor (detx39-40, col. 9, lines 37-58);
a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising control logic which, upon execution by the processor, causes (detx39-40, col. 9, lines 37-58):
accessing an audio stream (detx38, col. 9, lines 25-36);
accessing a first positional impulse response, the first positional impulse response being associated with a first position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1);
accessing a second positional impulse response, the second positional impulse response being associated with a second position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1);
accessing a third positional impulse response, the third positional impulse response being associated with a third position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1);
generating the audio image by executing:
generating, based on the audio stream and the first positional impulse response, a first virtual wave front to be perceived by a listener as emanating from the first position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1);
generating, based on the audio stream and the second positional impulse response, a second virtual wave front to be perceived by the listener as emanating from the second position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1);
generating, based on the audio stream and the third positional impulse response, a third virtual wave front to be perceived by the listener as emanating from the third position (bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59 and see Fig. 1); and
wherein generating the first virtual wave front, generating the second virtual wave front and generating the third virtual wave front are executed synchronously (Fig. 1; bstx8, col. 1, lines 39-59).
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.
Claim 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrath in view of Xiang et al. (US 2014/0355796 A1).
Regarding claim 4, McGrath discloses the method of claim 3.
McGrath is not relied upon to disclose wherein generating the first virtual wave front, the second virtual wave front and the third virtual wave front comprises:
generating a summed left positional impulse response by summing the first left positional impulse response, the second left positional impulse response and the third left positional impulse response;
generating a summed right positional impulse response by summing the first right positional impulse response, the second right positional impulse response and the third right positional impulse response;
convolving the audio stream with the summed left positional impulse response; and
convolving the audio stream with the summed right positional impulse response.
In a similar field of endeavor, Xiang discloses
wherein generating the first virtual wave front, the second virtual wave front and the third virtual wave front comprises:
generating a summed left positional impulse response by summing the first left positional impulse response, the second left positional impulse response and the third left positional impulse response (claims 11, 24, 37);
generating a summed right positional impulse response by summing the first right positional impulse response, the second right positional impulse response and the third right positional impulse response (claims 11, 24, 37);
convolving the audio stream with the summed left positional impulse response (claims 11, 24, 37); and
convolving the audio stream with the summed right positional impulse response (claims 11, 24, 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein generating the first virtual wave front, the second virtual wave front and the third virtual wave front comprises:
generating a summed left positional impulse response by summing the first left positional impulse response, the second left positional impulse response and the third left positional impulse response;
generating a summed right positional impulse response by summing the first right positional impulse response, the second right positional impulse response and the third right positional impulse response;
convolving the audio stream with the summed left positional impulse response; and
convolving the audio stream with the summed right positional impulse response,
the motivation being to perform the simple substitution of one way (i.e. sum convolved signals after being convolved with IRs) to create a convoluted output from a plurality of impulse responses for another (i.e. sum IRs before convolution) to obtain predictable results of a plurality of impulse responses that are turned into an output through convolution. See MPEP § 2143(B).
Regarding claim 5, McGrath-Xiang discloses the method of claim 4, wherein:
convolving the audio stream with the summed left positional impulse response comprises generating a left channel signal (McGrath - Fig. 1, taking into account the modification in light of Xiang in the claim 4 rejection);
convolving the audio stream with the summed right positional impulse response comprises generating a right channel signal (McGrath - Fig. 1, taking into account the modification in light of Xiang in the claim 4 rejection); and
rendering the left channel signal and the right channel signal to a listener (McGrath - Fig. 1).
The teachings of Xiang relied upon above are combinable with McGrath-Xiang for the same reasons set forth above in the claim 4 rejection.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrath in view of Tan (US 2015/0293655 A1).
Regarding claim 10, McGrath discloses the method of claim 1.
McGrath is not relied upon to disclose wherein, prior to generating the audio image, the method comprises:
accessing control data, the control data comprising the first position, the second position and the third position; and
associating the first positional impulse response with the first position, the second positional impulse response with the second position and the third positional impulse response with the third position.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tan discloses wherein, prior to generating the audio image, the method comprises:
accessing control data, the control data comprising the first position, the second position and the third position (¶ 0045-0051); and
associating the first positional impulse response with the first position, the second positional impulse response with the second position and the third positional impulse response with the third position (¶ 0045-0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein, prior to generating the audio image, the method comprises:
accessing control data, the control data comprising the first position, the second position and the third position; and
associating the first positional impulse response with the first position, the second positional impulse response with the second position and the third positional impulse response with the third position,
the motivation being to allow a user to calibrate sound settings (Tan - ¶ 0085).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrath in view of Mahabub et al. (US 2012/0213375 A1).
Regarding claim 15, McGrath discloses the method of claim 1.
McGrath is not relied upon to disclose wherein the first position, the second position and the third position define a portion of spherical mesh.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mahabub discloses wherein the first position, the second position and the third position define a portion of spherical mesh (Figs. 1 and 2, spherical coordinate system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein the first position, the second position and the third position define a portion of spherical mesh, the motivation being to use a system that increases accuracy and/or precision, and/or minimizes processing time (Mahabub - ¶ 0078-0079).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrath in view of Tan in view of Mahabub.
Regarding claim 19, McGrath-Tan discloses the method of claim 10, and Tan discloses wherein the first position, the second position and the third position define a portion of a geometric shape (¶ 0027); the control data allows positioning the first positional impulse response, the second positional impulse response and the third positional impulse response on the geometric shape (¶ 0090); and wherein the first position, the second position and the third position are modifiable (¶ 0064).
McGrath-Tan is not relied upon to disclose that the geometric shape is a spherical mesh.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mahabub discloses wherein the first position, the second position and the third position define a portion of spherical mesh (Figs. 1 and 2, spherical coordinate system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to wherein the first position, the second position and the third position define a portion of spherical mesh, the motivation being to use a system that increases accuracy and/or precision, and/or minimizes processing time (Mahabub - ¶ 0078-0079).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the Double Patenting rejections rejecting claim 17 are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regard to claim 17, the prior art of record (excluding Double Patenting references used to reject claim 17) alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the following limitations of the claim in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim:
“further comprising, before generating the audio image, filtering the audio stream by dividing the audio stream into a first audio sub-stream by applying a high-pass filter (HPF) and a second audio sub-signal by applying a low-pass filter (LPF), wherein at least one of the HPF or the LPF is defined based on at least one of a cut-off frequency (f2) or a crossover frequency (f), the at least one of the cut-off frequency or the crossover frequency being based on a frequency where sound transitions from wave to ray acoustics within the acoustic space.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm EST.
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 on 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.
/MARK FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights