DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are hereby the present claims under consideration.
Examiner’s Note: All references to Applicant’s specification are made using the paragraph numbers assigned in the US publication of the present application US 20250143625 A1.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 it appears that “captures” should read “captured”
Claim 15 it appears that “the at least one sensor” should read “the at least one orientation sensor”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “altering the dependency of the subject’s postural control system on the visual display, correcting the postural deficiency” but it is unclear what this step entails and how or if it is related to the previously recited method steps. In particular, the limitations recites that the dependency of the subject’s postural control system on the display is altered and thus recites that a particular bodily system of the subject is altered. It is unclear what precisely this alteration entails and how such an alteration to a bodily system is performed. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as the effect of the previously recited method steps such that any method which performs the previously recited method step inherently achieves the claimed function. This rejection is similarly applied to claim 2 which recites an alteration of the subject’s postural control system’s dependency on somatosensory input but it is unclear what the alteration entails and how or if it relates to the previously recited method steps. This rejection is further applied to claims 11 and 12 which recite similar limitations to claims 1 and 2. Claims 11-12 further indicate that the altering is carried out using the processor of the system. It is unclear how a processor is capable of altering a bodily system.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claims 12-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 11.
The term “Approximately” in claims 8 and 19 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 particular sampling rate required by the claim is unclear. For the purposes of this examination, any sampling rate will be considered sufficient to render the claimed rate as obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 each recite a limitation drawn towards “altering the dependency of the subject’s postural control system on the visual display/the subject’s somatosensory input” which corrects the postural deficiency. However the specification does not particularly describe what such an alteration entails. The specification does not appear to describe what the method step of altering such a bodily system entails and/or how it is performed. Paragraph 0046 of the specification recites that the system as a whole can be used for altering the postural control system in rehabilitation applications but does not describe what such an alteration to the postural control system entails. In particular the claimed method steps of claims 1-2 are considered to lack sufficient written description support because the specification does not detail what such an alteration to the postural control system entails or describe how such an alteration is accomplished. Similarly, the processing steps of claims 11-12 are considered to lack sufficient written description support because the specification does not describe what such an alteration step entails or how it is carried out on the processor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berme US Patent Number US 9770203 B1 hereinafter Berme in view of Bertec US Patent Number US 9814430 B1 hereinafter Bertec and evidenced by Zhang US Patent Application Publication Number US 20160262695 A1 hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 1, Berme teaches a method for improving postural function in a subject (Abstract), comprising the steps of:
fitting an augmented reality headset on a subject (Col 37 line 35 - Col 38 line 19: the SOT protocol may be executed using VR glasses);
superimposing a fixed reference point on a scene presented to the subject on the augmented reality headset (Figs. 14 and 22: reference(s) 205 and/or 238: the boxes or blocks that serve as a frame of reference or the targets; Col 26 lines 35-67: the initial presentation of the three-dimensional checkerboard room and the reference points, or targets, 238; Col 27 line 66 – Col 28 line 39: the targets may be illustrated without the background or border 234 and 242 such that the targets are displayed directly onto the displaceable background; Col 29 line 63 – Col 30 line 21: the stationary display of the room and boxes);
monitoring a set of orientation parameters gathered from a set of at least one sensor fixedly attached to a subject (Col 37 line 35 - Col 38 line 19: the glasses may include an inertial measurement unit including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers for tracking the head movement; Col 48 lines 8-33: the attached inertial measurement units);
calculating a postural deficiency from the set of orientation parameters (Col 48 lines 34-47: the quantification of the user’s performance during the various simulated tasks; Col 20 line 66 – Col 21 line 53: the system calculate a variety of stability parameters; Col 34 lines 45-51: the postural stability is evaluated using a variety of parameters);
creating an unstable scene by adjusting the position of the fixed reference point based on measured movement data (Col 26 lines 35-67: the generated motion profile of the virtual reality environment based on the subject’s movement; Col 27 line 66 – Col 28 line 39: the targets may be illustrated without the background or border 234 and 242 such that the targets are displayed directly onto the displaceable background; Col 30 lines 29-44: the virtual reality scene is moved in accordance with the subject’s movements. Thus the position of the reference boxes and/or targets are adjusted as the subject’s movement is translated to motion in the virtual reality scenario); and
altering the dependency of the subject's postural control system on the visual display, correcting the postural deficiency (Col 30 lines 15-39: the above described motion of the environment is used as training. This limitation is considered to be inherently met as describe in the above 35 USC 112 rejections).
Berme fails to further teach the method comprising: creating an unstable scene by adjusting the position of the fixed reference point based on the set of orientation parameters. In particular, Berme fails to teach the use of input from the sensors that are “fixedly attached” to the user for the creating of the movement profile. Berme instead uses the pressure measurements from the force plate on which the user stands.
Bertec teaches a system and method for measuring eye movement and/or eye position and postural sway of a subject (Abstract). Thus, Bertec falls within the same field of endeavor as Applicant’s invention.
Bertec teaches that postural sway may be evaluated using a force plate, inertial measurement units, and/or cameras with optical motion capture systems (Col 26 lines 44-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the measurement of body sway using attached inertial measurement units as taught by Bertec into the method of Berme such that the attached accelerometers of Berme may further measure body sway and utilize the measured sway value in the generation of the motion profile for the virtual environment and calculation of stability parameters because Berme already utilized attached IMUs for body measurement and measuring the sway of the body using multiple measurement modalities would provide a more accurate measure of subject movement with which to base the motion profile determination and stability parameter determination off of which may result in a more responsive motion profile generation and/or more accurate stability estimation. Combining measurement multiple modalities results in a more accurate or precise signals since each modality may help compensate for noise and/or inaccuracies of other measurement modalities as evidenced by Zhang paragraph 0047 which teaches that multiple measurement modalities for the same parameter can be combined to enhance the reliability and accuracy of parameter measurement.
Regarding claim 2, Berme in view of Bertec teaches the method of claim 1. Modified Berme further teaches the method further comprising the steps of: positioning the subject on an unstable surface (Col 28 lines 15-39: the surface of the force plate can be customized for training such as by placing foam on the surface); and altering the dependency of the subject's postural system on the subject's somatosensory input, correcting the postural deficiency (Col 30 lines 15-39: the above described motion of the environment is used as training. This limitation is considered to be inherently met as describe in the above 35 USC 112 rejections).
Regarding claims 3-4, 7 and 9 Berme in view of Bertec teaches the method of claim 1. Modified Berme further teaches the method further comprising the steps of: monitoring a second set of orientation parameters gathered from a second set of at least one sensor positioned remotely from the subject; and supplementing the calculation of the postural deficiency with the second set of orientation parameters; and wherein the second set of at least one sensor comprises a camera; wherein the second set of orientation parameters comprises a set of camera frames recorded by the camera; and further comprising the step of performing a set of image processing operations on the set of camera frames.
Bertec teaches that postural sway may be evaluated using a force plate, inertial measurement units, and/or cameras with optical motion capture systems. The optical motion capture system may use high-speed cameras to record the motion of the subject and the images are used to track the motion of the limbs in three dimensional space (Col 26 line 44 – Col 27 line 25). Thus, Bertec teaches that an optical tracking system positioned remotely form the subject and comprising at least one camera, which records a plurality of image frames and processes them to generate motion data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the measurement of body sway using motion sensing cameras as taught by Bertec into the method of Berme such that the cameras may further measure body sway and utilize the measured sway value in the generation of the motion profile for the virtual environment because Berme using multiple measurement modalities would provide a more accurate measure of subject movement with which to base the motion profile determination and stability parameter determination off of which may result in a more responsive motion profile generation and/or more accurate stability estimation as evidenced by Zhang paragraph 0046 as described in the above rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Berme in view of Bertec teaches the method of claim 1. Modified Berme further teaches the method wherein the at least one sensor is selected from a group consisting of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer (Col 37 line 35 - Col 38 line 19: the glasses may include an inertial measurement unit including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers for tracking the head movement; Col 48 lines 8-33: the attached inertial measurement units).
Regarding claim 6, Berme in view of Bertec teaches the method of claim 1. Modified Berme further teaches the method further comprising the step of: positioning the subject on a soft material pad designed to impede the subject from maintaining balance (Col 28 lines 15-39: the surface of the force plate can be customized for training such as by placing foam on the surface. Foam is considered a soft surface which impedes balance as described in paragraph 0041 of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding claim 10, Berme in view of Bertec teaches the method of claim 1. Modified Berme is further considered to teach the method wherein the adjustment of the position of the fixed reference point is partially arbitrary.
Modified Berme is considered to teach this limitation in Col 26 lines 59-67 which teach that the displacement of the virtual reality scenario may be pseudo-random which disrupts the user’s optical flow. This pseudo-random movement of the virtual reality scenario is disclosed as a separate embodiment from the user-responsive displacement used in the above rejection of claim 1 and corresponding to Col 26 lines 48-53. An obvious variation of Berme would be to combine these two embodiments such that the virtual reality scenario may be responsive to user movement and also include pseudo-random movements. Such a variation is considered to be obvious because Berme explicitly contemplates that a number of variations may be made to the training program in order to adjust the difficulty of the program to a suitable level in Col 28 lines 15-39. Thus, Berme explicitly contemplates making modifications to the training program to adjust the difficulty. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the two embodiments described above such that the virtual scene moves in accordance with the user’s measured sway and also having pseudo-random movements of the virtual scene as such a modification would increase the difficulty of the training program by introducing artificial inputs which the user must distinguish from their own and also perturbing the visual flow of the user with their environment by decoupling at least a portion of the movements of the virtual scene from movements made by the subject.
Regarding claim 11, Berme teaches a device for improving postural function in a subject (Abstract) comprising:
an augmented reality headset (Col 37 line 35 - Col 38 line 19: the SOT protocol may be executed using VR glasses);
a set of at least one orientation sensor (Col 37 line 35 - Col 38 line 19: the glasses may include an inertial measurement unit including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers for tracking the head movement; Col 48 lines 8-33: the attached inertial measurement units);
a computing device (Col 20 lines 15-37: the processor); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions stored thereon (Col 20 lines 15-37: the memory), that when executed by a processor, perform steps comprising:
superimposing a fixed reference point on a scene presented to a subject on the augmented reality headset (Figs. 14 and 22: reference(s) 205 and/or 238: the boxes or blocks that serve as a frame of reference or the targets; Col 26 lines 35-67: the initial presentation of the three-dimensional checkerboard room and the reference points, or targets, 238; Col 27 line 66 – Col 28 line 39: the targets may be illustrated without the background or border 234 and 242 such that the targets are displayed directly onto the displaceable background; Col 29 line 63 – Col 30 line 21: the stationary display of the room and boxes);
monitoring a set of orientation parameters gathered from the set of at least one orientation sensor (Col 37 line 35 - Col 38 line 19: the glasses may include an inertial measurement unit including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers for tracking the head movement; Col 48 lines 8-33: the attached inertial measurement units);
calculating a postural deficiency from the set of orientation parameters (Col 48 lines 34-47: the quantification of the user’s performance during the various simulated tasks; Col 20 line 66 – Col 21 line 53: the system calculate a variety of stability parameters; Col 34 lines 45-51: the postural stability is evaluated using a variety of parameters);
creating an unstable scene by adjusting the position of the fixed reference point based on measured movement data (Col 26 lines 35-67: the generated motion profile of the virtual reality environment based on the subject’s movement; Col 27 line 66 – Col 28 line 39: the targets may be illustrated without the background or border 234 and 242 such that the targets are displayed directly onto the displaceable background; Col 30 lines 29-44: the virtual reality scene is moved in accordance with the subject’s movements. Thus the position of the reference boxes and/or targets are adjusted as the subject’s movement is translated to motion in the virtual reality scenario); and
altering the dependency of the subject's postural control system on the visual display, correcting the postural deficiency (Col 30 lines 15-39: the above described motion of the environment is used as training. This limitation is considered to be inherently met as describe in the above 35 USC 112 rejections).
Berme fails to further teach the device comprising: creating an unstable scene by adjusting the position of the fixed reference point based on the set of orientation parameters. In particular, Berme fails to teach the use of input from the sensors that are “fixedly attached” to the user for the creating of the movement profile. Berme instead uses the pressure measurements from the force plate on which the user stands.
Bertec teaches that postural sway may be evaluated using a force plate, inertial measurement units, and/or cameras with optical motion capture systems (Col 26 lines 44-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the measurement of body sway using attached inertial measurement units as taught by Bertec into the device of Berme such that the attached accelerometers of Berme may further measure body sway and utilize the measured sway value in the generation of the motion profile for the virtual environment and calculation of stability parameters because Berme already utilized attached IMUs for body measurement and measuring the sway of the body using multiple measurement modalities would provide a more accurate measure of subject movement with which to base the motion profile determination and stability parameter determination off of which may result in a more responsive motion profile generation and/or more accurate stability estimation. Combining measurement multiple modalities results in a more accurate or precise signals since each modality may help compensate for noise and/or inaccuracies of other measurement modalities as evidenced by Zhang paragraph 0047 which teaches that multiple measurement modalities for the same parameter can be combined to enhance the reliability and accuracy of parameter measurement.
Regarding claim 12, Berme in view of Bertec teaches the device of claim 11. Modified Berme further teaches the device further comprising: an unstable surface (Col 28 lines 15-39: the surface of the force plate can be customized for training such as by placing foam on the surface); and wherein the steps further comprise: providing instructions for the subject to be positioned on the unstable surface (Col 25 lines 49-57: instructional information may be displayed to the subject; Col 26 lines 27-34: the subject may be instructed; Col 28 lines 65-67: the subject may be instructed to change position. Thus modified Berme is considered to teach the instruction of the patient in order to carry out the described tests); and altering the dependency of the subject's postural system on the subject's somatosensory input, correcting the postural deficiency (Col 30 lines 15-39: the above described motion of the environment is used as training. This limitation is considered to be inherently met as describe in the above 35 USC 112 rejections).
Regarding claims 13-14, and 17-18 Berme in view of Bertec teaches the device of claim 11. Modified Berme further teaches the device further comprising: a second set of at least one orientation sensor positioned remotely from the subject; and wherein the steps further comprise: monitoring a second set of orientation parameters gathered from the second set of at least one orientation sensor; and supplementing the calculation of the postural deficiency with the second set of orientation parameters; wherein the second set of at least one orientation sensor comprises a camera; wherein the second set of orientation parameters comprises a set of camera frames recorded by the camera; and wherein the steps further comprise performing a set of image processing operations on the set of camera frames.
Bertec teaches that postural sway may be evaluated using a force plate, inertial measurement units, and/or cameras with optical motion capture systems. The optical motion capture system may use high-speed cameras to record the motion of the subject and the images are used to track the motion of the limbs in three dimensional space (Col 26 line 44 – Col 27 line 25). Thus, Bertec teaches that an optical tracking system positioned remotely form the subject and comprising at least one camera, which records a plurality of image frames and processes them to generate motion data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to implement the measurement of body sway using motion sensing cameras as taught by Bertec into the device of Berme such that the cameras may further measure body sway and utilize the measured sway value in the generation of the motion profile for the virtual environment because Berme using multiple measurement modalities would provide a more accurate measure of subject movement with which to base the motion profile determination and stability parameter determination off of which may result in a more responsive motion profile generation and/or more accurate stability estimation as evidenced by Zhang paragraph 0046 as described in the above rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, Berme in view of Bertec teaches the device of claim 11. Modified Berme further teaches the device wherein the at least one sensor is selected from a group consisting of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a magnetometer (Col 37 line 35 - Col 38 line 19: the glasses may include an inertial measurement unit including accelerometers, gyroscopes, and magnetometers for tracking the head movement; Col 48 lines 8-33: the attached inertial measurement units).
Regarding claim 16, Berme in view of Bertec teaches the device of claim 11. Modified Berme further teaches the device further comprising: a soft material pad designed to impede the subject from maintaining balance (Col 28 lines 15-39: the surface of the force plate can be customized for training such as by placing foam on the surface. Foam is considered a soft surface which impedes balance as described in paragraph 0041 of Applicant’s specification); and wherein the steps further comprise: providing instructions for the subject to be positioned on the soft material pad (Col 25 lines 49-57: instructional information may be displayed to the subject; Col 26 lines 27-34: the subject may be instructed; Col 28 lines 65-67: the subject may be instructed to change position. Thus modified Berme is considered to teach the instruction of the patient in order to carry out the described test).
Regarding claim 20, Berme in view of Bertec teaches the device of claim 11. Modified Berme further considered to teach the device wherein the adjustment of the position of the fixed reference point is partially arbitrary.
Modified Berme is considered to teach this limitation in Col 26 lines 59-67 which teach that the displacement of the virtual reality scenario may be pseudo-random which disrupts the user’s optical flow. This pseudo-random movement of the virtual reality scenario is disclosed as a separate embodiment from the user-responsive displacement used in the above rejection of claim 1 and corresponding to Col 26 lines 48-53. An obvious variation of Berme would be to combine these two embodiments such that the virtual reality scenario may be responsive to user movement and also include pseudo-random movements. Such a variation is considered to be obvious because Berme explicitly contemplates that a number of variations may be made to the training program in order to adjust the difficulty of the program to a suitable level in Col 28 lines 15-39. Thus, Berme explicitly contemplates making modifications to the training program to adjust the difficulty. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the two embodiments described above such that the virtual scene moves in accordance with the user’s measured sway and also having pseudo-random movements of the virtual scene as such a modification would increase the difficulty of the training program by introducing artificial inputs which the user must distinguish from their own and also perturbing the visual flow of the user with their environment by decoupling at least a portion of the movements of the virtual scene from movements made by the subject.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berme US Patent Number US 9770203 B1 hereinafter Berme in view of Bertec US Patent Number US 9814430 B1 hereinafter Bertec and evidenced by Zhang US Patent Application Publication Number US 20160262695 A1 hereinafter Zhang and applied to claims 1 and 11 above and further in view of Johns US Patent Application Publication Number US 20110121976 A1 hereinafter Johns
Regarding claim 8, Berme in view of Bertec teaches the method of claim 1. Modified Berme fails to further teach the method wherein the set of orientation measurements is captures at a rate of approximately 100Hz. In particular, Berme does not disclose any particular required sampling rate.
Johns teaches a head worn device for monitoring alertness and attention which includes a) sensors to monitor eyelid and eye movement, b) a motion sensor and c) data storage means for storing data from said sensors. The motion sensor is an accelerometer to provide data that allows the head position to be analyzed and to determine the direction of gaze (Abstract). Thus, Johns is reasonably pertinent to the problem at hand.
Johns teaches that accelerometers may sample at 100Hz for motion tracking but that the particular sampling rate is not critical (Paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to configure the sensors of modified Berme to sample at approximately 100Hz as taught by Johns because it is a simple substitution of one known element (the sampling rate of Berme) for another known element (100 Hz sampling as taught by John) with no surprising technical effect (body motion is sampled).
Regarding claim 19, Berme in view of Bertec teaches the device of claim 11. Modified Berme fails to further teaches the device, wherein the set of orientation parameters is gathered at a rate of approximately 100Hz.
Johns teaches that accelerometers may sample at 100Hz for motion tracking but that the particular sampling rate is not critical (Paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the invention to configure the sensors of modified Berme to sample at approximately 100Hz as taught by Johns because it is a simple substitution of one known element (the sampling rate of Berme) for another known element (100 Hz sampling as taught by John) with no surprising technical effect (body motion is sampled).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW ERIC OGLES whose telephone number is (571)272-7313. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jason Sims can be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM – 4:00PM at (571) 272 – 7540. 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.
/MATTHEW ERIC OGLES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights