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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-5 and 7-23 are currently pending.
3. Claim 6 is canceled.
4. Claims 1, 11-12, 15-16, and 19-20 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 1/28/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-11, 13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk (US 7692573 B1), in view of Watanabe (JP 6645074 B2), and in further view of Fukuman (US 20160116586 A1).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Funk teaches a ship target object detection system, comprising: a plurality of candidate data generating parts, each configured to generate target object candidate data including position data of a target object candidate existing around a ship, wherein the plurality of candidate data generating parts includes at least a radar and an automatic identification system (AIS) (Funk: [Column 6, Lines 3-7], [Column 7, Lines 60-67; Column 8, Lines 1-11]; and [Column 10, Lines 1-6]);
And processing circuitry configured to: select a plurality of target object candidate data indicative of the same target object candidates based on the position data from the target object candidate data generated by the plurality of candidate data generating parts (Funk: [Column 2, Lines 23-25], [Column 4, Line 33], [Column 7, Lines 33-41], and [Column 9, Lines 8-13]),
And calculate a… reliability of the same target object candidates based on attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts that generated the plurality of selected target object candidate data among the plurality of candidate data generating parts… (Funk: [Column 4, Lines 23-32], [Column 7, Lines 20-29], and [Column 12, Lines 39-46]).
Funk fails to explicitly teach to calculate an existence reliability of the same target object candidates. However, Funk does teach the data association probability. This is equivalent to the existence reliability because the probability determines the final targets. The initial set of candidate targets is reduced based on the probability and some of the initial candidate targets are eliminated based on a low data association probability. The data association probability of Funk is equivalent to the claimed existence reliability because final candidate targets are determined based on the data associated with the targets, and if the probability is too low, then the candidate targets are not considered for obstacle avoidance.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Watanabe teaches to calculate an existence reliability of the same target object candidates based on attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts that generated the plurality of selected target object candidate data among the plurality of candidate data generating parts, each of the attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts having a weight that indicates reliability (Watanabe: [0047], [0051], and [0093] Note that Watanabe teaches that sensor with high accuracy are given a higher weight compared to sensors with low accuracy when calculating the reliability.).
Funk and Watanabe are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Funk to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe for each of the attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts to have a weight that indicates reliability because it provides the benefit of improving detection reliability when navigating a vehicle for collision avoidance. Thus, as a result, improves the detection of obstacles and avoid erroneous detections for the candidate data generating parts with varying accuracy. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness for the operators and increased safety for the passengers and surroundings.
Funk and Watanabe fail to explicitly teach the existence reliability is adjusted higher as a size of the target object candidate increases, a moving speed of the target object candidate increases, or an elapsed time since detection increases.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fukuman teaches the existence reliability is adjusted higher as a size of the target object candidate increases, a moving speed of the target object candidate increases, or an elapsed time since detection increases. (Fukuman: [0036] Note that the existence reliability is adjusted higher as an elapsed time since detection is equivalent to the reliability counter exceeding a threshold value based on the increased number of times that the sensor detects the object.).
Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Funk and Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Fukuman to improve the reliability of detecting objects in a vehicle's surrounding environment. Adjusting the existence reliability to be higher as an elapsed time since detection increases provides the benefit of confidently detecting objects for increasing the safety of the vehicle by controlling the vehicle to avoid collisions.
11. Regarding Claim 3, Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Funk teaches one of the plurality of candidate data generating parts further includes a set of an image sensor configured to image overboard and a discriminating part configured to discriminate the target object candidate in the image or an instruction accepting part configured to receive an instruction of the target object candidate in the image by a user (Funk: [Column 5, Lines 1-10] and [Column 7, Lines 60-67; Column 8, Lines 1-11]).
12. Regarding Claim 4, Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Funk teaches the plurality of candidate data generating parts further include at least one of a communication device configured to receive information on other ships, a sonar, a set of an image sensor configured to image overboard and a discriminating part configured to discriminate the target object candidate in the image, and an instruction accepting part configured to receive an instruction of the target object candidate in the image by a user (Funk: [Column 7, Lines 45-50] and [Column 7, Lines 60-67; Column 8, Lines 1-11]).
13. Regarding Claim 7, Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Funk teaches the plurality of candidate data generating parts include a plurality of radars with different frequency bands (Funk: [Column 7, Lines 60-67; Column 8, Lines 1-11]).
14. Regarding Claim 9, Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Funk teaches the discriminating part estimates a size or a type of a ship as the classification of the target object candidate (Funk: [Column 2, Lines 12-23] and [Column 5, Lines 1-4]).
15. Regarding Claim 10, Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Funk teaches the discriminating part estimates a type of a water-surface floating object as the classification of the target object candidate (Funk: [Column 2, Lines 12-23], [Column 5, Lines 1-4], and [Column 12, Lines 47-51]).
16. Regarding Claim 11, Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman remains as applied above in Claim 7, and further, Fukuman teaches the existence reliability is further adjusted higher as an intensity of a detection signal is higher (Fukuman: [0038] Note that the existence reliability being adjusted higher as an intensity of a detection signal is higher is equivalent to increasing the reliability level more when the object is in the stable detection area compared to the unstable detection area.).
17. Regarding Claim 13, Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Watanabe teaches the processing circuitry calculates the existence reliability higher when the target object candidate is located on a scheduled route than when the target object candidate is not located on the scheduled route (Watanabe: [0038] and [0055]).
18. Regarding Claim 15, Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Fukuman teaches the processing circuitry calculates the existence reliability based on one or two or more of the nautical chart data, tidal current data, and weather data, in addition to the attribute (Fukuman: [0074] Note that weather data is equivalent to air temperature, humidity, and wind.).
19. Regarding Claim 17, Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Watanabe teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate an evading navigation plan route based on the target object candidate data of the target object candidate and the existence reliability (Watanabe: [0092] and [0103]).
20. Regarding Claim 18, Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Watanabe teaches a ship controlling part configured to control the ship according to the evading navigation plan route (Watanabe: [0060], [0092], and [0103]).
21. Regarding Claim 19, Funk teaches a method of detecting a target object for a ship, comprising the steps of: generating, by each of a plurality of candidate data generating parts, target object candidate data including position data of a target object candidate existing around the ship, wherein the plurality of candidate data generating parts includes at least a radar and an automatic identification system (AIS) (Funk: [Column 6, Lines 3-7], [Column 7, Lines 60-67; Column 8, Lines 1-11]; and [Column 10, Lines 1-6]);
Selecting a plurality of target object candidate data indicative of the same target object candidates based on the position data from the target object candidate data generated by the plurality of candidate data generating parts (Funk: [Column 2, Lines 23-25], [Column 4, Line 33], [Column 7, Lines 33-41], and [Column 9, Lines 8-13]);
And calculating a… reliability of the same target object candidates based on attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts that generated the plurality of selected target object candidate data among the plurality of candidate data generating parts… (Funk: [Column 4, Lines 23-32], [Column 7, Lines 20-29], and [Column 12, Lines 39-46]).
Funk fails to explicitly teach to calculate an existence reliability of the same target object candidates. However, Funk does teach the data association probability. This is equivalent to the existence reliability because the probability determines the final targets. The initial set of candidate targets is reduced based on the probability and some of the initial candidate targets are eliminated based on a low data association probability. The data association probability of Funk is equivalent to the claimed existence reliability because final candidate targets are determined based on the data associated with the targets, and if the probability is too low, then the candidate targets are not considered for obstacle avoidance.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Watanabe teaches to calculate an existence reliability of the same target object candidates based on attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts that generated the plurality of selected target object candidate data among the plurality of candidate data generating parts, each of the attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts having a weight that indicates reliability… (Watanabe: [0047], [0051], and [0093] Note that Watanabe teaches that sensor with high accuracy are given a higher weight compared to sensors with low accuracy when calculating the reliability.).
Funk and Watanabe are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Funk to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe for each of the attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts to have a weight that indicates reliability because it provides the benefit of improving detection reliability when navigating a vehicle for collision avoidance. Thus, as a result, improves the detection of obstacles and avoid erroneous detections for the candidate data generating parts with varying accuracy. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness for the operators and increased safety for the passengers and surroundings.
Funk and Watanabe fail to explicitly teach the existence reliability is adjusted higher as a size of the target object candidate increases, a moving speed of the target object candidate increases, or an elapsed time since detection increases.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fukuman teaches the existence reliability is adjusted higher as a size of the target object candidate increases, a moving speed of the target object candidate increases, or an elapsed time since detection increases. (Fukuman: [0036] Note that the existence reliability is adjusted higher as an elapsed time since detection is equivalent to the reliability counter exceeding a threshold value based on the increased number of times that the sensor detects the object.).
Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Funk and Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Fukuman to improve the reliability of detecting objects in a vehicle's surrounding environment. Adjusting the existence reliability to be higher as an elapsed time since detection increases provides the benefit of confidently detecting objects for increasing the safety of the vehicle by controlling the vehicle to avoid collisions.
22. Regarding Claim 20, Funk teaches a reliability estimating device, comprising: processing circuitry configured to: acquire target object candidate data generated by each of a plurality of candidate data generating parts, the target object candidate data including position data of a target object candidate existing around a ship, wherein the plurality of candidate data generating parts includes at least a radar and an automatic identification system (AIS) (Funk: [Column 6, Lines 3-7], [Column 7, Lines 60-67; Column 8, Lines 1-11]; and [Column 10, Lines 1-6]);
Select a plurality of target object candidate data indicative of the same target object candidates based on the position data from the target object candidate data generated by the plurality of candidate data generating parts (Funk: [Column 2, Lines 23-25], [Column 4, Line 33], [Column 7, Lines 33-41], and [Column 9, Lines 8-13]),
And calculate a… reliability of the same target object candidates based on attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts that generated the plurality of selected target object candidate data among the plurality of candidate data generating parts… (Funk: [Column 4, Lines 23-32], [Column 7, Lines 20-29], and [Column 12, Lines 39-46]).
Funk fails to explicitly teach to calculate an existence reliability of the same target object candidates. However, Funk does teach the data association probability. This is equivalent to the existence reliability because the probability determines the final targets. The initial set of candidate targets is reduced based on the probability and some of the initial candidate targets are eliminated based on a low data association probability. The data association probability of Funk is equivalent to the claimed existence reliability because final candidate targets are determined based on the data associated with the targets, and if the probability is too low, then the candidate targets are not considered for obstacle avoidance.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Watanabe teaches to calculate an existence reliability of the same target object candidates based on attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts that generated the plurality of selected target object candidate data among the plurality of candidate data generating parts, each of the attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts having a weight that indicates reliability… (Watanabe: [0047], [0051], and [0093] Note that Watanabe teaches that sensor with high accuracy are given a higher weight compared to sensors with low accuracy when calculating the reliability.).
Funk and Watanabe are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Funk to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe for each of the attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts to have a weight that indicates reliability because it provides the benefit of improving detection reliability when navigating a vehicle for collision avoidance. Thus, as a result, improves the detection of obstacles and avoid erroneous detections for the candidate data generating parts with varying accuracy. This provides the additional benefit of increased awareness for the operators and increased safety for the passengers and surroundings.
Funk and Watanabe fail to explicitly teach the existence reliability is adjusted higher as a size of the target object candidate increases, a moving speed of the target object candidate increases, or an elapsed time since detection increases.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fukuman teaches the existence reliability is adjusted higher as a size of the target object candidate increases, a moving speed of the target object candidate increases, or an elapsed time since detection increases. (Fukuman: [0036] Note that the existence reliability is adjusted higher as an elapsed time since detection is equivalent to the reliability counter exceeding a threshold value based on the increased number of times that the sensor detects the object.).
Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Funk and Watanabe to incorporate the teachings of Fukuman to improve the reliability of detecting objects in a vehicle's surrounding environment. Adjusting the existence reliability to be higher as an elapsed time since detection increases provides the benefit of confidently detecting objects for increasing the safety of the vehicle by controlling the vehicle to avoid collisions.
23. Claims 2, 5, 8, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk (US 7692573 B1), in view of Watanabe (JP 6645074 B2), in view of Fukuman (US 20160116586 A1), and in further view of Suresh (US 20200050893 A1).
24. Regarding Claim 2, Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Funk teaches the target object candidate data further includes classification data of the target object candidate (Funk: [Column 8, Lines 39-49] ).
Funk fails to explicitly teach the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate a classification reliability of the same target object candidate based on the classification data included in each of the plurality of selected target object candidate data and the attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts that generated the plurality of selected target object candidate data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suresh teaches the target object candidate data further includes classification data of the target object candidate (Suresh: [0066]),
The processing circuitry is further configured to calculate a classification reliability of the same target object candidate based on the classification data included in each of the plurality of selected target object candidate data and the attributes of the plurality of candidate data generating parts that generated the plurality of selected target object candidate data (Suresh: [0073], [0076], and [0168]).
Funk, Watanabe, Fukuman, and Suresh are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman to incorporate the teachings of Suresh to calculate a classification reliability of the same target object candidate based on the classification data and attributes because it provides the benefit of improving object detection to control maritime vessels. The score provides the benefit of improving the neural network that determines the classifications of the target objects.
25. Regarding Claim 5, Funk, Watanabe, Fukuman, and Suresh remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Funk teaches the plurality of candidate data generating parts further include at least one of a communication device configured to receive information on other ships, a sonar, a set of an image sensor configured to image overboard and a discriminating part configured to discriminate the target object candidate in the image, and an instruction accepting part configured to receive an instruction of the target object candidate in the image by a user (Funk: [Column 7, Lines 45-50] and [Column 7, Lines 60-67; Column 8, Lines 1-11]).
26. Regarding Claim 8, Funk, Watanabe, Fukuman, and Suresh remains as applied above in Claim 5, and further, Funk teaches one of the plurality of candidate data generating parts includes: a detector comprised of a radar, an image sensor, or a sonar, and configured to output detection data (Funk: [Column 7, Lines 45-50], and [Column 7, Lines 60-67; Column 8, Lines 1-11]);
And a discriminating part configured to estimate a classification of the target object candidate appearing in the detection data outputted from the detector by using a learned model generated in advance by machine learning, in which the detection data is used as input data and the classification of the target object is used as teaching data, and generate the classification data (Funk: [Column 8, Lines 39-49], [Column 12, Lines 47-51], and [Column 12, Lines 66-67; Column 13, Lines 1-6]).
27. Regarding Claim 12, Funk, Watanabe, Fukuman, and Suresh remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Funk teaches the existence reliability is further adjusted higher as an intensity of a detection signal is higher (Fukuman: [0038] Note that the existence reliability being adjusted higher as an intensity of a detection signal is higher is equivalent to increasing the reliability level more when the object is in the stable detection area compared to the unstable detection area.).
28. Regarding Claim 14, Funk, Watanabe, Fukuman, and Suresh remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Watanabe teaches the processing circuitry calculates the existence reliability higher when the target object candidate is located on a scheduled route than when the target object candidate is not located on the scheduled route (Watanabe: [0038] and [0055]).
29. Regarding Claim 16, Funk, Watanabe, Fukuman, and Suresh remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Fukuman teaches the processing circuitry calculates the existence reliability based on one or two or more of the nautical chart data, tidal current data, and weather data, in addition to the attribute (Fukuman: [0074] Note that weather data is equivalent to air temperature, humidity, and wind.).
30. Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk (US 7692573 B1), in view of Watanabe (JP 6645074 B2), in view of Fukuman (US 20160116586 A1), and in further view of Suzuki (JP 2005141656 A).
31. Regarding Claim 21, Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman fail to explicitly teach to display the plurality of target object candidate data, and a display mode of the target object candidate data is adjusted based on the existence reliability.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches to display the plurality of target object candidate data, and a display mode of the target object candidate data is adjusted based on the existence reliability (Suzuki: [0079] Note that displaying candidate with high reliability or rejecting the warning information [candidate data] is equivalent adjusting the display mode of the candidate data based on the reliability.).
Funk, Watanabe, Fukuman, and Suzuki are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection and navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Funk, Watanabe, and Fukuman to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki to adjust the display mode of the target object candidate data based on the existence reliability because it provides the benefit of improving the information received by the operator and improving the awareness of the operator. This provides the additional benefit of increased safety in a vehicle environment.
32. Regarding Claim 23, Funk, Watanabe, Fukuman, and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 21, and further, Suzuki teaches the target object candidate data is not displayed when the existence reliability is below a predetermined threshold (Suzuki: [0079]).
33. Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funk (US 7692573 B1), in view of Watanabe (JP 6645074 B2), in view of Fukuman (US 20160116586 A1), in view of Suzuki (JP 2005141656 A), and in further view of Kumon (JP 2009117978 A).
34. Regarding Claim 22, Funk, Watanabe, Fukuman, and Suzuki remains as applied above in Claim 21.
Funk, Watanabe, Fukuman, and Suzuki fail to explicitly teach a symbol of the target object candidate data is displayed brighter as the existence reliability is higher.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kumon teaches a symbol of the target object candidate data is displayed brighter as the existence reliability is higher (Kumon: [0016], [0063], and [0064] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a symbol displayed brighter as the reliability is higher is equivalent to displaying with more emphasis as the reliability is higher.)
Funk, Watanabe, Fukuman, Suzuki, and Kumon are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of object detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Funk, Watanabe, Fukuman, and Suzuki, to incorporate the teachings of Kumon to display a symbol of the target object candidate data brighter as the existence reliability is higher because it provides the benefit of increased awareness of the operator and increased safety of the vehicle and surrounding
Response to Arguments
35. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-5 and 7-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Fukuman (US 20160116586 A1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of increasing the existence reliability as the elapsed time since detection increases in the rejection above as cited in at least paragraph [0036]. Fukuman teaches to increase the reliability counter every increment the object in front of the vehicle is detected.
36. Funk (US 7692573 B1), in view of Watanabe (JP 6645074 B2), in view of Fukuman (US 20160116586 A1), in view of Suzuki (JP 2005141656 A), and in further view of Kumon (JP 2009117978 A) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
37. Claims 1-5 and 7-23 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Prior Art
38. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered most relevant to applicant's disclosure.
Mizutani (US 20160084942 A1)
Strauss (US 20100007728 A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663