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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 11-25 pending.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed September 18 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Objection to claim 1 has been overcome due to amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5, 11-25 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. The phrase “model trained to predict a pattern in data that is sequential” lacks support in the specification. The words “pattern” and “sequential” are not found in the instant application specification. While instant app specification [0053] recites “a trained temporal model,” it is not clear whether this is what the claim language refers to. See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 15 and 24 recite similar elements and are rejected for similar reasons. Dependent claims rejected due to nature of dependency upon claims 1/ 15/ 24.
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 1-5, 11-25 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “determining a position… using a model trained to predict a pattern in data that is sequential” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear, e.g., whether the model outputs a determined position or whether it outputs a pattern. It is further unclear whether the term “sequential” is used to describe the data or the pattern. See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The phrases “first element of a movement that is one-dimensional” and “second element of the movement that is one-dimensional” further render the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the term “one-dimensional” is used to describe either the element or the movement. Examiner’s best understanding in light of the specification and drawings is that the term one-dimensional refers to the elements. See, e.g., instant application Fig. 5 where S515 appears to correspond to the first element and S520 appears to correspond to the second element used for inputting into the model to determine a 2D position as described in claim 1. Claims 15 and 24 recite similar elements and are rejected for similar reasons. Dependent claims rejected due to nature of dependency upon claims 1/ 15/ 24.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-16, and 20-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150346820 A1 to Poupyrev in view of US 20220003862 A1 to Fei and further in view of US 12479426 B2 to Glaeser.
Regarding claim 1,
Poupyrev teaches:
A method comprising:
transmitting, by a peripheral device including a transmitter (Fig 1; [0024-26] – “wearable radar-based gesture-recognition system 104-2” [0031-32] – “104 includes a microwave radio element 212… configured to emit continuously modulated radiation, ultra-wideband radiation, or sub-millimeter-frequency radiation.”) and communicatively coupled to a wearable device, ([0026-28] – “wearable radar-based gesture-recognition system 104-2 interacts with remote computing devices 108… remote computing device 108 can be wearable”) a continuous wave, ([0031-32] – “104 includes a microwave radio element 212… configured to emit continuously modulated radiation.”) the peripheral device being worn by a user of the wearable device; (Fig. 1; [0026-28] – “wearable radar-based gesture-recognition system 104-2 interacts with remote computing devices 108… Gestures can be mapped to various remote computing devices 108 and their applications, thereby enabling control of many devices and applications… remote computing device 108 can be wearable”)
receiving, by a receiver of the peripheral device, a reflected signal based on the continuous wave; ([0033] – “Antenna element 214 is configured to sense interactions in the localized radar field… signal processor 216 is configured to process the sensed interactions in the localized radar field sufficient to provide gesture data usable to determine a gesture from the sensed interactions.””)
determining a first element of a movement that is one-dimensional associated with the peripheral device based on (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) the reflected signal; ([0033] – “signal processor 216 is configured to process the sensed interactions in the localized radar field sufficient to provide gesture data usable to determine a gesture from the sensed interactions.” [0046] – “104 may also include… system media 222 includes system manager 224, which can perform various operations, including determining a gesture based on gesture data from signal processor 216, mapping the determined gesture to a pre-configured control gesture” [0056] – “At 1210, a gesture is determined based on the sensed interaction in the localized radar field. The sensed interaction can be processed by signal processor 216, which may provide gesture data for later determination as to the gesture intended, such as by system manager 224” Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining a first element of a movement that is one-dimensional” in light of the specification includes determining a control gesture (in the one dimension of pre-configured control gestures). See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).)
communicating, from the peripheral device to the wearable device, an information corresponding to the movement and position associated with the peripheral device. ([0046] – “system manager 224, which can perform various operations, including determining a gesture based on gesture data from signal processor 216, mapping the determined gesture to a pre-configured control gesture associated with a control input for an application associated with remote device 108, and causing transceiver 218 to transmit the control input to the remote device effective to enable control of the application.” [0057-58] – “At 1212, the determined gesture is passed to an application or operating system effective to cause an application or operating system to receive an input corresponding to the determined gesture… present the sensed interaction at a location in the visual approximation for the object corresponding to the sensed interaction's location at the object's surface, similar to operation 1208.”)
Fei teaches:
determining a first element of a movement that is one-dimensional associated with the peripheral device based on a shift associated with the reflected signal; ([0011] – “The received signal, in particular the beat signal, can be further processed to obtain at least one spectrogram from the signal. For example, a 2-dimensional finite Fourier transform can be applied on the received signal (particularly beat signal), preferably for each measurement-cycle, such that a time-varying velocity information can be observed. As a result of the Fourier transform applied for each measurement-cycle, a 3-D range-Doppler-measurement-cycle array can be obtained. A spectrogram, which particularly represents the μD signatures, can be deduced by integrating the resulting 3-D range-Doppler-measurement-cycle array over range.” See rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Examiner further notes that 1D first element may correspond to any one of the dimensions of, e.g., 3-D range-Doppler-measurement-cycle array or μD spectrograms.)
determining a second element of the movement that is one-dimensional by calculating a phase difference associated with the reflected signal; ([0011] – “To calculate the phase differences of the received signals, the spatial difference between two receiver antennas in elevation and azimuth directions can be considered… Using two receiver antennas that have a spatial difference of λ/2, the direction angle of an object could be estimated via the phase difference” See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).)
determining a gesture based on the first element and the second element using a model trained to predict a pattern in data that is sequential; ([0007] – “phase-difference information as an input for the neural network to obtain a result (as an output of the neural network) specific for the detection and classification of the gestures.” [0017] – “at least one spectrogram is determined from the detection information and used as the input, in addition to the phase-difference information, for the neural network. In other words, the input comprises the spectrogram and the phase-difference information and is fed into the neural network.” [0011] – “For gesture recognition, i.e. detection and classification, the phase-difference information can be directly utilized as a function of the measurement-cycle, which contains the information of the direction angle of gestures.” See also rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112 (b).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Fei’s known technique to Poupyrev’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Poupyrev teaches a base method of a wearable peripheral radar device which uses continuous modulation to detect and determine a gesture, and then uses that determined gesture to control a separate wearable device; (2) Fei teaches a specific method of FMCW processing and gesture determination by a neural network; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved gesture sensing; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Glaeser teaches:
determining a position that has two dimensions based on the first element and the second element using a model trained to predict a pattern in data that is sequential ([claims 3, 10] – “machine learning model determines the predicted object boundary box using at least one physical movement model… determining, using object boundary boxes predicted using the machine learning model, a predicted future movement of at least one object.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Glaeser’s known technique to Poupyrev in view of Fei’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Poupyrev in view of Fei teaches a base method of a wearable peripheral radar device which uses continuous modulation to detect and determine a gesture using a gesture recognition model, and then uses that determined gesture to control a separate wearable device; (2) Glaeser teaches a specific model for object movement prediction for tracking which includes outputting a predicted bounding box of the object; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved gesture sensing; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2,
Poupyrev in view of Fei and further in view of Glaeser teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Poupyrev further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the movement associated with the peripheral device is at least one of movement of the peripheral device or movement of an object proximate to the peripheral device. (Fig. 1, Fig. 4; [0037] – “surface radar field 402 emitted by wearable radar-based gesture-recognition system 104-2 of FIG. 1. With surface radar field 402, a user's hand (right hand 404) may interact to perform gestures, such as to tap on the user's other hand (left hand 406), thereby interrupting surface radar field 402. Example gestures include single and multi-finger swipe, spread, squeeze, non-linear movements, and so forth.”)
Regarding claim 11,
Poupyrev in view of Fei and further in view of Glaeser teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Poupyrev further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the continuous wave is a (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) modulated continuous wave. ([0031-32] – “104 includes a microwave radio element 212… configured to emit continuously modulated radiation, ultra-wideband radiation, or sub-millimeter-frequency radiation.”)
Fei further teaches:
the continuous wave is a frequency-modulated continuous wave ([0026] – “radar system is configured as a frequency-modulated continuous wave radar system (FMCW). For example, the radar system can be configured as a 77 GHz FMCW radar. This allows for an effective recognition of gestures.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Fei’s known technique to Poupyrev’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Poupyrev teaches a base method of a wearable peripheral radar device which uses continuous modulation to detect and determine a gesture, and then uses that determined gesture to control a separate wearable device; (2) Fei teaches a specific method of FMCW processing and gesture determination by a neural network; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved gesture sensing; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12,
Poupyrev in view of Fei and further in view of Glaeser teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Poupyrev further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the information includes two or more reflected signals based on the continuous wave. ([0033-34] – “Antenna element 214 can include one or many sensors, such as an array of radiation sensors, the number in the array based on a desired resolution and whether the field is a surface, plane, or volume… The field provided by microwave radio element 212 can be a three-dimensional (3D) volume… antenna element 214 is configured to sense interactions in the 3D volume of multiple targets (e.g., fingers, one moving finger, or hand elements such as knuckles or a palm)” Examiner notes that “two or more reflected signals based on the continuous wave” may correspond to a signal reflected at the same target and received at multiple antennas or to received signals each reflected at a different target)
Regarding claim 13,
Poupyrev in view of Fei and further in view of Glaeser teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Poupyrev further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the information indicates the reflected signal is associated with two or more surfaces. ([0033-34] – “The field provided by microwave radio element 212 can be a three-dimensional (3D) volume… antenna element 214 is configured to sense interactions in the 3D volume of multiple targets (e.g., fingers, one moving finger, or hand elements such as knuckles or a palm)”
Regarding claim 14,
Poupyrev in view of Fei and further in view of Glaeser teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Poupyrev does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Fei further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the information indicates the reflected signal includes a change in frequency. ([0026] – “radar system is configured as a frequency-modulated continuous wave radar system (FMCW). For example, the radar system can be configured as a 77 GHz FMCW radar. This allows for an effective recognition of gestures.”) ([0011] – “The received signal, in particular the beat signal, can be further processed to obtain at least one spectrogram from the signal… 3-D range-Doppler-measurement-cycle array can be obtained.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Trotta’s known technique to Poupyrev’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Poupyrev teaches a base method of a wearable peripheral radar device which uses continuous modulation to detect and determine a gesture, and then uses that determined gesture to control a separate wearable device; (2) Trotta teaches a specific method of FMCW gesture determination used in a radar system of a wearable device (see Trotta [0047]) coupled to a wearable device in order to use detected gestures as an input to control such wearable devices (see Trotta [0024]); (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved gesture sensing; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 15-16 and 20-23,
Claim(s) 15-16 and 20-23 is/are product claims corresponding to method claim(s) 1-2 and 11-14 respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 15-16 and 20-23 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 11-14.
Regarding claim(s) 24-25,
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to method claim(s) 1 and 11, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 24-25 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150346820 A1 to Poupyrev in view of US 20220003862 A1 to Fei and further in view of US 12479426 B2 to Glaeser and further in view of US 20200204541 A1 to Nair.
Regarding claim 3,
Poupyrev in view of Fei and further in view of Glaeser teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Poupyrev in view of Fei and further in view of Glaeser does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Nair teaches:
storing, by the peripheral device, an initial position of the peripheral device; ([0035] – “Radar detection components 120 may be used to determine a location of user device 110, which may be utilized when generating and/or responding to an authentication request with object 130.”) ([0047] – “The user data may also include currently detected data of the user, such as a geo-location, parameters of the user detected by user device 110 through radar detection components 120, and/or location parameters detected through radar detection components 120” [0016] – “The device may further include additional components that may capture information associated with the user's gesture or motion, such as a GPS locator or other location detection component that may determine a geo-location of the device) and
determining, by the peripheral device, the first element as a ([0063] – “User device 110 and radar detection component 120 may rebuild object size, shape, location, movement (velocity/acceleration), and other data by utilizing resulting images received by radar detection component 120. User device 110 may then process the 3D radar data”) ([0047] – “The user data may also include currently detected data of the user, such as a geo-location, parameters of the user detected by user device 110 through radar detection components 120, and/or location parameters detected through radar detection components 120”) ([0068] – “Authentication of the user may also be based on the particular features or properties of hand 102a with respect to the user and known data of the user, as well as hand 102a's movement within environment 200c and the known location, spatial, and object data of environment 200c” [0016] – “The device may further include additional components that may capture information associated with the user's gesture or motion, such as a GPS locator or other location detection component that may determine a geo-location of the device and/or a route traveled by the device.”) ([0063] – “user device 110 may transmit the 3D data to another device/server for authentication, such as an online service provider that provides access to a virtual resource or user device 160 that authenticates user 102 to user 104.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Nair’s known technique to Poupyrev in view of Fei’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Poupyrev teaches a base method of a wearable peripheral radar device which uses continuous modulation to detect and determine a gesture, and then uses that determined gesture to control a separate wearable device; (2) Nair teaches that device location data may be used to contextualize detected gesture data; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved gesture sensing; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
A modification of Nair (‘541) to use Cartesian coordinates to express 3D data would have been obvious to try as one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a finding is proper because (1) at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, in this case a need to express position in 3 dimensions; (2) there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem, e.g. Cartesian, spherical, and polar; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 4,
Poupyrev in view of Fei and further in view of Glaeser and further in view of Nair teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Poupyrev in view of Fei and further in view of Glaeser does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Nair further teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the cartesian coordinate is a one-dimensional (1D) coordinate variable. ([0063] – “user device 110 may transmit the 3D data to another device/server for authentication, such as an online service provider that provides access to a virtual resource or user device 160 that authenticates user 102 to user 104.” Examiner notes that 3D coordinates include a one-dimensional coordinate variable.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Nair’s known technique to Poupyrev in view of Trotta’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Poupyrev in view of Trotta teaches a base method of a wearable peripheral radar device which uses continuous modulation to detect and determine a gesture, and then uses that determined gesture to control a separate wearable device; (2) Nair teaches that device location data may be used to contextualize detected gesture data; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved gesture sensing; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5,
Poupyrev in view of Fei and further in view of Glaeser and further in view of Nair teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
Poupyrev in view of Fei and further in view of Glaeser does not explicitly teach the additional elements of the claim.
Nair further teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the cartesian coordinate is a two-dimensional (2D) coordinate variable. ([0063] – “user device 110 may transmit the 3D data to another device/server for authentication, such as an online service provider that provides access to a virtual resource or user device 160 that authenticates user 102 to user 104.” Examiner notes that 3D coordinates include a two-dimensional coordinate variable.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Nair’s known technique to Poupyrev in view of Trotta’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Poupyrev in view of Trotta teaches a base method of a wearable peripheral radar device which uses continuous modulation to detect and determine a gesture, and then uses that determined gesture to control a separate wearable device; (2) Nair teaches that device location data may be used to contextualize detected gesture data; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in a system with improved gesture sensing; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 17-19,
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are product claims corresponding to method claim(s) 3-5, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 17-19 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 3-5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648