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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 10/14/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 5-7, and 9-13 are amended and claims 2-4 are cancelled. Thus, claims 1 and 5-13 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered. The claim objections to claims 1-13 are now withdrawn. Claim 2 has been cancelled and as such, the rejection of claims 2-8 made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn. The features of claim 2 have been incorporated into claim 1, and with this amendment, applicant has addressed the issues raised in the claim rejection. The amendment to claim 1 has overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), however, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8, applicant argues that the Miyaji reference does not teach the limitation where the “the reference object is at a position outside the detection area,” which was previously in claim 4, and has been incorporated into amended claim 1. Section 2111.01.I of the MPEP states that “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” This claim limitation simply necessitates that the reference object is not within the detection area. Applicant has cited paragraph [0023] of the Miyaji reference, which states that the distance sensor rotates to scan within the detection area, and that once it reaches the position of the reflector, it changes the scanning direction. Miyaji does not say that the reflectors themselves are within the detection area. Instead, Miyaji teaches that in order to scan the detection area, the distance sensor needs to change direction once it reaches this particular reflector, which suggests that this reflector is not part of the detection area and instead is an indication that the detection area has already been scanned in its entirety. The reflector defines the perimeter of the detection area, and once it has been reached, the detection area is no longer being scanned. Therefore, the reflector, taught by Miyaji, is outside of the detection area.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the irradiation region is distinct and larger than the detection area) are not recited in the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Interpretation
Amended claim 1 recites the limitation that the “reference object is at a position outside of the detection area, around the laser radar device…”. In paragraph [0016] of the applicant’s specifications, applicant states that the reference object is at a position on the light path at “an edge of the detection area in the scan cycle or at a position adjacent to the light path.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the reference object is positioned directly adjacent to the detection area or along the perimeter of the detection area.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because it is a substantial duplicate of claim 12. Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Line 3 of the claim recites that “the controller includes a memory that stores, as reference information, first information on a distance to the ground …”, however, claim 1 already recites the limitation of the controller including a memory that stores reference information. It is unclear whether this recitation of “a memory” is intended to introduce a second memory that stores second reference information, or if it is directed to the recitation of the memory in claim 1, and the reference information recited in claim 13 is part of the reference information recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi (JP 2011122851 A) in view of Miyaji (JP 2003011824 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Igarashi discloses a railroad crossing obstacle detection system (Figs. 1 and 2, laser radar head 5), comprising:
a laser radar device that includes an irradiator and a light receiver (Fig. 1, light projecting unit 1, light receiving unit 2), the irradiator applying laser light at irradiation angles set at every prescribed angle ([0026] “the motor drivers 11b and 12b transmit light projection condition signals Sc, such as the rotation angle of the polygon mirror 11 and the swing angle of the galvanometer mirror 12, to the signal processing unit 3”; Fig. 4, each of the measurement points are a set angle apart. On the horizontal axis it can be seen that each point P0-Pn is measured at a set angle apart from -30 to +30 degrees), and the light receiver receiving the laser light reflected (Fig. 1, returning light L2); and
a controller (Fig. 1, control device 6), wherein the laser radar device is configured to be supported by a support object such that the laser radar device is located above a detection area of an obstacle in a railroad crossing (Fig. 2, laser radar head 5 on top of the support pillar B scanning railroad crossing A and scanning range E), and to apply the laser light from above to the detection area ([0020] “a control device 6 that performs detection processing for objects within the area based on the scanning light and the reflected light”; Fig. 2, laser radar head 5 is above the scanning area and applying light from above),
the controller is configured to:
detect an obstacle located in the detection area based on a measurement result representing a distance to an object having reflected the laser light, and an irradiation angle for the object ([0034] “the measurement data D includes distance data indicating the distance from the laser radar head 5 to the reflection point of the scanning light L 1, … This measurement data D is generated for each of the points PO to Pn on each scanning line”; Fig. 4 each point P0 to Pn has an angle associated with it too); and
monitor a change of at least one of a position or a direction of the laser radar device based on the measurement result by the laser radar device ([0041] “the fault diagnosis unit 62 calculates the error in the distance data obtained from the required time signal Sd by the main signal processing unit 31 of the signal processing unit 3 using an error detection device (not shown) provided in the laser radar head 5, and outputs a fault signal to the output device 7 when the error exceeds a certain value”; it is understood that an error in an expected distance measurement can indicate a change of location/direction of the radar device),
the laser radar device is configured to scan the irradiation region by applying the laser light to acquire the measurement result, and the laser light is applied in the scan cycle ([0042] “The image processing unit 61 of the control device 6 having the configuration described above detects objects present in the scanning range E by analyzing the measurement data D generated from the scanning light L1 and its reflected light L2 that scan the entire scanning range E on the scanning line on the outbound or return path, in units of one frame of the scanning range E”).
However, Igarashi does not teach “the railroad crossing obstacle detection system comprises a reference object in an irradiation region of laser light, the controller includes a memory that stores, as reference information, information on a distance to the reference object and an irradiation angle for the reference object, or area information defined based on the information on the distance to the reference object and the irradiation angle for the reference object, and determines the change of at least one of the position or the direction of the laser radar device based on the reference information stored in the memory, and the measurement result, the reference object is at a position outside of the detection area, around the laser radar device, lower than a position of the laser radar device, and adjacent to a light path of a laser light applied at a start angle or an end angle in a detection range which is part of a scan cycle.”
Miyaji teaches the railroad crossing obstacle detection system comprises a reference object in an irradiation region of laser light (Figs. 1 and 4, reflectors 4, 5, 6, which are reference objects),
the controller includes a memory that stores, as reference information, information on a distance to the reference object and an irradiation angle for the reference object, or area information defined based on the information on the distance to the reference object and the irradiation angle for the reference object ([0018] “the rotational orientation and transmission/reception performance of the distance sensor 3 may be checked and calibrated based on the reflected signals from these reflectors 4, 5, and 6”; [0025] “Each time the light emitted from the distance sensor 3 passes through any of the reflectors 4, 5, and 6, the distance sensor 3 checks the deviation of the rotational orientation based on the reflected signal and corrects the deviation as necessary”), and determines the change of at least one of the position or the direction of the laser radar device based on the reference information stored in the memory and the measurement result ([0025] “Each time the light emitted from the distance sensor 3 passes through any of the reflectors 4, 5, and 6, the distance sensor 3 checks the deviation of the rotational orientation based on the reflected signal and corrects the deviation as necessary”),
the reference object is at a position outside of the detection area (Fig. 1, the dashed parallelogram defines the detection area, and reflectors 4, 5, and 6 are located just outside the corners of this area and are past the barriers 7 and 8), around the laser radar device (Fig. 1, the reflectors 4, 5, and 6 are adjacent to the detection area), lower than a position of the laser radar device (Fig. 4, reflectors 4, 5, 6 are poles that are on the ground and are roughly the height of a person or vehicle), and adjacent to a light path of a laser light applied at a start angle or an end angle in a detection range which is part of a scan cycle ([0023] “after the distance sensor 3 rotates counterclockwise through the detection area within the railroad crossing and reaches the position of the reflector 6, it then rotates clockwise to the position of the reflector 4. In this way, the distance sensor 3 rotates left and right within the detection area to detect obstacles within the crossing”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the railroad crossing obstacle detections system disclosed by Igarashi, by implementing the use of reference pillars as reference objects, and placing these reference objects at start and end angles of the scan cycle outside the detection area, as taught by Miyaji. This is beneficial because, by using reference objects which are in a fixed position with respect to the railroad crossing, as taught by Miyaji, the orientation of the detection system can be checked for any deviation in alignment and the system can be calibrated with these reference objects which mark boundaries of the detection area (Miyaji, [0023] and [0025]).
Regarding Claim 5: Igarashi, in view of Miyaji, teaches the railroad crossing obstacle detection system according to claim 1. In this combination, Miyaji further teaches wherein the reference object is on another support object different from the support object that supports the laser radar device ([0026] “the reflector is a passive component, such as a pillar with an aluminum plate attached, and does not require a power source or cables”; Figs. 1 and 4, reflectors 4, 5, and 6 are not attached to the same support that has the laser radar device).
Regarding Claim 6: Igarashi, in view of Miyaji, teaches the railroad crossing obstacle detection system according to claim 5. Igarashi further discloses wherein the detection area of the laser radar device extends along a road intersecting a railroad in the railroad crossing (Figs. 2 and 9 show the scanning range E extends to the road intersecting the railroad crossing).
In this combination, Miyaji further teaches both the support object and the other support objects are poles (Figs. 1 and 4, where the reflectors 4, 5, 6 are pillars; [0026]).
This combination does not expressly teach that the support object and other support objects are mutually parallel along the road.
However, Miyaji further teaches this limitation in Figs. 1 and 4, where the reflectors 4, 5, and 6, as well as the distance sensor 3, are arranged such that they are all mutually parallel along the road that intersects the railroad.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the system taught by Igarashi and Miyaji, by ensuring that the support objects for the lidar device and the reflectors are mutually parallel along the road as taught by Miyaji. This would be a different design option that would be motivated by the fact that “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi, in view of Miyaji, further in view of Hanai (US 20190107610 A1).
Regarding Claim 7: Igarashi, in view of Miyaji, teaches the railroad crossing obstacle detection system according to claim 1. However, they do not expressly teach the reference object is attached to the support object that supports the laser radar device using an attachment different from an attachment for the laser radar device.
Hanai teaches this limitation with Fig. 9, where lidar 20 is attached to structure 50 independently from water nozzle 30 with reflective portion 200, which is attached with its own mounting mechanism 35. The reflective portion 200 is used by the lidar device to detect the positioning of the washer nozzle with respect to the lidar device.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Igarashi and Miyaji, such that the reference objects are attached to the same structure that the lidar device is on, as taught by Hanai. The location of reference objects that are used to determine positioning of the lidar device itself is a matter of design choice, and to have the reference object be attached to the same pillar as the lidar device would be a different design option that would still enable the lidar device to measure its positioning and orientation relative to the reference objects. Thus, “Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art” (MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale F).
Regarding Claim 8: Igarashi, in view of Miyaji and Hanai, teaches the railroad crossing detection system according to claim 7. In this combination, Miyaji further teaches wherein the support object is a pole (Figs. 1 and 4, where the reflectors 4, 5, 6 are pillars; [0026]), and the reference object and the laser radar device viewed in a longitudinal direction of the pole are positionally offset from each other in a peripheral direction of the pole (Figs. 1 and 4 show that the reference objects 4, 5, 6 are positioned such that they are in a different peripheral direction of the lidar device such that they can signal the start and end angles of the scanning cycle).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi, in view of Miyaji, further in view of Kiss (US 20180094920 A1). Igarashi, in view of Miyaji, teaches the railroad crossing detection system according to claim 1. Igarashi further discloses the railroad crossing is provided with a crossing gate, the laser radar device is at a position higher than a position of a gate art of the crossing gate that is closed (Fig. 2 shows the laser radar device 5 being above the crossing gates when the arms are open, and because the arms are lowered in order to be closed, the laser radar device will still be above the gates when they are closed), the detection area is set such that the gate arm is located in the detection area when the crossing gate is closed (Fig. 9, the crossing gates are closed and are in the scanning range E of the laser radar head 5).
Igarashi and Miyaji do not expressly teach: “the memory stores, as gate arm information, first information on a distance to the gate arm and an irradiation angle for the gate arm when the crossing gate is closed, or second information relating to the first information, and the controller monitors a motion of the gate arm on the basis of the gate arm information and the measurement result.”
Kiss teaches the memory stores, as gate arm information, first information on a distance to the gate arm and an irradiation angle for the gate arm when the crossing gate is closed, or second information relating to the first information, and the controller monitors a motion of the gate arm on the basis of the gate arm information and the measurement result ([0017] “The reference image database 110 stores reference image data of the signaling equipment 104, 105. In particular, it may store a first reference image of the crossing gate 105 in its raised position and a second reference image of the crossing gate 105 in its lowered position”; [0022] “If the real image data of the crossing gate no longer matches any of the first or second reference images, then the crossing gate 105 is assumed to be moving”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of lidar technologies before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Igarashi and Miyaji, such that information about the gates is used for reference and the motion of the gate can be monitored, as taught by Kiss. This is beneficial because then a timer can be used to set how long it should normally take for the gates to open and close, and “If, by the end of the amount of time set by the timer, the image data processing device 108 fails to detect a match between the current real image data of the crossing gate and the first or second reference image, respectively, the image data processing device 108 concludes that the crossing gate 105 has a malfunction” (Kiss, [0023]).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi, in view of Miyaji, further in view of Mian (US 20140339374 A1).
Regarding Claim 10: Igarashi, in view of Miyaji, teaches the railroad crossing detection system according to claim 1. In this combination, Miyaji further teaches the use of the controller to determine a change of at least one of the position or the direction of the laser radar device on the basis of the reference information stored in the memory and the measurement result ([0018] “the rotational orientation and transmission/reception performance of the distance sensor 3 may be checked and calibrated based on the reflected signals from these reflectors 4, 5, and 6”; [0025] “Each time the light emitted from the distance sensor 3 passes through any of the reflectors 4, 5, and 6, the distance sensor 3 checks the deviation of the rotational orientation based on the reflected signal”).
However, Igarashi and Miyaji do not teach a reference object displaceable between a first position in the detection area and a second position out of the detection area, wherein the reference object is located at the second position when a crossing gate of the railroad crossing is open, and the reference object is located at the first position when the crossing gate is closed, and the controller includes a memory that stores, as reference information, first information on at least a distance to the reference object at the first position and an irradiation angle for the reference object, or second information relating to the first information.
Mian teaches a reference object displaceable between a first position in the detection area and a second position out of the detection area (Fig. 1, gates 12 as the reference object, which are outside the shaded portion indicating the field of view of lidar system 20 when in the open position as illustrated. It is also seen that if the gates 12 were lowered, that they would be in the field of view of the lidar system 20; [0060] describes that the gates 12 can be used to create a registration map, which means that they must be in the field of view of the lidar system 20, and if they are not in the field of view of the lidar device when opened, as illustrated in Fig. 1, they must be in the field of view when closed), wherein the reference object is located at the second position when a crossing gate of the railroad crossing is open (Fig. 1, gates 12 are open), and the reference object is located at the first position when the crossing gate is closed ([0060] describes that the gates 12 can be used to create a registration map, which means that they must be in the field of view of the lidar system 20, and if they are not in the field of view of the lidar device when opened, as illustrated in Fig. 1, they must be in the field of view when closed), and the controller includes a memory that stores, as reference information, first information on at least a distance to the reference object at the first position and an irradiation angle for the reference object, or second information relating to the first information, ([0060] “the computer system 40 can use other non-rail features, which may have known measurements, such as … the road 4, the gates 12, the lights 14, and/or the like, to create the registration map”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system taught by Igarashi and Miyaji, such that the railroad crossing gates are also used as reference objects and the detection area includes the railroad crossing gates, as taught by Mian. Having additional reference objects provides the system with additional geometric references (Mian, [0060]). This is beneficial because having more reference objects can improve detection accuracy by enabling the system to detect and correct deviations in the scan direction more frequently (Miyaji, [0027]).
Regarding Claim 11: Igarashi, in view of Miyaji and Mian, teaches the railroad crossing obstacle detection system according to claim 10. In this combination, Mian further teaches wherein the laser radar device is at a position higher than a position of a gate arm of the crossing gate that is closed (Fig. 1, the monitoring system 20 is above the gate arms when they are open, which means the monitoring system must also be above the gate arms when they are closed because when the gate arms are closed, they are lowered to a lower position),
the detection area is set such that the gate arm is located in the detection area when the crossing gate is closed ([0060] describes that the gates 12 can be used to create a registration map, which means that they must be in the field of view of the lidar system 20, and if they are not in the field of view of the lidar device when opened, as illustrated in Fig. 1, they must be in the field of view when closed),
and reference object is the gate arm ([0060] “the computer system 40 can use other non-rail features, which may have known measurements, such as … the gates 12, the lights 14, and/or the like, to create the registration map”).
Regarding Claim 12: Igarashi, in view of Miyaji, teaches the railroad crossing detection system according to claim 1. In this combination, Igarashi discloses the light receiver is configured to receive laser light reflected off a ground ([0030] and Fig. 2, the laser radar head 5 detects light L2 that has been reflected back from the environment. Whether the light L1 is incident on an obstacle or not, the light L2 will still be reflected back from the environment, so if there is no obstacle, it will be reflected off the ground).
However, Igarashi and Miyaji do not expressly teach: “the controller stores, in the memory, as second reference information, first information on a distance to the ground and an irradiation angle for the ground, or second information relating to the first information, and determines the change of at least one of the position or the direction of the laser radar device on the basis of the second reference information and the measurement result.”
However, Mian teaches that the light receiver is configured to receive laser light reflected off a ground ([0060] “the computer system 40 can use other non-rail features, which may have known measurements, such as … the road 4 … to create the registration map”), and the controller stores, in the memory, as second reference information, first information on a distance to the ground and an irradiation angle for the ground, or second information relating to the first information, and determines the change of at least one of the position or the direction of the laser radar device on the basis of the second reference information and the measurement result ([0061] “while monitoring the area 10 and one or more objects present in the area 10, the computer system 40 can match a location (e.g., a location at which the object touches the ground) of the object to the key locations and can determine precise coordinates of the object using the registration map … the computer system 40 can use other permanent objects or features in the field of view of a monitored area 10 to provide additional calibration and position references”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the system disclosed by Igarashi and Miyaji, to incorporate the use of measurements to the ground as another reference point as taught by Mian with their registration map. Using more stationary landmarks, such as the road, to create a registration map that acts as a reference is beneficial because it would be using the known technique of using more stationary landmarks as reference objects, to improve the railroad crossing obstacle detection system in the same way by enabling the system to provide additional calibration and position references (See MPEP 2143.III KSR Rationale C).
Regarding Claim 13: Igarashi, in view of Miyaji, teaches the railroad crossing detection system according to claim 1. In this combination, Igarashi discloses the light receiver is configured to receive laser light reflected off a ground ([0030] and Fig. 2, the laser radar head 5 detects light L2 that has been reflected back from the environment. Whether the light L1 is incident on an obstacle or not, the light L2 will still be reflected back from the environment, so if there is no obstacle, it will be reflected off the ground). In this combination, Miyaji further teaches that the controller includes a memory that stores reference information ([0025] “Each time the light emitted from the distance sensor 3 passes through any of the reflectors 4, 5, and 6, the distance sensor 3 checks the deviation of the rotational orientation based on the reflected signal and corrects the deviation as necessary.” To identify a deviation in distances to stationary reflectors, there must be reference information that is stored).
However, Igarashi and Miyaji do not expressly teach: “the controller includes a memory that stores, as reference information, first information on a distance to the ground and an irradiation angle for the ground, or second information relating to the first information, and determines the change of at least one of the position or the direction of the laser radar device on the basis of the second reference information and the measurement result.”
However, Mian teaches that the light receiver is configured to receive laser light reflected off a ground ([0060] “the computer system 40 can use other non-rail features, which may have known measurements, such as … the road 4 … to create the registration map”), and the controller includes a memory that stores, as reference information, first information on a distance to the ground and an irradiation angle for the ground, or second information relating to the first information, and determines the change of at least one of the position or the direction of the laser radar device on the basis of the second reference information and the measurement result ([0061] “while monitoring the area 10 and one or more objects present in the area 10, the computer system 40 can match a location (e.g., a location at which the object touches the ground) of the object to the key locations and can determine precise coordinates of the object using the registration map … the computer system 40 can use other permanent objects or features in the field of view of a monitored area 10 to provide additional calibration and position references”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the system disclosed by Igarashi and Miyaji, to incorporate the use of measurements to the ground as another reference point as taught by Mian with their registration map. Using more stationary landmarks, such as the road, to create a registration map that acts as a reference is beneficial because it would be using the known technique of using more stationary landmarks as reference objects, to improve the railroad crossing obstacle detection system in the same way by enabling the system to provide additional calibration and position references (See MPEP 2143.III KSR Rationale C).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM whose telephone number is (571)270-0570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Fridays 8am-12pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/ISABELLE LIN BOEGHOLM/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645