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 .
Examiner’s Note
The overall instant application appears to be directed to a teaching tool embodiments comprising: a trackable physical object, a system to measure one or multiple attributes of the object, and a digital interface from which the user receives feedback (instant application publication, Haas et al. US 2023/0124395, [0060] hereinafter Haas). The trackable physical object used for learning, teaching and training appears to provide the basis of any possible novelty (Figs. 2-31 and 50-51). Thus the instant application is directed to the key features of the trackable physical object, and not the plethora of methods to measure the trackable physical object.
However the claims in their present form are extremely broad and focus on the measurement process rather than the trackable physical object.
This has resulted in a set of genus level claims for ANY object which exhibits a deformation property. The overall specification in no manner addresses the many measurement techniques claimed as applied to the innumerable real world objects that are encompassed by the breadth of the claims.
The examiner has found little art that focuses on a trackable physical object used for learning, teaching and training as taught in the specification but only alluded to in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 regarding the prior art 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. Specifically the claims have been amended to require “determining a physical deformation” which is not taught by the previously applied prior art.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims are genus claims relating to a specification which only teaches a limited set of trackable physical object that can be deformed in a particular manner. The disclosed species do not teach, disclose or anticipate the breadth of the genus of inventions spanned by the claims.
MPEP 2163
Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications Under the 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, "Written Description" Requirement [R-5], II. METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING ADEQUACY OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION, A.-3.-(a)-ii)
For each claim drawn to a genus:
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A), above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B), above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C), above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
The Federal Circuit has explained that a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 "merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed." LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand applicant to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed. In LizardTech, claims to a generic method of making a seamless discrete wavelet transformation (DWT) were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph because the specification taught only one particular method for making a seamless DWT and there was no evidence that the specification contemplated a more generic method. See also < Tronzo v. Biomet, 156 F.3d at 1159, 47 USPQ2d at 1833 (Fed. Cir. 1998), > wherein < the disclosure of a species in the parent application did not suffice to provide written description support for the genus in the child application.
… If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
In particular, the instant application fails to provide written description of the extremely broad range of a trackable physical objects and their measurement by a camera (Claim 18) or the other methods of a LiDAR sensor, infrared camera, sonar sensor, ultrasound sensor, coded light sensor, structured light sensor, or time of flight sensor (claim 1). The rejections below use prior art to demonstrate species covered by the broad genus claims but are NOT anticipated by the instant application. One set of target objects are building structures damaged by earthquakes. The second set of target objects are dams which are deformed due to the pressure of the water captured by the dams. These rejections meet the breadth of the genus claims while lacking any written description in the instant application.
To overcome this rejection a set of claims must be presented that describes the taught trackable physical object of the application such as shown in Figs. 2-31 and 50-51, which are measured using explicitly taught measurement methods for the particular version of the trackable physical object. The requirement is to claim the trackable physical object in a manner that excludes the myriad of other trackable physical objects in our world which are may be deformed and measured by the taught measurement techniques.
AIA Considerations Regarding Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 102 & 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 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.
Note: The following rejections are directed to the case where the trackable physical objects are buildings damaged by an earthquake.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong et al. (A comprehensive review of earthquake-induced building damage detection with remote sensing techniques, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 84 (2013) 85–99, hereinafter Dong), and further in view of Smits, US 9,753,126 (hereinafter Smits).
Claim 1: (Currently Amended):
Dong teaches a system comprising:
at least one object (building damage assessment, Abstract); and
Dong teaches using a camera (using camera images, 4.1.1 Visual interpretation), and/or LIDAR (3.3. LIDAR data).
Dong teaches the use of multiple computing methods but is silent concerning the physical embodiment of at least one computing system comprising a tracking system.
Smits teaches and overall tracking system Fig. 1 which may include a laptop, cell phone and desktop computer (col 7 ln 44-46). The computer (item 200 Fig 2) can integrate the following items into the single computer/device and include a display 228, camera 218, and the tracking system 254. The computing system may also contain the photon transmitter and photon receiver (col 7 ln 47-50) which can be part of a camera system or a LIDAR (col 50 ln 23-25).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the computing hardware of Smits with the tracking system method of Dong to perform the measurements and analysis in a predictable manner.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dong and Smits to obtain the invention:
at least one computing system (the computer 200 of Smits) comprising a tracking system (the tracking system 254 of Smits, Fig. 2) configured to
detect the at least one object using at least one of camera (Dong, using camera images, 4.1.1 Visual interpretation), and/or LIDAR (3.3. LIDAR data), wherein the at least one computing system determines at least one physical deformation attribute of the at least one object based on a measurable parameter of at least one feature of the at least one object using input from the tracking system (Dong, the determination of deformation/damage of buildings, Table 3, using the parameters of camera images and lidar distances across building structures Table 2, section 3. Building damage detection using both pre- and post-event data).
Claim 3: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the tracking system comprises a camera comprising at least one of a computer camera (Smits teaches in the combination in claim 1, the computer, item 200 Fig 2, can integrate the following items into the single computer/device and include an illuminator 232, camera 218, and the tracking system 254).
Claim 4: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one computing system, to determine the at least one physical deformation attribute, is configured to use numerical methods, calculus, derivations of the foregoing, approximation, or modeling (Dong pg. 90 second paragraph, “In this study, a comparison of four change detection methods on different texture features showed that the best results could be obtained from using principal component analysis with the ‘‘energy’’ texture feature.” Also, pg. 90 second column paragraph 3, “Features such as average height, volume, and tilting angle formed a normalized digital surface model (DSM), combined with other features such as pixel intensity and segment shape from images, were used to estimate the exact damage grade of each building.”)
Claim 5: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 4, wherein the at least one computing system further comprises a display device comprising a screen of at least one of a tablet, a laptop, a phone, and a desktop computer (Smits teaches and overall tracking system Fig. 1 which may include a laptop, cell phone and desktop computer, col 7 ln 44-46)
Claim 6: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 5, wherein the tracking system, the at least one computing system, and the display device are integrated into a single device (Smits teaches the computer, item 200 Fig 2, can integrate the following items into the single computer/device and include a display 228, camera 218, and the tracking system 254).
Claim 7: (Original):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one object comprises a rigid body (Dong teaches that the objects are buildings).
Claim 8: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one object comprises a first material forming a deformable body and a second material, wherein the second material has at least one material property selected from density, stiffness, and modulus of elasticity that is different than the first material of the deformable body (Dong teaches that the object can be a masonry and reinforced buildings, pg. 88 column1 first paragraph line 5. The first material is masonry which deforms with earthquake damage, and the second material steel differs in density, stiffness and in modulus of elasticity).
Claim 15: (Original):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one object comprise a plurality of objects connected to each other (Dong teaches detecting building damage. Buildings comprise multiple objects such as walls and roofs).
Claim 16: (Original):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 15, wherein each object of the plurality of objects comprises at least one connector configured to interface with at least one connector of another object of the plurality of objects (Dong teaches detecting building damage. Building walls and roofs are inherently connected together).
Claim 17: (Original):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, further comprising a manipulation device configured to impart a force on the at least one object (Dong teaches that buildings are manipulated by earthquakes).
Claim 18: (Currently Amended):
Dong teaches a method of detecting properties of at least one object (building damage assessment, Abstract) with a system, the system comprising the at least one object, a tracking system, and a computer system (determining earthquake damage of buildings using a tracking system of camera images, 4.1.1 Visual interpretation, and/or LIDAR 3.3. “LIDAR data” by processing data using a computer), the method comprising:
capturing, by a tracking system, frames of at least one object (Dong teaches any number of images used in a tracking system for determining earthquake damage, Table 2)
However Dong is silent concerning the physical equipment used to obtain camera images.
Smits teaches and overall tracking system Fig. 1 which may include a laptop, cell phone and desktop computer (col 7 ln 44-46). The computer (item 200 Fig 2) can integrate the following items into the single computer/device and include a display 228, camera 218, keypad 230, pointing device 244 and the tracking system 254. The computing system may also contain the photon transmitter and photon receiver (col 7 ln 47-50) which can be part of a camera system or a LIDAR (col 50 ln 23-25).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the computing hardware of Smits with the tracking system method of Dong to perform the measurements and analysis in a predictable manner.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dong and Smits to obtain the invention:
wherein the tracking system comprises at least one camera, and the at least one camera is configured to capture the frames of the at least one object;
segmenting, by a computer system, the at least one object from an environment, wherein the computer system is configured to segment and isolate the at least one object from the environment (Dong teaches, end of page 93, that Li et al. (2011) proposed an object-oriented method to extract damaged building in 0.5 m resolution aerial images acquired after the Wenchuan earthquake. In this method, image objects obtained by image segmentation were classified as damaged and undamaged by checking various features of objects, including spectral characteristics, texture characteristics, and characteristics of their spatial relations. The results showed that automatic recognition accuracy was better than 90%);
segmenting at least one surface feature from the at least one object (Dong teaches, end of page 93, the segmentation of building components in the segmentation cited above);
determining a position of the at least one surface feature (Dong teaches, end of page 93, the identified various features of the segmented objects); and
determining at least one physical deformation property of the at least one object by analyzing changes in relative positions between multiple surface features using the computer system and applying deep learning techniques to analyze the position of the at least one surface feature (Dong teaches, end of page 93, recognition of the damaged building).
Claim 20: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 18 makes obvious the system of claim 18, further comprising manipulating at least one variable associated with the at least one object based on a user input from a user. Smits teaches that the keypad can be used for receiving input from a use can be used to select and send mages (col 12 ln 30-34)
Claims 9, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong and Smits, and further in view of Axel et al. (“Building damage assessment using airborne lidar,” J. Appl. Remote Sens. 11(4), 046024, 2017, hereinafter Axel).
Claim 9: (Original):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one object comprises a rectangular prism shape.
Dong is silent concerning the shapes of the buildings.
Axel teaches processing the Lidar data and image data using the flowchart of Fig. 3. Fig 4 and 9 show images of building which include rectangular prism shapes.
Since Axel is also directed to identification of earthquake damaged buildings, it would be obvious to combine the teaching of Dong with the visual imagery capability of Axel to demonstrate the object shapes with predictable results.
Claim 10: (Original):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one object comprises a cylindrical shape. Dong is silent concerning the shapes of the buildings.
Axel teaches processing the Lidar data and image data using the flowchart of Fig. 3. Fig 4 and 9 show images of buildings. It is obvious for any city that cylindrical towers can be pat of the landscape and would be part of the analysis.
Since Axel is also directed to identification of earthquake damaged buildings, it would be obvious to combine the teaching of Dong with the visual imagery capability of Axel to demonstrate the object shapes with predictable results.
Claim 19: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Dong and Smits in claim 18 makes obvious the system of claim 18, further comprising displaying results in a graphical form of plots of the at least one object on a display device of the computing computer system.
Dong is silent concerning any graphical form of plots.
Axel teaches processing the Lidar data and image data using the flowchart of Fig. 3. Fig 4 shows images of buildings from the process of Fig. 3.
Since Axel and Dong are directed to the assessment of earthquake data to determine building damage, it would be obvious to include Axel’s graphical processes in Dong’s analysis with predictable results.
Note: This ends the rejections directed to the case where the trackable physical objects are buildings damaged by an earthquake.
Note: The following rejections are directed to the case where the trackable physical objects are a concrete or embankment dams which are deformed due to the water they contain.
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.
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, 3, 4, 7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boavida et al. (“Dam Monitoring Using Combined Terrestrial Imaging Systems”, 13th FIG Symposium on Deformation Measurement and Analysis 4th IAG Symposium on Geodesy for Geotechnical and Structural Engineering LNEC, LISBON 2008 May 12-15, hereinafter Boavida), and further in view of Smits, US 9,753,126 (hereinafter Smits).
Claim 1: (Currently Amended):
Boavida teaches a system comprising:
at least one object (concrete and embankment dams, Abstract); and
Boavida teaches using a camera (page 2 “Section 2. Overview of the technology”, Also D100 camera middle of pg. 7).
Boavida teaches the use of multiple computing methods (conventional CAD software, namely Microstation V8 by Bentley or AutoCad 2004 by AutoDesk, pg. 5, but is silent concerning the physical embodiment of at least one computing system comprising a tracking system.
Smits teaches and overall tracking system Fig. 1 which may include a laptop, cell phone and desktop computer (col 7 ln 44-46). The computer (item 200 Fig 2) can integrate the following items into the single computer/device and include a display 228, camera 218, and the tracking system 254. The computing system may also contain the photon transmitter and photon receiver (col 7 ln 47-50) which can be part of a camera system or a LIDAR (col 50 ln 23-25).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the computing hardware of Smits with the tracking system method of Boavida to perform the measurements and analysis in a predictable manner.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Boavida and Smits to obtain the invention:
at least one computing system (the computer 200 of Smits) comprising a tracking system (the tracking system 254 of Smits, Fig. 2) configured to
detect the at least one object using at least one of a camera, LiDAR sensor (using a camera of Lidar, page 2 “Section 2. Overview of the technology”,
wherein the at least one computing system determines at least one physical deformation attribute of the at least one object based on a measurable parameter of at least one feature of the at least one object using input from the tracking system (measuring the deformation of a dam Section “3.2 Surface deformation measurement on Lapão embankment dam”).
Claim 3: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Boavida and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the tracking system comprises a camera comprising at least one of a computer camera (Smits teaches in the combination in claim 1, the computer, item 200 Fig 2, can integrate the following items into the single computer/device and include an illuminator 232, camera 218, and the tracking system 254).
Claim 4: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Boavida and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one computing system, to determine the at least one physical deformation attribute, is configured to use geometry, trigonometry, numerical methods, calculus, derivations of the foregoing, approximation, modeling (producing 3D texturized models pg. 9 first paragraph, Fig. 5-9).
Claim 5: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Boavida and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 4, wherein the at least one computing system further comprises a display device comprising a screen of at least one of a tablet, a laptop, a phone, and a desktop computer (Smits teaches and overall tracking system Fig. 1 which may include a laptop, cell phone and desktop computer, col 7 ln 44-46)
Claim 6: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Boavida and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 5, wherein the tracking system, the at least one computing system, and the display device are integrated into a single device (Smits teaches the computer, item 200 Fig 2, can integrate the following items into the single computer/device and include a display 228, camera 218, and the tracking system 254).
Claim 7: (Original):
The combined art of Boavida and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one object comprises a rigid body. Boavida teaches tracking the objects of concrete and embankment dams, Abstract
Claim 11: (Original):
The combined art of Boavida and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one object comprises at least one surface feature. Boavida teaches using surface marks and retro-reflectors (pg. 7 first paragraph)
Claim 12: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Boavida and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 11, wherein the at least one surface feature comprises at least one of a surface mark, a texture, a shape, and a physical feature of or on the at least one object. Boavida teaches using surface marks and retro-reflectors (pg. 7 first paragraph)
Claim 13: (Original):
The combined art of Boavida and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 12, wherein the tracking system tracks the at least one surface feature. Boavida teaches tracking surface marks and retro-reflectors (pg. 7 first paragraph).
Claim 14: (Currently Amended):
The combined art of Boavida and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 13, wherein the at least one surface feature comprises a machine readable mark and the at least one computing device detects an attribute of the at least one object based on the machine readable mark. Boavida teaches tracking surface marks and retro-reflectors (pg. 7 first paragraph). The surface marks depict a particular position that is determined to be stable or moved (Fig. 6).
Claim 15: (Original):
The combined art of Boavida and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one object comprise a plurality of objects connected to each other. Boavida teaches the dam Fig 1, including the concrete portion and the railing portion near points 12-14. This is further shown in fig. 2.
Claim 16: (Original):
The combined art of Boavida and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 15, wherein each object of the plurality of objects comprises at least one connector configured to interface with at least one connector of another object of the plurality of objects. Obviously the dam and the railing sections are connected.
Claim 17: (Original):
The combined art of Boavida and Smits in claim 1 makes obvious the system of claim 1, further comprising a manipulation device configured to impart a force on the at least one object. Boavida teaches that the dams receive the force of the water behind them and this water level can be varied (section “3.2 Surface deformation measurement on Lapão embankment dam”)
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGIS J BETSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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.
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.
/REGIS J BETSCH/ SPE, Art Unit 2844