DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restriction requirement
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 13-20) in the reply filed on 09/16/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “there would not be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required”. This is found persuasive so the restriction is withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are examined in this office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 12 recites the limitation: “…at least one control device that is configured to control the steps of the method and to register anomalies in the connection region” , because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder “at least one control device” that is coupled with functional language “control the steps of the method and to register anomalies in the connection region” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “at least one control device” , claim 13 of the current application discloses: “the control device comprising one or more processors and a nontransitory computer-readable medium including instructions that are executable by the one or more processors”.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 4-5, “the at least two metal components” should be “the two metal components” so that it is consistent with “the two metal components” recited in line 3.
Claim 14, line 1, “instructions” should be “the instructions”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a connection region between the at least two metal components” in lines 4-5. It is unclear if the limitation “a connection region between the at least two metal components” (lines 4-5) refers to “a region of a connection… between at least two metal components” (lines 1-2). In light of the specification, pub. Para.0042 and 0051 disclose: “a region of a connection 13” and “the connecting region 13”. Therefore, for examination purposes, the limitation “a connection region between the at least two metal components” (lines 4-5) is construed as “a region of a connection… between at least two metal components” (lines 1-2).
Similarly, claim 13 recites the limitation “a connection region” in line 4 and it is unclear if the limitation “a connection region” refers to “a connection region of at least two metal components” recited in lines 1-2. For examination purposes, the limitation “a connection region” (line 4) is construed as “a connection region of at least two metal components” (lines 1-2).
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation "the photographic recordings" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if "the photographic recordings" refers to the “at least two image strips” previously recited in line 8. In light of the specification, pub. Para.0010 discloses: “creating at least two image strips in the recording, which are arranged vertically with respect to the longitudinal orientation of the connecting region”. Therefore, for examination purposes, the limitation “the photographic recordings are arranged vertically …” (lines 8-9) is construed as ““the at least two image strips are arranged vertically …”.
Similarly, claim 13 recites the limitation "the photographic recordings" in lines 13-14 and it is rejected by the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation “the photographic recordings are arranged vertically …” (lines 13-14) is construed as “the at least two image strips are arranged vertically …”.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claims 1 and 13.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hans-Richard (DE 10335501 A1, cited in 06/24/2022 IDS) in view of DeYong (US 20020159643 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Hans-Richard discloses
A method (see abstract: “Process for welding or cutting workpieces (2) along a predetermined edge comprises optically acquiring and evaluating a process site using a dynamic screening unit…”) for checking a region of a connection (37-38, see figs. 3-4 and para.0049: “During the welding process, the set weld seam ( 37, 38) can also be checked and monitored via the quality field ( 22)”) produced by a laser (9, see fig.1) between at least two metal components (see para.0025: “The workpiece ( 2) can consist, for example, of two or more metal sheets …which are to be welded by a laser weld along a predetermined path ( 3) “), the method comprising:
joining the metal components (two or more metal sheets, see para.0025) together by the laser (9, see para.0025: ““The workpiece ( 2) can consist, for example, of two or more metal sheets lying one on top of the other, which are to be welded by a laser weld along a predetermined path ( 3)”);
providing a photographic recording (seam image, see para.0049) of a connection region (37-38, see figs. 3-4) between the at least two metal components (two or more metal sheets, see para.0025) that has been formed during the joining of the metal components (see para.0049-0050: During the welding process, the set weld seam ( 37, 38) can also be checked and monitored via the quality field ( 22). In this case, the recorded seam image with stored seam images is monitored … the seam quality or the process quality can be monitored directly at the processor ( 21) on the basis of suitable features and, if appropriate, used for readjustment”. The seam image of the weld seam (37,38) between the metal sheets that has been formed during the joining of the metal sheets is provided to the processor 21).
Hans-Richard does not expressly disclose
transforming the photographic recording;
creating at least two image strips in the photographic recording, wherein the photographic recordings are arranged vertically with respect to a longitudinal orientation of the connecting region; and
assessing the at least two image strips.
However, DeYong discloses a system and method for object inspection, comprising:
transforming the photographic recording (transforming the image 12 shown in figs.8-9 and para.0073: “FIGS. 8 and 9 show a gray scale reduction methodology and result for the image 12 of FIG. 7 using an exemplary reduction using a 256 to a 4 gray scale transform 19 (i.e., from 0-255 to 0-3)”;
creating at least two image strips (90, see fig.21. See image strips in annotated fig,21 below) in the photographic recording (12, see figs.7,9 and 21, wherein FIG. 21 shows the final clustering result 64 that includes the bounding boxes 90 created …and FIG. 9 shows a 256>4 gray scale reduction image 20 for the image 12, see para.0075 and 0119) and wherein the photographic recordings (90, see fig.21. See 112(b) rejections above, “the photographic recordings” is construed as “the at least two image strips” ) are arranged vertically with respect to a longitudinal orientation (see longitudinal orientation in annotated fig.21 below) of the connecting region (the set weld seam ( 37, 38) of Hans-Richard. In DeYong, the annotated image strips are arranged vertically with respect to a longitudinal orientation of the object so that in the modification of DeYong in view of Hans-Richard, the annotated image strips are arranged vertically with respect to a longitudinal orientation of the set weld seam ( 37, 38) ); and
PNG
media_image1.png
551
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.21 of DeYong
assessing the at least two image strips (see fig.23-24, features #2-5 of fig.21 are assessed, see para.0129: “FIG. 23 includes a number line for each feature 1-1 through feature 6 (items 91 through 97) that includes the score for that feature for each of the six samples. The score for each was generated using the image recognition software 10 as previously described.” ).
PNG
media_image2.png
697
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig.23 of DeYong
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Hans-Richard to incorporate the steps of “transforming the photographic recording; creating at least two image strips in the photographic recording, wherein the photographic recordings are arranged vertically with respect to a longitudinal orientation of the connecting region; and assessing the at least two image strips” as taught by as taught by DeYong. "Doing so allows for the effective determination of defects on objects with the simple and low-cost inspection system (See para.0007 of DeYong)
Regarding claim 2, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth.
Hans-Richard does not explicitly disclose the photographic recording is transformed to one or more brightness regions.
DeYong further discloses the photographic recording (image 12, see para.0069) is transformed to one or more brightness regions (see para.0070: “ the present invention can perform a low light level contrast enhancement at the expense of items with brighter light levels.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the photographic recording of Hans-Richard, in view of DeYong as set forth, to be transformed to one or more brightness regions as taught by DeYong. Doing so allows for specific manipulation of local contrast, making the image more visually appealing and guiding the viewer's eye to important elements.
Regarding claim 3, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth.
Hans-Richard does not explicitly disclose the photographic recording is transformed to one or more color regions.
DeYong further discloses the photographic recording (12, see fig.7) is transformed to one or more color regions (See fig.12 and para.0027: “ Each pixel value 18 ranges between zero and 255, with zero representing the darkest value, or black, and 255 represents the lightest value, or white. “).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the photographic recording of Hans-Richard, in view of DeYong as set forth, to be transformed to one or more color regions. Doing so allows the object of interest becomes easier to identify easily with a low cost.
Regarding claim 4, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth.
Hans-Richard does not explicitly disclose a shape, a number,and a position of the at least two image strips are freely selected.
DeYong further discloses a shape, a number, and a position of the at least two image strips (90, see fig.21. See image strips in annotated fig,21 above) are freely selected (shape, a number, and a position of the at least two features 90 are freely selected by the image recognition software 10, see para.0120, not under the control of the user) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the at least two image strips of Hans-Richard, in view of DeYong as set forth, so as “a shape, a number,and a position of the at least two image strips are freely selected” as taught by DeYong. Doing so allows for the effective determination of defects on objects with the simple and low-cost inspection system (See para.0007 of DeYong).
Regarding claim 5, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth.
Hans-Richard does not explicitly disclose the at least two image strips are overlapping.
DeYong further discloses the at least two image strips (90, see fig.21. See image strips in annotated fig,21 above) are overlapping (see fig.21 above).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the at least two image strips of Hans-Richard, in view of DeYong as set forth, so as “the at least two image strips are overlapping” as taught by DeYong. Doing so allows for the effective determination of defects on objects with the simple and low-cost inspection system (See para.0007 of DeYong).
Regarding claim 6, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth.
Hans-Richard does not explicitly disclose the photographic recording is transformed to one or more brightness regions, one or more color regions, or a combination thereof,when the photographic recording is transformed to the one or more brightness regions, each brightness region is assigned a brightness value, as a transformed value, and when the photographic recording is transformed to the one or more color regions, each color region is assigned a color value, as the transformed value.
DeYong further discloses the photographic recording (12, see fig.7) is transformed to one or more color regions (See fig.12 and para.0027: “ Each pixel value 18 ranges between zero and 255, with zero representing the darkest value, or black, and 255 represents the lightest value, or white”. Therefore, the photographic recording 12 is transformed to one or more color regions) , when the photographic recording is transformed to the one or more color regions, each color region is assigned a color value, as the transformed value (See fig.12 and para.0027: “ Each pixel value 18 ranges between zero and 255, with zero representing the darkest value, or black, and 255 represents the lightest value, or white”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the photographic recording of Hans-Richard, in view of DeYong as set forth, so as “the photographic recording is transformed to one or more color regions, when the photographic recording is transformed to the one or more color regions, each color region is assigned a color value, as the transformed value” as taught by DeYong. Doing so allows for the effective determination of defects on objects with the simple and low-cost inspection system (See para.0007 of DeYong).
Regarding claim 12, Hans-Richard further discloses
An apparatus (1, see fig.1) for carrying out the method (see abstract: “Process for welding or cutting workpieces (2) along a predetermined edge comprises optically acquiring and evaluating a process site using a dynamic screening unit…”) according to Claim 1, the apparatus (1) comprising at least one control device (17-19 and 25, see fig.1) that is configured to control the steps of the method (see para.0033: “The entire image evaluation and further image processing, in particular control of the robot ( 4) and of the laser head ( 9) or of the beam guiding system ( 10), is then carried out by the robot controller ( 25”) and to register anomalies in the connection region (see para.0058: “Changes in the image sequence can occur within the cycles for various reasons, for example in the event of irregularities, errors or the like, in order to be able to observe and monitor readjustment or compensation for any deviations or errors by repeated image recordings and evaluations of the same region. Accordingly, the dynamic aperture device ( 32) is also controlled, which for this purpose is likewise preferably connected to the image evaluation device ( 17) and the controller ( 18, 19).”.
Notes: in the current application, “anomalies” is interpreted as “The differences obtained correspond to the height of the surface of the connecting region in comparison with the height of the surfaces of the components” as cited in pub. Para.0018.
Regarding claim 13, Hans-Richard discloses
An apparatus (1, see fig.1) for checking a connection region (37-38, see figs.3-4) of at least two metal components (see para.0025: “The workpiece ( 2) can consist, for example, of two or more metal sheets …which are to be welded by a laser weld along a predetermined path ( 3) “ and para.0049: “During the welding process, the set weld seam ( 37, 38) can also be checked and monitored via the quality field ( 22)” ), the apparatus (1, see fig.1) comprising:
a laser device (9, see fig.1) configured to join the at least two metal components (two or more metal sheets, see para.0025) together to form a connection region (37-38, see figs.3-4. See 112(b) rejections above);
a camera device (16, see fig.2) configured to provide a photographic recording (seam image, see para.0049) of the connection region (37-38, see figs.3-4) being formed by the laser (9, see fig.1 and para.0049 and 0057: “During the welding process, the set weld seam ( 37, 38) can also be checked and monitored via the quality field ( 22)” and “During operation, images are preferably recorded alternately by the processor ( 21) and its further environment using the optical detection system ( 16) and evaluated independently, the dynamic diaphragm device ( 32) being switched over in a correspondingly clocked manner. The recording and evaluation of the further environment can likewise be divided again into different images, for example by the detection fields ( 22, 23)”) and
a control device (17-18 and 25, see fig.1-2) in communication with the camera device (16, see fig.2), the control device (17-18 and 25, see fig.1-2) in comprising one or more processors (17, see fig.1 and para, 0031: “The image evaluation device ( 17) has electronic hardware and corresponding evaluation software”. Thus, the image evaluation device 17 is considered as a processor) and a nontransitory computer-readable medium (“one or more memories”, see para.0031 ) including instructions (operations, see para.0031) that are executable by the one or more processors (see para.0031: “It can have one or more memories for short-term or long-term storage of the currently recorded image data and for storing other otherwise recorded image data, with which comparison operations can be carried out”).
Hans-Richard does not expressly disclose
the instructions include:
transforming the photographic recording;
creating at least two image strips in the photographic recording, wherein the photographic recordings are arranged vertically with respect to a longitudinal orientation of the connecting region; and
assessing the at least two image strips.
However, DeYong discloses a system and method for object inspection, comprising:
the instructions (“software programming that is also stored on a computer-readable medium and executable using a computer processor”, see para.0051) include:
transforming the photographic recording (transforming the image 12 shown in figs.8-9 and para.0073: “FIGS. 8 and 9 show a gray scale reduction methodology and result for the image 12 of FIG. 7 using an exemplary reduction using a 256 to a 4 gray scale transform 19 (i.e., from 0-255 to 0-3)”;
creating at least two image strips (90, see fig.21. See image strips in annotated fig,21 below) in the photographic recording (12, see figs.7,9 and 21, wherein FIG. 21 shows the final clustering result 64 that includes the bounding boxes 90 created according to the clustering rules in the described embodiment of image recognition software 10 on the reduced image 20 of FIG. 9 and FIG. 9 shows a 256>4 gray scale reduction image 20 for the image 12, see para.0075 and 0119) and wherein the photographic recordings (90, see fig.21. See 112(b) rejections above, “the photographic recordings” is construed as “the at least two image strips” ) are arranged vertically with respect to a longitudinal orientation (see longitudinal orientation in annotated fig.21 below) of the connecting region (the set weld seam ( 37, 38) of Hans-Richard. In DeYong, the annotated image strips are arranged vertically with respect to a longitudinal orientation of the object so that in the modification of DeYong in view of Hans-Richard, the annotated image strips are arranged vertically with respect to a longitudinal orientation of the set weld seam ( 37, 38) ); and
PNG
media_image1.png
551
702
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.21 of DeYong
assessing the at least two image strips (see fig.23-24, features #2-5 of fig.21 are assessed, see para.0129: “FIG. 23 includes a number line for each feature 1-1 through feature 6 (items 91 through 97) that includes the score for that feature for each of the six samples. The score for each was generated using the image recognition software 10 as previously described.” ).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the apparatus of Hans-Richard to incorporate the “instructions include: transforming the photographic recording; creating at least two image strips in the photographic recording, wherein the photographic recordings are arranged vertically with respect to a longitudinal orientation of the connecting region; and assessing the at least two image strips” as taught by DeYong. "Doing so allows for the effective determination of defects on objects with the simple and low-cost inspection system (See para.0007 of DeYong)
Regarding claim 14, Hans-Richard in view of DeYong further discloses instructions (“software programming that is also stored on a computer-readable medium and executable using a computer processor”, see para.0051 of DeYong, is included in the combination of Hans-Richard with DeYong(see rejection of claim 13)) further include transforming the photographic recording (image 12, see para.0069 of of DeYong) to one or more brightness regions (see para.0070 of DeYong: “ the present invention can perform a low light level contrast enhancement at the expense of items with brighter light levels.”)
Regarding claim 15, Hans-Richard in view of DeYong further discloses the instructions (“software programming that is also stored on a computer-readable medium and executable using a computer processor”, see para.0051 of DeYong, is included in the combination of Hans-Richard with DeYong (see rejection of claim 13)) further include transforming the photographic recording (image 12, see fig.7 of DeYong) to one or more color regions (See fig.12 and para.0027 of DeYong: “ Each pixel value 18 ranges between zero and 255, with zero representing the darkest value, or black, and 255 represents the lightest value, or white. “).
Regarding claim 16, Hans-Richard in view of DeYong further discloses the instructions (“software programming that is also stored on a computer-readable medium and executable using a computer processor”, see para.0051 of DeYong, is included in the combination of Hans-Richard with DeYong (see rejection of claim 13)) further include: transforming the photographic recording (12, see fig.7) to one or more color regions (See fig.12 and para.0027 of DeYong: “ Each pixel value 18 ranges between zero and 255, with zero representing the darkest value, or black, and 255 represents the lightest value, or white”. Therefore, the photographic recording 12 is transformed to one or more color regions) , in response to the photographic recording being transformed to the one or more color regions, assigning each color region a color value, as the transformed value. (See fig.12 and para.0027 of DeYong: “ Each pixel value 18 ranges between zero and 255, with zero representing the darkest value, or black, and 255 represents the lightest value, or white”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11 and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US6757055B1 discloses a method for measuring process parameters of a material working process using a high energy beam (2), in particular a laser beam, focused onto a working zone of a workpiece (8), by measuring coaxially to the high energy radiation in the workspace zone the light intensity in the area of vapor capillaries (14) produced by then high energy beam (2) by means of an optical sensor (10) scanning a picture field and supplying the resultant measuring signals to an evaluation means (18).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761