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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 08/12/2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea (mental process), without significantly more.
Claim 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brebner, D. US 20200285788 A1 (‘BRE’), in view of Knight et al, US 20210006622 A1 (‘KNI’).
Priority
The application claims priority to the US Provisional Application 63/260,333, filed on 08/17/2021. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2022 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine if directed to an ineligible judicial exception. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrasing (in italics) is used to simplify referencing. Claims with similar limitations (even though not verbatim identical) and sharing the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps S1 and S2, are grouped, as follows. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of the group; an additional analysis is performed if any claims in the group have additional limitations.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claims 1-20 are each directed to a statutory category of invention: process (Claims 1-12 directed to a method), machine (claims 13-19 directed to a system) and manufacture (claim 20 directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium).
(S2A1)
Claim 1, representative for claims 13, 20, recites (with bold highlighting abstract idea) a method comprising:
[A] receiving input data associated with an asset; (additional elements of data gathering, an insignificant extra solution activity, for example duration of a opening of a sprinkler head)
[B] determining one or more attributes of the asset based at least on the input data; (something that can be performed in the mind, for example determining the amount of water provided by the sprinkler head, easy to calculate from duration and flow rate)
[C1] determining whether the one or more attributes satisfy a predefined threshold associated with a stored asset data unit based at least on querying an asset database; (something that can be performed in the mind, for example evaluating the amount of water comparing it against what we recall the value of what we recall from memory to be needed for a specific situation, for example comparing the amount of water with the amount of water needed for plants watered by that sprinkler. Querying an asset database, if not a mental observation it could be considered also a data gathering insignificant extra solution activity.
[C2] in accordance with a determination that the one or more attributes do not satisfy the predefined threshold: ( continues the mental process defined above, a judgement on following the evaluation, preparing a number of actions).
[D1] accessing sensor data associated with the asset; (an observation, part of mental process; it could also be interpreted as additional elements of data gathering, an insignificant extra solution activity )
[D2] based at least on the sensor data and the one or more attributes, generating a suggested digital twin of the asset; and (additional element, mere instructions to apply an exception, as the claim recites only the idea of a solution, fails to recite details of how the solution to a problem is accomplished MPEP 2106.05(f)){1))
[D3] causing presentation, via a user interface, of data associated with the suggested digital twin of the asset at a user device. (insignificant extra solution activity, data outputting)
In broadest reasonable interpretation claim 1 recites: determine attributes based on inputs [B] compare attributes with thresholds [C1] and if attributes below a threshold follow with a set of actions [C2] , of which the first is observing sensor data [D1]. In view of the guidance from MPEP 2106.04 II. B, the limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis, as a process aimed at: “make a determination if measured characteristics are less than prescribed characteristics”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III and Mathematical Concept (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I) ).
Accordingly, claims 1, 13, 20 recite an abstract idea.
(S2A2) In BRI, the additional claim elements are elements of data gathering (A). generation of a digital twin, recited at high level of generality (D2), and data outputting (D3). The additional elements, taken individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application when evaluated using the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) because these do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea., nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. According, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
(S2B) Claims 1, 13, 20 do not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements recite data gathering, and data output, amounting to nothing more than data gathering, apply it, and data outputting, insignificant extra solution activities.
The additional elements, when considered individually, are limitations that the courts have found not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the judicial exception; and amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
For situations substantially similar to those here, these additional elements, including data gathering, data manipulation, and data transmission, recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional - WURC (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)).
Regarding the generation of a digital twin of an asset based on data and attributes this is also considered WURC (Sommer et al, Automatic Generation of Digital Twin based on Scanning and Object Recognition; in Transdisciplinary Engineering for Complex Socio-technical Systems, K. Hiekata et al. (Eds.)2019 ; Campos et al, Automatic generation of digital twin industrial system from a high level specification; Procedia Manufacturing Volume 38, 2019, Pages 1095-1102; Denkena eta al Efficient Generation of a Digital Twin Using Object Detection for Data Acquisition and XML-Interface for Model Creation, Procedia CIRP 93 (2020) 274–279. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_twin; Contextual digital twin runtime environment, US Patent 10,564,993, 2020; Hbeich et al, Semantic and Multi-scale BIM/CIM/LIM Regulation compliance checking https://hal.science/hal-02279645/document )
When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to data gathering and, data manipulation and outputting, and instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea - make a determination if measured characteristics are less than prescribed characteristics, could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claims 1, 13, 20 are ineligible.
Claims 2(1), 14(13) recites further limitations, which are analyzed as follows:
in accordance with a determination that the one or more attributes satisfy the predefined threshold:
generating a digital twin of the asset based at least on the stored asset data unit; and (apply it, similar analysis to the limitation in the independent claim)
storing the digital twin of the asset in association with at least one additional digital twin of a shared asset site. (data storing, insignificant extra activity)
Based on the analysis presented in the parent claim, the additional elements in the claim are limitations of data manipulation/storage and ‘apply it’, which are insignificant extra elements. When considered individually or on combination, these claim elements do not provide any specific improvements and do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Therefore, these claim elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is thus directed to a judicial exception.
When considered individually the additional elements were found to be WURC. Individually, in combination taking the claim as a whole, they do not provide an inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Claims 2, 14 are thus found ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 3(2), 15(14) recites further limitations, which are analyzed as follows:
causing presentation, via the user interface, of data associated with the digital twin of the asset.
The additional elements are interpreted as data outputting, and based on the same rationale as in the analysis of the independent claim, an insignificant extra-solution activity which is also WURC. The claims have no additional limitations to provide significantly more, in order to change the nature of the abstract idea, and thus the claims remaining directed to the abstract idea.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 3, 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 4(1), 16(13) recites further limitations, which are analyzed as follows:
the generating of the suggested digital twin comprising applying the sensor data and the one or more attributes to a contextual discovery model to determine one or more suggested digital twins of the asset.
The additional elements are interpreted as ‘apply it’ and based on the same rationale as in the analysis of the independent claim, an insignificant extra-solution activity, which is also WURC. The claims have no additional limitations to provide significantly more, in order to change the nature of the abstract idea, and thus the claims remaining directed to the abstract idea of ”make a determination if measured characteristics are less than prescribed characteristics“.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 4, 16 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 5(4), 17(16) recites further limitations, which are analyzed as follows:
providing training data associated with a determination that the one or more attributes satisfy the predefined threshold to the contextual discovery model.
In broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are interpreted as data gathering and data manipulation, and based on the same rationale as in the analysis of the independent claim, an insignificant extra-solution activity which is also WURC. The claims have no additional limitations to provide significantly more, in order to change the nature of the abstract idea, and thus the claims remaining directed to the abstract idea.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 5, 17 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 6(1), 18(13) recites further limitations, which are analyzed as follows:
receiving, via input to the user interface, an extension of the suggested digital
twin;
modifying the suggested digital twin based on the extension.
In broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements are interpreted as data gathering and data manipulation, and based on the same rationale as in the analysis of the independent claim, an insignificant extra-solution activity which is also WURC. The claims have no additional limitations to provide significantly more, in order to change the nature of the abstract idea, and thus the claims remaining directed to the abstract idea.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 6, 18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 11(1), 19(13) recites further limitations, which are analyzed as follows:
determining a location of the asset based at least on location data associated with the user device.
In broadest reasonable interpretation, this recites an abstract idea, which can be performed in the mind, as someone can determine an asset location if one sees or knows the location of the devices that records the info of the asset. There are no additional elements to provide significantly more, in order to change the nature of the abstract idea, and thus the claims remaining directed to the abstract idea.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 11, 19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12(11) recites further limitations, which are analyzed as follows:
generating a geospatial plan of an asset site associated with the asset, the geospatial plan comprising location data of a plurality of assets within the asset site.
In broadest reasonable interpretation, this recites an abstract idea, which can be performed in the mind, or pen and paper, as someone can imagine or draw a map marking location of various assets on the map. There are no additional elements to provide significantly more, in order to change the nature of the abstract idea, and thus the claims remaining directed to the abstract idea.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 12 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 7-10 recites further limitations, which are analyzed as follows:
7(1) - the input data being received from the user device.
8(7) - the input data comprising image data captured by the user device.
9(8) - the image data comprising an image of indicia associated with the asset.
10(7) - the input data comprising sound data captured by the user device.
These further elements in the dependent claims 7-10 do not perform any claimed method steps. The nature, form or structure of the other claim elements themselves do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed and do not provide more than a general link to a technological environment. They describe the nature, structure and/or content of other claim elements (input data) and as such, cannot change the nature of the identified abstract idea from a judicial exception into eligible subject matter, because they do not represent significantly more (see MPEP 2106.07).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 7-10 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and are rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brebner, D. US 20200285788 A1 (‘BRE’), in view of Knight et al, US 20210006622 A1 (‘KNI’)
Regarding claim 1, 13, 20 BRE teaches
a processor, and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receiving input data associated with an asset; {BRE [0498] The processing system 1200 may include one or more processors and memory.}
accessing sensor data associated with the asset; based at least on the sensor data and the one or more attributes, generating a suggested digital twin of the asset; and.{[0002] the disclosure relates to an application system and server kit that create and serve digital twin-enabled applications. [0064] receive first digital twin data from a first digital twin data source, the first digital twin data pertaining to a first aspect of an environment to be represented by a digital twin; receive second digital twin data from a second digital twin data source, the second digital twin data pertaining to a second aspect of the environment; and generate the digital twin representing the environment based on the first digital twin data and the second digital twin data. [0065] In some embodiments, the system further includes a server kit executed by a second set of processors that cause the server kit to: receive real-time data from one or more real-time data sources, wherein the real-time data source corresponds to the environment represented by the digital twin; and provide an instance of the application with the real-time data, wherein the instance of the application receives the real-time data and updates an instance of the digital twin with the real-time data. In some embodiments, the real-time data source is a set of Internet of Things sensors.} one or more attributes interpreted as attributes present in the first digital twin.}
causing presentation, via a user interface, of data associated with the suggested digital twin of the asset at a user device {BRE: [0651] In embodiments, the user may define different states that correspond to different display options of the digital twin via the application system 100. In some of these embodiments, the user may define variances that define different display options, given a state of a digital twin. For example, if the application is to display a portion of a digital twin in red when a temperature of the real-world entity represented by the digital twin exceeds a threshold}
BRE teaches generation of the digital twin and broadly about alarm conditions though not explicitly related to threshold related to attribute, however, KNI teaches
determining one or more attributes of the asset based at least on the input data; determining whether the one or more attributes satisfy a predefined threshold associated with a stored asset data unit based at least on querying an asset database; {KNI [0028] a rule may trigger an action based on receiving real-time data related to a supply air temperature that has exceeded a min/max alarm threshold… [0058] the data collected from the devices may be stored in a time series database… the cloud platform may be accessed for querying the cloud stored big data related to the device. This may happen based on both the end user triggering or requesting the query or automatically based on preset parameters and thresholds.}
in accordance with a determination that the one or more attributes do not satisfy the predefined threshold: KNI [0028] a rule may trigger an action based on receiving real-time data related to a supply air temperature that has exceeded a min/max alarm threshold; [0053] An actor that triggers a rule may query connected devices and assets to find an optimum solution based on the current situation of the system…the exact behavior of a device may be modeled by training a data analytics machine learning algorithm on the real-time data of the input and output data points of the device.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined BRE (directed to generation of digital twins and presentation over user interface) and KNI (directed to contextually-aware digital twins taking actions in response of sensor data) and arrived at generation of digital twins based with updates based on sensor data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to obtain the advantage of having up-to-date accurate model in the twin and thus accurately present status and predict future scenarios.
Regarding claims 2(1), 14(13) BRE/KNI disclose the limitations of the parent claim. BRE further discloses:
in accordance with a determination that the one or more attributes satisfy the predefined threshold: generating a digital twin of the asset based at least on the stored asset data unit; and {BRE: [0649] FIG. 39 illustrates an example system 2400 for creating, enhancing, and utilizing digital twins. In the illustrated example, a user may create a digital twin using the application system 100. [0276] The declarative programming language 140 may include objects, classes, properties and methods. Objects may be discrete bundles of components, often relating to a visual element (a button) or an abstract real world analogy (a customer). A keyword “INSTANCE” may be used to create an instance of a class, otherwise known as an object. A class may define a new type of object. A keyword “DEFINE” may be used to create a sub-class which may be based on an existing class. A property may be an attribute of an object represented by a value,
storing the digital twin of the asset in association with at least one additional digital twin of a shared asset site. { BRE:[0064] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a system for providing digital twin enabled applications is disclosed. The system includes an application system executed by a first set of processors. The processors cause the application system to: receive first digital twin data from a first digital twin data source, the first digital twin data pertaining to a first aspect of an environment to be represented by a digital twin; receive second digital twin data from a second digital twin data source, the second digital twin data pertaining to a second aspect of the environment; and generate the digital twin representing the environment based on the first digital twin data and the second digital twin data. [0501] In embodiments, the representation datastore 1234 stores virtual representations 1236 of respective environments generated by the generative content system 1100}
Regarding claims 3(2), 15(14) BRE/KNI disclose the limitations of the parent claim. BRE further discloses:
causing presentation, via the user interface, of data associated with the digital twin of the asset. { BRE:[0008] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a method for determining a location of a user device in a building is disclosed. The method includes presenting, by a user interface of the user device executing an application, a graphical user interface the application, the graphical user interface including a selectable alert user interface element; [0650] Upon the developer defining the digital twin in an application, the visual editor of the application system 100 may depict the digital twin in the graphical user interface of the application. }
Regarding claims 4(1) 16(13) BRE/KNI disclose the limitations of the parent claim. BRE further discloses:
the generating of the suggested digital twin comprising applying the sensor data and the one or more attributes to a contextual discovery model to determine one or more suggested digital twins of the asset.{BRE: [0543] In example embodiments, the generative content system 1100 may be configured to train machine-learned classification models (e.g., random forests, support vector machines SVMs, neural networks, deep neural networks, recurrent neural networks, etc.) that are used to estimate a location of a client user device 1106 based on signal-related attributes (and other relevant attributes); [0065] In some embodiments, the real-time data source is a set of Internet of Things sensors.}
Regarding claims 5(4), 17(16) BRE/KNI disclose the limitations of the parent claim. KNI further discloses:
providing training data associated with a determination that the one or more attributes satisfy the predefined threshold to the contextual discovery model. { KNI [0005] a computer-implemented method of generating a contextually-aware digital twin of a commercial real estate or residential building.[0006] In some implementations, the identifying of the at least one controller associated with the new device is based on information generated by training a machine learning algorithm on one or more previously generated graph representations of the commercial real estate building. The relationships for a device may be determined based on training a machine learning algorithm on the digital twins of various commercial real-estate buildings. If a device is known, then the relationships that come from that device may be predicted, enabling automatic creation of all or some of the related entities and relationships, thereby automatically setting up the nodes and relationships of an asset in the digital twin.[0028] Once data related to various solutions is received, the best option may be determined based on pre-determined constraints and settings, such as energy usage, time required, etc; [0054] . For example, a rule may be set to trigger an action based on receiving real-time data related to a supply air temperature that has exceeded a min/max alarm threshold. The rule may indicate that if the supply air temperature falls below a minimum threshold value or exceeded a maximum threshold value for more than five minutes, then actions must be taken to adjust air temperature to a preferred temperature set as a predetermined value. The rule may be stored in the Rules 815 of the actor 800} thresholds interpreted broadly as predetermined constraints, an example being the min/max alarm threshold.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined BRE/KNI (directed to generation of digital twins including context-aware) and further elements of KNI (directed to training a learning context-aware model trained based on attributes conditions) and arrived at generation of context-aware digital twins with updated models trained based on attribute conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to obtain the advantage of having up-to-date accurate model in the twin and thus accurately present status and predict future scenarios.
Regarding claims 6(1), 18(13) BRE/KNI disclose the limitations of the parent claim. BRE further discloses:
receiving, via input to the user interface, an extension of the suggested digital
twin; modifying the suggested digital twin based on the extension.{ BRE: [0064]The processors further cause the application system to receive coding statements via a user interface of the application system from one or more developers, wherein the coding statements define one or more actions to be performed with respect to the digital twin; generate an application that leverages the digital twin based on the coding statements
Regarding claims 7(1) BRE/KNI disclose the limitations of the parent claim. BRE further discloses:
the input data being received from the user device. {BRE: [0058] In embodiments, the plurality of images are received in response to commanding the classification device to capture the plurality of images.}
Regarding claims 8(7) BRE/KNI disclose the limitations of the parent claim. BRE further discloses:
the input data comprising image data captured by the user device. {BRE: [0058] In embodiments, the plurality of images are received in response to commanding the classification device to capture the plurality of images.}
Regarding claim 9(8) BRE/KNI disclose the limitations of the parent claim. BRE further discloses:
the image data comprising an image of indicia associated with the asset.
{BRE: [0058] In embodiments, the plurality of images are received in response to commanding the classification device to capture the plurality of images. [0062] In embodiments, the object being monitored by the image classification device is a meter. In embodiments, the meter is a wheel counter meter. In embodiments, the meter is an LED meter.}
Regarding claim 10(7) BRE/KNI disclose the limitations of the parent claim. BRE further discloses:
the input data comprising sound data captured by the user device. {BRE: [0271] In embodiments, the application system 100 may include an engine UI 106; [0671] In embodiments, a digital agent UI 2502 may include a voice input box 2504.} sound input data interpreted as voice input.
Regarding claims 11(1), 19(13) BRE/KNI disclose the limitations of the parent claim. BRE further discloses:
determining a location of the asset based at least on location data associated with the user device. {BRE:[0008] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a method for determining a location of a user device in a building is disclosed. [0024] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a method for determining a location in a building of one or more physical assets using a tracking device that executes a tracking application is disclosed.}
Regarding claim 12(11) BRE/KNI disclose the limitations of the parent claim. BRE further discloses:
generating a geospatial plan of an asset site associated with the asset, the geospatial plan comprising location data of a plurality of assets within the asset site.{BRE:[0008] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a method for determining a location of a user device in a building is disclosed. [0024] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, a method for determining a location in a building of one or more physical assets using a tracking device that executes a tracking application is disclosed.} . [0649] FIG. 39 illustrates an example system 2400 for creating, enhancing, and utilizing digital twins. … may upload/import maps of a city from a map application, a city planning database, or the like from the defined digital twin data sources 2404… link the input data (e.g., data obtained from multiple data sources) to the appropriate objects of the digital twin. For example, the application system 100 may execute a script that links the building-related data of each respective building to the map of the city based on the addresses of the buildings. In this way, each building object (or child objects of the building object) may be linked to the appropriate “location” within the digital twin of the city and may be parameterized with the corresponding building-related data corresponding to the building} Location data of the assets is in the maps and other info from city planning database. It is generated by linking the data with the digital twin.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20170323240 A1
US 20130097545 A1
Sommer et al, Automatic Generation of Digital Twin Based on Scanning and Object Recognition, Transdisciplinary Engineering for Complex Socio-technical Systems, IOS Press 2019
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT. 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188