Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application/Claims
This FINAL action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 22 January 2026. To clarify the record, in view of all the mistakes presented throughout the claims and Applicant’s remarks/response, Examiner notes that currently claims 1-8, 13-16 and 20-27 are the only claims pending, of which, claims 1-8 and 13-16 are withdrawn from consideration, leaving claims 20-27 as the only claims pending for examination. Claims 9-12 and 17-19 are cancelled.
***Claims 9-12 and 17-19 are cancelled and correctly presented as cancelled in the amendment of 22 January 2026. DO NOT change the presentation of claims 9-12 and 17-19, they are correctly presented as cancelled in the amendment of 22 January 2026.
***Claims 1-8 and 13-16 are withdrawn; however, are presented incorrectly in the amendment of 22 January 2026. Per Applicant’s remarks and the prosecution so far, the intent is clear that claims 1-8 and 13-16 are withdrawn. However, per 37 CFR 1.121, withdrawn claims need to include the text. For just claims 1-8 and 13-16, change them back to how you presented them in amendment of 07 October 2025 as withdrawn but including their text in front of them, do not change the presentation of claims 9-12, 17-19 and 20-27, they are all correctly presented in your current amendment of 22 January 2026, ONLY CHANGE claims 1-8 and 13-16 from the amendment of 22 January 2026 to include their text since withdrawn claims should still include their original text in the claim listing.
Response to Arguments
NOTE: Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments of 22 January 2026, once again, ignores most of rejections as cited in the office action of 23 October 2025. A complete response to each and every rejection to each and every claim raised by the Examiner is required by the Applicant (each different bullet point and paragraph under the rejections is its own rejection and needs to be separately addressed/argued and/or amended to correct/clarify). Examiner, once again to expedite prosecution, repeats the rejections not addressed; however, if Applicant continues to only respond selectively to a couple of the rejections rather than each rejection as cited in the current office action below, then Examiner will not issue another office action as the response would be treated as non-compliant/non-responsive/incomplete. Due to the massive amount of rejections fully ignored by the Applicant (e.g. rejection of dependent claims 21-27 under 35 USC 112(a) on pages 6-8 of the office action of 23 October 2025 are completely ignored by the Applicant, they’re not amended nor argued/addressed, many of the rejections [about at least 3 out of the total 9 rejections] applicable to independent claim 20 under 35 USC 112(a) are also ignored, and 6 out of the 10 rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are not addressed by the Applicant), Examiner will not repeat them each here in the “Response to Arguments” section, rather Examiner will only point to the rejections actually addressed by the Applicant and the rest of the rejections are as recited in the current office action below again similar to how they were recited in the office action of 23 October 2025.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 25-27 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 23 October 2025 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 25-27 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 23 October 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the partial rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC 112(a) associated with only “local submap generation + distance field calculation (para. [0066]-[0068]), scan matching with blending of predicted and corrected poses (para. [0102]-[0104]), pose consistency report (para. [0105]), and selective landmark loading based on pose / field of view (para. [0115]-[0117])” as set forth in the office action of 23 October 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Examiner has thoroughly went through Applicant’s specification, including the specific paragraphs cited by the Applicant for each limitation mentioned above, and still does not believe there is proper support for the specific limitations and language being used in the claims corresponding to the rejected limitations. For example, Applicant’s whole specification, including paragraphs [0066]-[0068] does not include “distance field”, “calculating a distance field” and such calculation being based on “the local submap”. Applicant’s whole specification, including paragraphs [0066]-[0068] does not include a “local” submap, especially it being generated based on “scan data” which is also not a language used in Applicant’s specification. Applicant’s whole specification, including paragraphs [0102]-[0104] do not go into the details of scan matching to be “of at least a portion of the scan data against the distance field at the predicted pose ...”, “scan data” and “distance field” do not even exist in Applicant’s specification, let alone for scan matching to be of such a detailed limitation recited. Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0105] and more, only mention a pose consistency report but do not go into detail of it being based on a difference between the predicted pose and the corrected pose. And there is absolutely nothing in Applicant’s whole specification, including paragraphs [0115]-[0117] that would in any way support a narrow limitation such as “dynamically selecting a portion of a previously stored global map for loading based on the final estimated pose and a field of view of the device”. Further, regarding Applicant’s remarks of “present claim amendments further tie scan matching to the distance field and the pose consistency report to a delta between predicted and corrected poses where features already inherent in the previously presented claim 20 structure (predicted pose; corrected pose; distance field; scan matching)”, Examiner would like to remind Applicant that claim 20 is a new claim on its own in the prosecution and cannot be used as support for the limitations.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the partial rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC 112(b) associated with only “Scan matching is now expressly recited as being performed "of at least a portion of the scan data against the distance field at the predicted pose," tying the matching operation to concrete data structures already present in claim 20 (scan data; distance field; predicted pose). The pose consistency report is now expressly "based on a difference between the predicted pose and the corrected pose," providing an objective basis for what the report measures (a delta between two computed poses already recited in claim 20)” as set forth in the office action of 23 October 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. It is still unclear, to the Examiner, especially in view of the lack of support in Applicant’s specification to further clarify anything, what is scan matching of at least a portion of the scan data against the distance field at the predicted pose and how it’s performed; and what Applicant particularly means by “pose consistency report”, e.g. what does the report contain? While amended claim 22 appear to explain such, specification does not support such and therefore “pose consistency report” is still unclear.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the partial rejection of claims 20-27 under 35 USC 101 as set forth in the office action of 23 October 2025 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Regarding each and every limitation of the independent claim and how the 35 USC 101 rejection still applies, see 35 USC 101 rejection below. Regarding the “improvement” argued by the Applicant, Examiner notes that the claims must reflect the improvement in the specification, when claims are almost fully indefinite (see 35 USC 112(b) below), the claims cannot actually reflect and/or define the improvement required to cause the 35 USC 101 rejection to be withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 20 should be amended to recite “the . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 20 should be amended to recite “. Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-27 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.
Applicant’s specification does not provide support for:
Claim 20-
“A computer-implemented method for operating a semi-autonomous cleaning device ...” (emphasis added). There is nothing in the specification “for operating” the cleaning device/robot.
“receiving synchronized sensor data including odometry data and scan data from the sensors ...” (emphasis added). There is nothing in the specification for “scan data”, especially for the synchronized data to include it.
“generating a local submap based on the scan data”. There is nothing in the specification for “local” submap and especially for it to be generated “based on the scan data”.
“calculating a distance field corresponding to the local submap” (emphasis added). There is nothing in the specification for calculating a “distance field”.
“determining a predicted pose from the sampled particles” (emphases added). There is nothing in the specification for the predicted pose to be determined from the sampled particles. For example, per Figure 6 and [0036] of Applicant’s specification, predicted pose (604) and sampled particles (602) steps are happening simultaneously and unrelated to each other.
“performing scan matching of at least a portion of the scan data against the distance field at the predicted pose to produce a corrected pose” (emphases added). There is nothing in the specification for scan matching to be “of at least a portion of the scan data against the distance field at the predicted pose”.
“blending the corrected pose with the predicted pose to obtain a final estimated pose” (emphases added). There is nothing in the specification for obtaining “a final estimated pose”.
“generating a pose consistency report based on based on a difference between the predicted pose and the corrected pose” (emphases added). There is nothing in the specification for the report to be generated “based on a difference between the predicted pose and the corrected pose”.
“dynamically selecting a portion of a previously stored global map for loading based on the final estimated pose and a field of view of the device” (overall limitation). There is nothing in the specification for the whole limitation, there is no “dynamically selecting”, “portion”, “previously stored”, “loading”, “final estimated pose” and “field of view”.
Claim 21–
“determining, based on the final estimated pose, a region of interest within the global map” (overall limitation). There is nothing in the specification for the whole limitation, there is no “final estimated pose” and “region of interest”, and the global map in the specification is not related to this limitation.
“loading only the landmarks associated with the region of interest into a high-speed memory for SLAM processing” (overall limitation). There is nothing in the specification for the whole limitation, there is no “loading”, “region of interest” and “high-speed” memory. And in general, the whole limitation is not supported.
Claim 22–
“wherein the pose consistency report includes a numerical score indicative of confidence in the final estimated pose based on a difference between the predicted pose and the corrected pose” (overall limitation and emphases added). While “score” and “confidence” is recited in the specification, they are not related to and/or as specific as the current limitation.
Claim 23–
“updating the global map by integrating the local submap using the final estimated pose” (overall limitation and emphases added). There is nothing in the specification for this limitation.
Claim 24–
“wherein the device is configured to switch between different localization modes based on an availability or reliability of sensor inputs” (overall limitation and emphases added). There is nothing in the specification for the whole limitation. There is no “switch”ing, “localization modes”, “availability”, “reliability” and “sensor inputs”.
Claim 25–
“wherein the different localization modes include at least one of: pose prediction using particle filtering without scan matching; scan matching only; and a fusion of corrected and predicted poses” (emphases added). There is nothing in the specification for “localization modes” and “fusion”.
Claim 26–
“wherein the global map includes a plurality of submaps, and each submap comprises a distance field and associated landmarks” (overall limitation and emphases added). There is nothing in the specification for the global map to include submaps, and nothing for the submaps to comprise a distance field.
Claim 27–
“wherein the device further comprises ... a probabilistic occupancy grid software module and a 2D laser scan matcher software module” (emphases added). There is nothing in the specification for a probabilistic occupancy grid “software module” and a 2D laser scan matcher “software module”.
NOTE***Applicant has been consistently using language and limitations not supported by the specification. Examiner to the best of their ability has pointed to the unsupported limitations above. However, Examiner advises the Applicant to thoroughly go through their specification and from now on only use what is actually fully supported by their original specification***. In other words, anything missed by the Applicant to be included in the original specification at the time of submitting the original specification cannot now be claimed in narrow terms using special/new language and argued to be supported by the broad terms and different language used in the actual original specification filed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20-
“synchronized sensor data”. As Examiner has consistently noted starting from the office action of 10 December 2024, it is unclear, to the Examiner, what Applicant means by “synchronized” in this limitation, Applicant has switched between using synched and synchronized but has never made a remark/comment about Examiner’s question. Examiner requests Applicant to clarify what exactly “synchronized” particularly means in this limitation.
“local submap”. Especially since there is no local submap in the specification for (corresponding to) the limitations used in the claim, it is unclear, to the Examiner, what Applicant means by it.
“distance field”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, what exactly Applicant means by “distance field”.
“performing scan matching of at least a portion of the scan data against the distance field at the predicted pose to produce a corrected pose”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, what is scan matching of at least a portion of the scan data against the distance field at the predicted pose and how it’s performed.
“pose consistency report”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, what Applicant particularly means by “pose consistency report”, e.g. what does the report contain? While claim 22 appears to explain such, specification does not support claim 22 and therefore “pose consistency report” is still unclear.
“dynamically selecting a portion of a previously stored global map for loading based on the final estimated pose and a field of view of the device”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, loading to what? And what’s exactly meant by loading in this limitation?
Claim 21-
“the landmarks”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claim.
Claim 22-
“a difference between the predicted pose and the corrected pose”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring to the same difference between the predicted pose and the corrected pose previously recited in claim 20 or not.
Claim 23-
“updating the global map by integrating the local submap using the final estimated pose”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, integrating into what? And what’s exactly meant by integrating in this limitation?
NOTE***Applicant has been consistently using language and limitations that are indefinite and are not further clarified by Applicant’s remarks and/or specification. Examiner to the best of their ability has pointed to such limitations above. However, Examiner advises the Applicant to thoroughly go through their specification and claims and from now on only use definite limitations and/or clarify the indefiniteness by their remarks***.
Claims 24-27 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 20 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 20 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 20 recites:
A computer-implemented method for operating a semi-autonomous cleaning device configured for hybrid mapping and continuous localization in a dynamic indoor environment, the semi-autonomous cleaning device comprises a processor and a plurality of sensors mounted on the device, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving synchronized sensor data including odometry data and scan data from the sensors;
generating a local submap based on the scan data;
calculating a distance field corresponding to the local submap;
sampling particles representing possible poses of the device using the sensor data;
determining a predicted pose from the sampled particles;
performing scan matching of at least a portion of the scan data against the distance field at the predicted pose to produce a corrected pose;
blending the corrected pose with the predicted pose to obtain a final estimated pose;
generating a pose consistency report based on based on a difference between the predicted pose and the corrected pose; and
dynamically selecting a portion of a previously stored global map for loading based on the final estimated pose and a field of view of the device
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, generating a submap ..., calculating a distance field ..., sampling particles ..., determining a pose ..., blending poses to obtain a final pose ..., generating a report ... and selecting a portion of a map ... in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, selection, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer-implemented method for operating a semi-autonomous cleaning device configured for hybrid mapping and continuous localization in a dynamic indoor environment, the semi-autonomous cleaning device comprises a processor and a plurality of sensors mounted on the device, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving synchronized sensor data including odometry data and scan data from the sensors;
generating a local submap based on the scan data;
calculating a distance field corresponding to the local submap;
sampling particles representing possible poses of the device using the sensor data;
determining a predicted pose from the sampled particles;
performing scan matching of at least a portion of the scan data against the distance field at the predicted pose to produce a corrected pose;
blending the corrected pose with the predicted pose to obtain a final estimated pose;
generating a pose consistency report based on based on a difference between the predicted pose and the corrected pose; and
dynamically selecting a portion of a previously stored global map for loading based on the final estimated pose and a field of view of the device
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of receiving data ... and performing scan matching ..., the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, the receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving information/data for use in the next steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The performing scan matching step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of scan matching from some of the previous steps), and amounts to mere post solution action, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, claim 20 further recites the “A computer-implemented method for operating a semi-autonomous cleaning device configured for hybrid mapping and continuous localization in a dynamic indoor environment, the semi-autonomous cleaning device comprises a processor and a plurality of sensors mounted on the device, the method comprising the steps of ...” which merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 20 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving data is well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of performing scan matching is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere performances are well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 21-27 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 21-27 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 20.
Therefore, claims 20-27 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights