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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 10 May, 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The incorporation by reference of the international patent application PCT/EP2021/079111 and of the DE 10 2020 129 930.3 patent application is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 20 October, 2021, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 10 May, 2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 29 recites “characterizes” that should be “characterizes”. 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 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 16-30 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 16-30 recites at least one step or instruction for receiving or storing data, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, each of Claims 16-30 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 16 recites a method for grinding a toothing or a profile of a workpiece by means of a grinding tool (additional element) in a grinding machine (additional element),
wherein the grinding tool is received on a tool spindle and the tool spindle is rotated by means of a first drive motor (additional element),
wherein the workpiece is received on a workpiece spindle and the workpiece spindle is rotated by means of a second drive motor (additional element),
wherein at least during the engagement of the grinding tool in the toothing to be ground or in the profile to be ground, a first and a second machine parameter are measured (additional element) and both measured machine parameters or a variable derived from the machine parameter are compared with a predetermined stored value (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
wherein a signal is output (additional element) if at least one of the machine parameters or the variable derived therefrom, taking into account a tolerance band, exceeds or falls below the predetermined stored value (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
wherein at least one of the machine parameters or the variable derived from this machine parameter contains periodic signal components (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)),
wherein these signal components are broken down into the individual frequency components by a frequency analysis (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and the frequency components being used for comparison with regard to their frequency and/or their amplitude (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Further, dependent Claims 17-30 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 16 (and their respective dependent Claims 17-30) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 16), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: wherein the grinding tool is received on a tool spindle and the tool spindle is rotated by means of a first drive motor, wherein the workpiece is received on a workpiece spindle and the workpiece spindle is rotated by means of a second drive motor, wherein at least during the engagement of the grinding tool in the toothing to be ground or in the profile to be ground, a first and a second machine parameter are measured, and a signal is output in independent Claim 16 (and their respective dependent claims) do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 16 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed methods merely implement the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., unclaimed control system described on page 7, lines 1-4 using well-known machine learning algorithms described on page 8, lines 9-12 of Applicant’s specification). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 16 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claim 16 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 16-30 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: wherein the grinding tool is received on a tool spindle and the tool spindle is rotated by means of a first drive motor, wherein the workpiece is received on a workpiece spindle and the workpiece spindle is rotated by means of a second drive motor, wherein at least during the engagement of the grinding tool in the toothing to be ground or in the profile to be ground, a first and a second machine parameter are measured, and a signal is output.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed components and generically unclaimed components (e.g., control system and machine learning algorithms) which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Page 1, line 1 to Page 2, line 5 of Applicant’s specification discloses that the method for grinding a toothing or a profile of a workpiece by means of a grinding tool in a grinding machine, wherein the grinding tool is received on a tool spindle and the tool spindle is rotated by means of a first drive motor, wherein the workpiece is received on a workpiece spindle and the workpiece spindle is rotated by means of a second drive motor, wherein at least during the engagement of the grinding tool in the toothing to be ground or in the profile to be ground, a first and a second machine parameter are measured and both measured machine parameters or a variable derived from the machine parameter are compared with a predetermined stored value, wherein a signal is output if at least one of the machine parameters or the variable derived therefrom, taking into account a tolerance band, exceeds or falls below the predetermined stored value is known from WO 2020/193228 A1. Here, monitoring of the type described is carried out in order to be able to detect whether a grinding wheel breakout has occurred in a grinding worm, wherein in the given case a warning indicator is output which indicates an impermissible process deviation. When monitoring the grinding process, it is generally known to observe a relevant process parameter, for example the current consumption of the motor that drives the grinding spindle, and to check whether the value lies within a predefined tolerance band over the course of a grinding stroke, which naturally changes over the course of the grinding stroke. If the value leaves the tolerance band, a signal is output which indicates that the process is not in proper condition. The defined tolerance band can be understood as a value range that has been "learned" by the system and is based on past experience. For the relevant state of the art, reference is made to the tool monitoring of Nordmann GmbH & Co. KG, Huerth, DE (see: https://www.nordmann.eu/ huellkurven.html).
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the additional elements of: wherein the grinding tool is received on a tool spindle and the tool spindle is rotated by means of a first drive motor, wherein the workpiece is received on a workpiece spindle and the workpiece spindle is rotated by means of a second drive motor, wherein at least during the engagement of the grinding tool in the toothing to be ground or in the profile to be ground, a first and a second machine parameter are measured, and a signal is output (identified above in independent Claim 16), either alone or in combination, are well understood routine conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.05(d).
Per Applicant’s specification, assessment is carried out by reverting to data stored (in the machine control) ([pg. 6, Lines 17-20]). During machining, as the case may be several signals internal to the control system (i.e. those present in the machine control system) and also signals external to the control system (e.g. recorded via sensors that pick up structure borne noise, which originates form the machine bed or the hall floor, for example) are recorded and taken into account ([Pg. 7, 1-4]). Further, well-known algorithms from the field of machine learning include both supervised and unsupervised learning, "deep learning" and "reinforcement learning" ([Pg. 8, 9-12]).
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the unclaimed term control system with machine learning is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the unclaimed term control system with machine learning. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 16-30 amounts to mere instructions to gather data using known methods and implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the methods of Claims 16-30 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 16 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 16-30 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 16-30 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-19 and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kopp (2006/0111018).
Regarding Claim 16, Kopp teaches a method for grinding a toothing or a profile of a workpiece (Ref. 16, Fig. 1) by means of a grinding tool (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) in a grinding machine (Ref. 10, Fig. 1),
wherein the grinding tool (14) is received on a tool spindle (Ref. 36, Fig. 1) and the tool spindle is rotated by means of a first drive motor (Ref. 40, Fig. 1, [0028]),
wherein the workpiece is received on a workpiece spindle (Ref. 46, Fig. 1) and the workpiece spindle is rotated by means of a second drive motor (Ref. 50, Fig. 1),
wherein at least during the engagement of the grinding tool in the toothing to be ground or in the profile to be ground ([0004]),
a first and a second machine parameter are measured and both measured machine parameters or a variable derived from the machine parameter (Ref. 22, Fig. 3, [0026] and teaches that the vibration sensor (20) teaches it can be operatively associated with the first and second spindles) are compared with a predetermined stored value ([0043] describes comparing to values),
wherein a signal (Ref. 29, [0026]) is output if at least one of the machine parameters or the variable derived therefrom, taking into account a tolerance band, exceeds or falls below the predetermined stored value ([0026&0048], Fig. 4 ,),
wherein at least one of the machine parameters or the variable derived from this machine parameter contains periodic signal components ([0039] describes the variable (22) communicates with a timer and converts the signal into a time-domain signal into a plurality of time segments),
wherein these signal components are broken down into the individual frequency components by a frequency analysis and the frequency components being used for comparison with regard to their frequency and/or their amplitude ([0026&0039] describes identifying frequencies and comparing frequencies or their amplitudes).
Regarding Claim 17, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein both machine parameters or the variables derived from these machine parameters contain periodic signal components ([0039] describes the parameters does contain periodic signal components due to analyzer communication with a timer (72) that converts signals into time domain waveforms that would identify frequencies over time).
Regarding Claim 18, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein the frequency components are used for comparison only with regard to their amplitude ([Abstract&0012] describes comparing amplitudes of the frequency).
Regarding Claim 19, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein the frequency analysis is performed by means of a Fast Fourier Transform ([0040] describes using a fast Fourier transform).
Regarding Claim 22, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein the measurement of the first and second machine parameters is performed during a predetermined time interval during grinding of the workpiece with the grinding tool ([0012] describes sensing vibrations occurring in the ger mesh and during rotation and controlling the step of lapping based on the sensed vibrations).
Regarding Claim 23, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein the measurement of the first and second machine parameters is carried out over a predetermined feed path during grinding of the workpiece with the grinding tool ([0012] describes that the parameters are operated by an automated machine that is set to move and be controlled grinding of the workpiece with the grinding tool).
Regarding Claim 24, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein the first machine parameter is the power or current consumption of the motor of the tool spindle ([0003&0008] describes a torque is measured and/or sensed via the vibration sensor and is known in the art therefore the power consumption of the motor of the tool spindle is measured since torque and power are directly related).
Regarding Claim 25, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein the second machine parameter is the power or current consumption of the motor of the workpiece spindle ([0003&0008] describes a torque is measured and/or sensed via the vibration sensor and is known in the art therefore the power consumption of the motor of the tool spindle is measured since torque and power are directly related).
Regarding Claim 26, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 24, as described above, and further teaches herein from the course of the total power or current consumption of the motor the course of the power or current consumption is subtracted which results in a grinding stroke without cutting of material or only with low cutting in a finishing grinding stroke ([0026] describes measuring vibrations from sensors of the first and second machine parameters (motors etc.) that controls the amount of torque in the motors to adjust the grinding process).
Regarding Claim 27, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein one of the machine parameters is the structure-borne sound of the grinding machine or a part thereof, which is detected via a structure-borne sound sensor ([0003&0008] describes that the vibration sensor detects noise, vibrations, and harshness, examiner further notes that vibration is a function of sound and the vibration sensor would be capable of detecting structure-borne sound of the grinding machine).
Regarding Claim 28, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein the variable derived from the machine parameter is the cutting energy per volume required to machine a predetermined volume of the allowance to be removed on the toothing or on the profile ([0026] describes measuring vibrations from sensors of the first and second machine parameters (motors etc.) that controls the amount of torque in the motors to adjust the grinding process, examiner notes since torque is measured it is a measure of cutting energy).
Regarding Claim 29, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein a characteristic value (Ref. 28, Fig. 1, [0026]) which characterises the grinding process for the ground workpiece is determined and output from the measured machine parameters and/or from the variable derived from the machine parameter ([0026] describes the signal analyzer (26) analyzes the parameter (22) to output a characteristic signal).
Regarding Claim 30, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein the grinding tool is a grinding worm (Ref. 14, fig. 1, [0026]) and the workpiece is a gear wheel (Ref. 16, Fig. 1, [0026]).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hackett (5,240,358).
Regarding Claim 20, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches any frequency analysis can be used including other techniques ([0040]). Kopp fails to explicitly teach the frequency analysis is performed by means of a Discrete Fourier Transform. Hackett teaches a controller to perform frequency analysis and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to analyze frequencies. Hackett further teaches the frequency analysis is performed by means of a Discrete Fourier Transform ([Col. 14, Lines 14-32]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the frequency analysis, as taught by Kopp, with the frequency analysis is performed by means of a Discrete Fourier Transform, as taught by Hackett, to yield the predictable result of performing frequency analysis and since Kopp teaches that other types of frequency analysis can be used.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kopp as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Miyasaka (7,184,930).
Regarding Claim 21, Kopp teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches any frequency analysis can be used including other techniques ([0040]). Kopp fails to explicitly teach wherein the frequency analysis is performed by a root mean square analysis (determination of the RMS spectrum) or by a determination of the amplitude spectrum or by a cepstrum analysis or by a compensation sinus function or by a determination of the auto power spectrum (PSD analysis). Miyasaka teaches a controller to perform frequency analysis and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to analyze frequencies. Miyasaka further teaches wherein the frequency analysis is performed by a cepstrum analysis ([Col. 28, Lines 8-10]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the frequency analysis, as taught by Kopp, with the frequency analysis is performed by means of a cepstrum analysis, as taught by Miyasaka, to yield the predictable result of performing frequency analysis and since Kopp teaches that other types of frequency analysis can be used.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Winkel (2012/0213602) and McGlasson (2015/0111470) teach grinding tools that use frequency analysis and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, 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.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723