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 .
Status of the Claims
The amendment received on 09 March 2026 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-19 have been amended.
No new claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 March 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 12-13 of 19) that as presented in this paper, both independent claims, and all dependent claims by principles of dependency, now recite a computer system combination that is configured to generating a location profile associated with a location, analyzing a user profile associated with a user, determining an optimal path for delivery of packages associated with the user based on the location profile, and deploying a robot designed to utilize the optimal path to deliver package based on the user profile and the location profile, wherein deploying the robot comprises unlocking a security lock mechanism of the robot based on the user profile. These limitations, in combination with the rest of the claims, recite an invention that effects "a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing." Therefore, under the Office's own guidance memorandum and Federal Register notices, the claims recite eligible subject matter. Like the claims in Diamond v. Diehr, the present claims recite combinations that result in direct action upon physical elements other than a computer, namely security mechanisms of robotics that can lock and unlock resulting in releasing secured packages to users based on proper authentication, for example. Consequently, all claims are eligible and all rejections should be withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, the addition of the unlocking step does not take the claims out of the Method of organizing human activity grouping (which includes Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People and/or Commercial Interaction). Secondly, Applicant’s claims unlike Diamond v. Diehr, appears to be a solution to a business problem and does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application by providing a technical solution to a technical problem. For instance, there does not appear to be an improvement in the performance of the computing device or robot. Further Applicant has not claimed “security mechanisms of robotics that can lock and unlock resulting in releasing secured packages to users based on proper authentication.” However, as the Examiner suggested in the previous office action, that incorporating claims 5, 12, and 18 into claims 1, 5, and 18, respectively, would integrate the abstract idea into practical application and overcome the 101 rejection. Specifically, providing instructions to the computing device to unlock the security lock mechanism of the robot at the at least one zone in response to a verification of the user profile,
wherein unlocking the security lock mechanism allows the package to be released to the user within the at least zone provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 12-13 of 19) that in the present case, the Office Action alleges that the claims pertain to "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" and "commercial interaction".2 These characterizations are far too abstract after cases like Enfish and in light of the guidance memorandum and Federal Register notices. They do not reflect the inventor's improvement, which is a specific application of deploying robots and unlocking security mechanisms of said robots. Specifically, in a method and system that collects data to deliver packages in a risk-free walkway, the claims provide improvements to the automated packaged delivery cycle by a drive unit connected to robots and configured for generating a location profile associated with a location, analyzing a user profile associated with a user, determining an optimal path for delivery of packages associated with the user based on the location profile, and deploying a robot designed to utilize the optimal path to deliver package based on the user profile and the location profile, wherein deploying the robot comprises unlocking a security lock mechanism of the robot based on the user profile.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims as amended appears to provide a business solution to a business problem, rather than provide a technical solution to a technical problem. However, the Examiner suggests incorporating claims 5, 12, and 18 into claims 1, 5, and 18, respectively, to overcome the 101 rejection. For Example, amending the claims with the language, “providing instructions to the computing device to unlock the security lock mechanism of the robot at the at least one zone in response to a verification of the user profile, wherein unlocking the security lock mechanism allows the package to be released to the user within the at least zone” provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 12-13 of 19) that assuming, arguendo, that the claims previously recited a judicial exception, this amended language above is respectfully believed to bring independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and their dependent claims, within the standard for eligibility under the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Furthermore, the training of the machine learning model is the training of a system wherein there is a receiving and/or retrieving multiple sets of inputs from various sources, and the associated outputs, of one or more systems and processing the data (using a computing system and/or processor) to generate or extract models, rules, etc. that correspond to, govern, and/or estimate the operation of the system(s)… The limitations preclude the training of both neural networks and machine learning models from being performed in the mind are similar in that both essentially require the surrender of control to the machine itself so that the logic may be derived from the input and outputs. Indeed, the only controls which may be exerted by humans are, fundamentally, what is input and what outputs are considered proper and thus appropriate for inclusion. The actual derivation of the operative/controlling logic occurs entirely within the confines of the machine itself, unaltered by the mind. The claimed functionality of executing such machine learning logic, and iteratively updating the logic based on outcomes, therefore cannot be performed within the mind given the inherent process of how machines learn and how they are trained to do so. None of the aforementioned in the claims can possibly be provided by a mental process and is beyond a mere abstract idea of organizing human activity because it provides an improvement in computer-related technology that cannot possibly be performed in the human mind. Therefore, Applicants respectfully submit that independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as presented, are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 for patentability. Accordingly, withdrawal of these rejections is respectfully requested.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully notes that first, the “analyzing” and “determining” steps were noted as reciting a mental process as the use of a
physical aid (i.e., the pen and paper) to help perform a mental step does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. Secondly, the use of machine learning in dependent claims 3 and 10 do not provide significantly more. "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18).
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 17-18 of 19) that Theobald fails to teach or otherwise disclose a location profile, much less deploying a robot designed to utilize an optimal path to deliver package based on a user profile and a location profile; wherein deploying the robot comprises unlocking a security lock mechanism of the robot based on the user profile. The Office Action alleges that Theobald mentions a location profile; however, the cited portion of Theobald broadly references a current location and surrounding obstacles. The instantly claimed invention goes well beyond this as the location profiles are defined as analyses of sensor data relating to a given venue in addition to map data, security updates of the venue, venue-specific restrictions, national traveling advisories, weather updates, and any other applicable type of data configured to ascertained by web crawlers, designated area information for travelers to receive package(s) (e.g., luggage, suitcases, etc.) such as baggage claim, scheduling of releasing of packages to said designated areas, and predictions generated by machine learning models that relate to contamination zones, congested areas, etc. 4 Theobald is not nearly sophisticated enough to account for the aforementioned, much less deploy robots based on mapping a physical area derived from analyses of sensor data, etc. In fact, if robots are deployed by the system of Theobald then there is no means to authenticate a user profile in order to prompt the robot to unlock a package for delivery. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicants respectfully submit that independent claims 1, 8, and 15 as presented are novel over the art of record and that these claims are therefore in condition for allowance. Accordingly, the rejections of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are respectfully requested to be withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Theobald teaches in col. 11, lines 27-41, that In step 1002, mobile robot 20 moves to the guest room for an arrival at or proximate to the requested time and/or date. The controller 38, for example, may calculate an approximate transit time from its current location or a predicted start location (e.g., another guest's room) to the guest room. Based on this transit time, the controller 38 may determine a departure time for when the mobile robot 20 should start moving to the guest room. The controller 38 may subsequently signal the drive system 32 to autonomously move the mobile robot 20 from its current location to the guest room based on the departure time and using data received from the sensor system 24. The controller 38 may also or alternatively signal the drive system 32 to move using command data received through the communication system 28); and (Theobald: col. 13, lines 42-47; After receiving the items at a pickup location (e.g., a supply room) or pickup locations, the mobile robot 20 may move along a path (e.g., a delivery route) through the hospitality business. At various locations along the path, the mobile robot 20 may autonomously deliver one or more items to one or more guests based on the delivery schedule); and col. 14, lines 12-18, In some embodiments, the mobile robot may select the locations of where the items are to be delivered based on a distance and/or a period of time the mobile robot 20 moves along its path. The distance and/or period of time may be tracked from, for example, a common point (e.g., starting point) or the last location at which an item was delivered (e.g., placed); and , At various locations along the path, the mobile robot 20 may autonomously deliver one or more items to one or more guests based on the delivery schedule); and col. 14, lines 12-18, In some embodiments, the mobile robot may select the locations of where the items are to be delivered based on a distance and/or a period of time the mobile robot 20 moves along its path. The distance and/or period of time may be tracked from, for example, a common point (e.g., starting point) or the last location at which an item was delivered (e.g., placed).
Further, Petersen et al. discloses wherein program instructions to deploy the robot comprises program instructions to unlock a security lock mechanism of the robot based on the user profile in [0046] In a first variation, Block S230 is performed automatically by the robot in communication with a remote database (e.g., a facial recognition system of the robot extracts facial features of the user, and queries a remote database to compare the extracted facial features with a set of user profiles containing the facial features of various users, thereby identifying and thus authenticating the user whose facial features correspond to the extracted facial features)… However, Block S230 can additionally or alternatively be performed in any suitable manner and using any other suitable system components. Block S230 is preferably based on the user identity received in Block S220 and the robot identity corresponding to the robot performing Block S230, but can alternatively have any other suitable basis. Block S300 can additionally function to provide the user with access to the compartment); and ([0047] Block S300 is preferably performed in response to authenticating the user, but can additionally or alternatively be performed: without first authenticating the user, concurrent with user authentication (e.g., during the authentication process), and/or at any other suitable time. Block S300 can include unlocking and/or opening the compartment door. In a first variation (e.g., in which the robot includes a powered mechanism that can be controlled to open the door), Block S300 includes completely opening the door (e.g., the door fully opens in an automated fashion upon authentication of the user), such as shown in FIG. 7. In a second variation (e.g., in which the robot door includes a mechanical opening mechanism, such as a spring, configured to partially open the door in response to door unlocking and/or unlatching), Block S300 includes partially opening the door of the compartment (e.g., in response to authenticating the user, the compartment door is unlocked and partially opened, indicating to the user that authentication was successful and allowing the user to fully open the door at a time point of the user's choosing), such as shown in FIG. 8. In a third variation, Block S300 includes unlocking the door (e.g., thereby enabling the user to unlatch and/or open the door after it is unlocked) but not opening the door).
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, page 18 of 19) that each of the dependent claims, on their own merits and in view of their dependence on claims 1, 8, and 15, are respectfully believed to be similarly novel and patentable over the art of record. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request that the rejections of these claims similarly be withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons stated above regarding the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15, line 11, “and the location profile” should be deleted.
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 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 8-11 and 13-14 are directed to a computer program product (i.e., a manufacture). Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are directed to a computer system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 substantially recite:
generating a location profile associated with a location;
analyzing a user profile associated with a user;
determining an optimal path for delivery of packages associated with the user based on the location profile;
utilize the optimal path to deliver package based on the user profile; and
unlocking a security lock mechanism based on the user profile.
These limitations as a whole recite a method or organizing human activity. Managing delivery of a package to a user based on utilizing an optimal path is Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People, which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions (i.e. the generating, analyzing, determining, utilize, and unlocking steps) and/or Commercial Interaction, which includes agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations (i.e. the generating, analyzing, determining, utilize, and unlocking steps) and/or a Mental Process which includes which includes concepts performed in the human mind, such as, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (i.e. analyzing and determining steps). For other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts regarding Commercial Interaction , see "[B]usiness practices designed to advise customers of the status of delivery of their goods have existed at least for several decades, if not longer." Electronic Comm. v. Shopperschoice.com, LLC, 958 F.3d 1178, 1181 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Maher Terminals, LLC, 100 F. Supp. 3d 405, 415 (D.N.J. 2015) (finding the "process of monitoring and moving shipping containers and collecting the relevant data as to the location of the shipping containers" is "an abstraction").
Step 2A, Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claimed computer components in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea Claim 1 recites the additional elements of: “computing device” and “a robot”; Claim 8 recites the additional elements of: “a computer program product,” “a computer readable storage medium,” “instructions,” “a processor,” and “a robot”; Claim 15 recites the additional element of : “a computer system,” “one or more processors,” “one or more computer-readable memories,” and “robot” in perform the “generating,” “analyzing,” and “determining,” “utilize,” and unlocking steps, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Each of the additional limitations in claims 1, 8, and 15 is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (“computing device” and “a robot” in claim 1; the “computer program product,” “a computer readable storage medium,” “instructions,” “a processor,” and “a robot” in claim 8; and “a computer system,” “one or more processors,” “one or more computer-readable memories,” and “robot” in claim 15.
Further, the additional element of the “robot” to utilize the optimal path to deliver packages” is insignificant extra-solution activity (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the limitations are considered pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information and post-solution activity delivering packages based on the gathered data in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the “computing device” and “robot” in claim 1; the “computer program product,” “computer readable storage medium,” “instructions,” “processor,” and “robot” in claim 8; and the “computer system,” “one or more processors,” “one or more computer-readable memories,” and “robot” in claim 18 to perform the “generating,” “analyzing,” “determining,” and “utilize” steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Moreover, the “robot” in the Specification-as-originally-filed in ¶ [0050] is described as a machine that is capable of carrying out a series of actions automatically; and Robot 510 can be an autonomous machine or can be controlled by a human operator. Therefore, the specification describes the robot at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently conventional that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, the independent claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 2, 9, and 16, the recitations, “receiving a plurality of sensor data associated with the location …” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 3, 6, 10, 13, and 20 the limitation merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Dependent claims 3 and 10 recite the optimal path is derived from one or more outputs of machine learning model trained on data derived from the location user. Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 recite the location profile comprises one or more of a length of each conveyor belt within the location, an amount of required time to deliver packages, and an amount of required time for the user to collect packages from a package receiving location. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 4, 9, and 10, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 4, 11, and 17, the recitation, “defining a plurality of zones within the location based on the location profile”; and “assigning the user to at least one zone of the plurality of zones…” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 7, 14, and 19, the recitations, “determining a priority of package delivery based on the location profile”; and “calculating an amount of time for package delivery based on the priority determination” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20, have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected as being ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis
Examiner’s Note: Dependent claims 5, 12, and 18
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 18 appear to provide significantly more than the abstract idea by integrating the judicial exception in practical application. Therefore, the Examiner suggestion incorporating the language from claims 5, 12, and 18, into claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, to overcome the 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theobald (US Patent No. 9,720,414 B1) in view of Peterson et al. (US PG Pub. 20180300676 A1).
As per claim 1, Theobald discloses a computer-implemented method for delivering packages in a risk-free walkway comprising:
generating, by a computing device, a location profile associated with a location (Theobald: col. 2, line 57-col. 3, lines 3; The mobile robot 20 may be configured as an autonomous mobile robot that performs one or more tasks without continuous outside control and/or intervention. The mobile robot 20, for example, may receive instructions to perform a certain task at a certain location such as, for example, to perform a hospitality service (e.g., porter luggage) for an individual (e.g., a guest of a hospitality business). The mobile robot 20 may subsequently determine and perform the operation(s) necessary to complete the task based on, for example, its current location, surrounding obstacles, its operating environment, the type of task to be performed, etc. The mobile robot 20 may also adapt to unknown, new and/or changing operating environments without additional outside control and/or intervention.
analyzing, by the computing device, a user profile associated with a user (Theobald: col. 8, line 61- col. 9, line 10) In step 900 of the method of FIG. 9, the mobile robot 20 receives a request to perform a hospitality service for the guest. This request may be provided (e.g., sent) from the guest, or alternatively from an intermediary such as a staff member of the lodging business who may receive an initial request from the guest. The guest may send the request from his/her mobile telephone (or any other electronic device) to the communication system 28, or to the remote computer system to be reviewed by the staff member. The request may be for one or more hospitality service articles 44 such as, for example, additional linens or toiletries to be delivered to the guest room. The request may also or alternatively be for room service, or any other hospitality service article(s) to be delivered to the guest room. In step 902, the mobile robot 20 gathers the hospitality service articles 44 requested by the guest).
determining, by the computing device, an optimal path for delivery of packages associated with the user based on the location profile (Theobald: col. 13, lines 42-47; After receiving the items at a pickup location (e.g., a supply room) or pickup locations, the mobile robot 20 may move along a path (e.g., a delivery route) through the hospitality business. At various locations along the path, the mobile robot 20 may autonomously deliver one or more items to one or more guests based on the delivery schedule); and col. 14, lines 12-18, In some embodiments, the mobile robot may select the locations of where the items are to be delivered based on a distance and/or a period of time the mobile robot 20 moves along its path. The distance and/or period of time may be tracked from, for example, a common point (e.g., starting point) or the last location at which an item was delivered (e.g., placed); and
deploying, by the computing device, a robot designed to utilize the optimal path to deliver package based on the user profile and the location profile (Theobald: col. 11, lines 27-41, In step 1002, mobile robot 20 moves to the guest room for an arrival at or proximate to the requested time and/or date. The controller 38, for example, may calculate an approximate transit time from its current location or a predicted start location (e.g., another guest's room) to the guest room. Based on this transit time, the controller 38 may determine a departure time for when the mobile robot 20 should start moving to the guest room. The controller 38 may subsequently signal the drive system 32 to autonomously move the mobile robot 20 from its current location to the guest room based on the departure time and using data received from the sensor system 24. The controller 38 may also or alternatively signal the drive system 32 to move using command data received through the communication system 28).
Theobald does not explicitly disclose, however, Peterson et al. discloses:
wherein deploying the robot comprises unlocking, by the computing device, a security lock mechanism of the robot based on the user profile ([0046] In a first variation, Block S230 is performed automatically by the robot in communication with a remote database (e.g., a facial recognition system of the robot extracts facial features of the user, and queries a remote database to compare the extracted facial features with a set of user profiles containing the facial features of various users, thereby identifying and thus authenticating the user whose facial features correspond to the extracted facial features)… However, Block S230 can additionally or alternatively be performed in any suitable manner and using any other suitable system components. Block S230 is preferably based on the user identity received in Block S220 and the robot identity corresponding to the robot performing Block S230, but can alternatively have any other suitable basis. Block S300 can additionally function to provide the user with access to the compartment); and ([0047] Block S300 is preferably performed in response to authenticating the user, but can additionally or alternatively be performed: without first authenticating the user, concurrent with user authentication (e.g., during the authentication process), and/or at any other suitable time. Block S300 can include unlocking and/or opening the compartment door. In a first variation (e.g., in which the robot includes a powered mechanism that can be controlled to open the door), Block S300 includes completely opening the door (e.g., the door fully opens in an automated fashion upon authentication of the user), such as shown in FIG. 7. In a second variation (e.g., in which the robot door includes a mechanical opening mechanism, such as a spring, configured to partially open the door in response to door unlocking and/or unlatching), Block S300 includes partially opening the door of the compartment (e.g., in response to authenticating the user, the compartment door is unlocked and partially opened, indicating to the user that authentication was successful and allowing the user to fully open the door at a time point of the user's choosing), such as shown in FIG. 8. In a third variation, Block S300 includes unlocking the door (e.g., thereby enabling the user to unlatch and/or open the door after it is unlocked) but not opening the door); and [0065] Upon verifying the identity of the user, the robot unlocks and fully opens the compartment. The user removes the incorrect grocery bag from a subcompartment, as detected by a ToF sensor that detects the binary presence or non-presence of goods in the subcompartment, and the robot generates and provides an auditory message in response that states, “Whoops! You took the wrong item!”); also see [0062]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic delivery system of Theobald to include the unlocking of a lock of the robot based on the user profile and location as taught by Peterson et al. in order to navigate the delivery robot to a location associated with an entity, authenticating the entity, initiating an interaction with the entity in response to authenticating the entity, and determining the entity interaction with the compartment (unlocking) (Peterson et al. [0035]).
As per claim 8, Theobald discloses a computer program product for delivering packages in a risk-free walkway, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith (Theobald: col. 5, lines 8-10), wherein the computer readable storage medium is not a transitory signal per se, the program instructions being executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method (Theobald: col. 6, lines 47-51) comprising:
generating a location profile associated with a location (Theobald: col. 2, line 57-col. 3, lines 3; The mobile robot 20 may be configured as an autonomous mobile robot that performs one or more tasks without continuous outside control and/or intervention. The mobile robot 20, for example, may receive instructions to perform a certain task at a certain location such as, for example, to perform a hospitality service (e.g., porter luggage) for an individual (e.g., a guest of a hospitality business). The mobile robot 20 may subsequently determine and perform the operation(s) necessary to complete the task based on, for example, its current location, surrounding obstacles, its operating environment, the type of task to be performed, etc. The mobile robot 20 may also adapt to unknown, new and/or changing operating environments without additional outside control and/or intervention);
analyzing a user profile associated with a user (Theobald: col. 8, line 61- col. 9, line 10) In step 900 of the method of FIG. 9, the mobile robot 20 receives a request to perform a hospitality service for the guest. This request may be provided (e.g., sent) from the guest, or alternatively from an intermediary such as a staff member of the lodging business who may receive an initial request from the guest. The guest may send the request from his/her mobile telephone (or any other electronic device) to the communication system 28, or to the remote computer system to be reviewed by the staff member. The request may be for one or more hospitality service articles 44 such as, for example, additional linens or toiletries to be delivered to the guest room. The request may also or alternatively be for room service, or any other hospitality service article(s) to be delivered to the guest room. In step 902, the mobile robot 20 gathers the hospitality service articles 44 requested by the guest);
determining an optimal path for delivery of packages associated with the user based on the location profile (Theobald: col. 13, lines 42-47; After receiving the items at a pickup location (e.g., a supply room) or pickup locations, the mobile robot 20 may move along a path (e.g., a delivery route) through the hospitality business. At various locations along the path, the mobile robot 20 may autonomously deliver one or more items to one or more guests based on the delivery schedule); and col. 14, lines 12-18, In some embodiments, the mobile robot may select the locations of where the items are to be delivered based on a distance and/or a period of time the mobile robot 20 moves along its path. The distance and/or period of time may be tracked from, for example, a common point (e.g., starting point) or the last location at which an item was delivered (e.g., placed); and
deploying a robot designed to utilize the optimal path to deliver package based on the user profile and the location profile (Theobald: col. 11, lines 27-41, In step 1002, mobile robot 20 moves to the guest room for an arrival at or proximate to the requested time and/or date. The controller 38, for example, may calculate an approximate transit time from its current location or a predicted start location (e.g., another guest's room) to the guest room. Based on this transit time, the controller 38 may determine a departure time for when the mobile robot 20 should start moving to the guest room. The controller 38 may subsequently signal the drive system 32 to autonomously move the mobile robot 20 from its current location to the guest room based on the departure time and using data received from the sensor system 24. The controller 38 may also or alternatively signal the drive system 32 to move using command data received through the communication system 28); and (Theobald: col. 13, lines 42-47; After receiving the items at a pickup location (e.g., a supply room) or pickup locations, the mobile robot 20 may move along a path (e.g., a delivery route) through the hospitality business. At various locations along the path, the mobile robot 20 may autonomously deliver one or more items to one or more guests based on the delivery schedule); and col. 14, lines 12-18, In some embodiments, the mobile robot may select the locations of where the items are to be delivered based on a distance and/or a period of time the mobile robot 20 moves along its path. The distance and/or period of time may be tracked from, for example, a common point (e.g., starting point) or the last location at which an item was delivered (e.g., placed); and
Theobald does not explicitly disclose, however, Peterson et al. discloses:
wherein deploying the robot comprises unlocking, by the computing device, a security lock mechanism of the robot based on the user profile (Peterson et al.: [0046] In a first variation, Block S230 is performed automatically by the robot in communication with a remote database (e.g., a facial recognition system of the robot extracts facial features of the user, and queries a remote database to compare the extracted facial features with a set of user profiles containing the facial features of various users, thereby identifying and thus authenticating the user whose facial features correspond to the extracted facial features)… However, Block S230 can additionally or alternatively be performed in any suitable manner and using any other suitable system components. Block S230 is preferably based on the user identity received in Block S220 and the robot identity corresponding to the robot performing Block S230, but can alternatively have any other suitable basis. Block S300 can additionally function to provide the user with access to the compartment); and ([0047] Block S300 is preferably performed in response to authenticating the user, but can additionally or alternatively be performed: without first authenticating the user, concurrent with user authentication (e.g., during the authentication process), and/or at any other suitable time. Block S300 can include unlocking and/or opening the compartment door. In a first variation (e.g., in which the robot includes a powered mechanism that can be controlled to open the door), Block S300 includes completely opening the door (e.g., the door fully opens in an automated fashion upon authentication of the user), such as shown in FIG. 7. In a second variation (e.g., in which the robot door includes a mechanical opening mechanism, such as a spring, configured to partially open the door in response to door unlocking and/or unlatching), Block S300 includes partially opening the door of the compartment (e.g., in response to authenticating the user, the compartment door is unlocked and partially opened, indicating to the user that authentication was successful and allowing the user to fully open the door at a time point of the user's choosing), such as shown in FIG. 8. In a third variation, Block S300 includes unlocking the door (e.g., thereby enabling the user to unlatch and/or open the door after it is unlocked) but not opening the door); and [0065] Upon verifying the identity of the user, the robot unlocks and fully opens the compartment. The user removes the incorrect grocery bag from a subcompartment, as detected by a ToF sensor that detects the binary presence or non-presence of goods in the subcompartment, and the robot generates and provides an auditory message in response that states, “Whoops! You took the wrong item!”); also see [0062]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic delivery system of Theobald to include the unlocking of a lock of the robot based on the user profile and location as taught by Peterson et al. in order to navigate the delivery robot to a location associated with an entity, authenticating the entity, initiating an interaction with the entity in response to authenticating the entity, and determining the entity interaction with the compartment (unlocking) (Peterson et al. [0035]).
As per claim 15, Theobald discloses a computer system for delivering packages in a risk-free walkway, the computer system comprising: one or more processors;
one or more computer-readable memories (Theobald: col. 5, lines 8-10);
program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories for execution by at least one of the one or more processors (Theobald: col. 6, lines 47-51), the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to generate a location profile associated with a location (Theobald: col. 2, line 57-col. 3, lines 3);
program instructions to analyze a user profile associated with a user (Theobald: col. 8, line 61- col. 9, line 10);
program instructions to determine an optimal path for delivery of packages associated with the user based on the location profile (Theobald: col. 13, lines 42-47; and col. 14, lines 12-18); and
program instructions to deploy a robot designed to utilize the optimal path to deliver package based on the user profile (Theobald: col. 11, lines 27-41; and col. 13, lines 42-47).
Theobald does not explicitly disclose, however, Peterson et al. discloses:
wherein program instructions to deploy the robot comprises program instructions to unlock a security lock mechanism of the robot based on the user profile (Peterson et al.: [0046] In a first variation, Block S230 is performed automatically by the robot in communication with a remote database (e.g., a facial recognition system of the robot extracts facial features of the user, and queries a remote database to compare the extracted facial features with a set of user profiles containing the facial features of various users, thereby identifying and thus authenticating the user whose facial features correspond to the extracted facial features)… However, Block S230 can additionally or alternatively be performed in any suitable manner and using any other suitable system components. Block S230 is preferably based on the user identity received in Block S220 and the robot identity corresponding to the robot performing Block S230, but can alternatively have any other suitable basis. Block S300 can additionally function to provide the user with access to the compartment); and ([0047] Block S300 is preferably performed in response to authenticating the user, but can additionally or alternatively be performed: without first authenticating the user, concurrent with user authentication (e.g., during the authentication process), and/or at any other suitable time. Block S300 can include unlocking and/or opening the compartment door. In a first variation (e.g., in which the robot includes a powered mechanism that can be controlled to open the door), Block S300 includes completely opening the door (e.g., the door fully opens in an automated fashion upon authentication of the user), such as shown in FIG. 7. In a second variation (e.g., in which the robot door includes a mechanical opening mechanism, such as a spring, configured to partially open the door in response to door unlocking and/or unlatching), Block S300 includes partially opening the door of the compartment (e.g., in response to authenticating the user, the compartment door is unlocked and partially opened, indicating to the user that authentication was successful and allowing the user to fully open the door at a time point of the user's choosing), such as shown in FIG. 8. In a third variation, Block S300 includes unlocking the door (e.g., thereby enabling the user to unlatch and/or open the door after it is unlocked) but not opening the door); and [0065] Upon verifying the identity of the user, the robot unlocks and fully opens the compartment. The user removes the incorrect grocery bag from a subcompartment, as detected by a ToF sensor that detects the binary presence or non-presence of goods in the subcompartment, and the robot generates and provides an auditory message in response that states, “Whoops! You took the wrong item!”); also see [0062]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic delivery system of Theobald to include the unlocking of a lock of the robot based on the user profile and location as taught by Peterson et al. in order to navigate the delivery robot to a location associated with an entity, authenticating the entity, initiating an interaction with the entity in response to authenticating the entity, and determining the entity interaction with the compartment (unlocking) (Peterson et al. [0035]).
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theobald (US Patent No. 9,720,414 B1) in view of Peterson et al. (US PG Pub. 20180300676 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above and further in view of Gordon et al. (US PG Pub. 2023/0393591 A1).
As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Theobald in view of Peterson et al. discloses the computer-implemented method, computer program, and system of claims 1, 8, and 15. Theobald further discloses wherein generating the location profile comprises:
receiving, by the computing device, a plurality of sensor data associated with the location (Theobald: col. 4, lines 22-38, Referring to FIG. 2, the sensor system 24 is adapted to survey an operational environment of the mobile robot 20; e.g., the environment of the hospitality business. The sensor system 24 is also or alternatively adapted to receive location data indicative of a location of the mobile robot 20 and/or location(s) of other object(s) within the operating environment). The sensor system 24 includes one or more locator sensors. These locator sensors may be operated to spatially locate (e.g., triangulate) the mobile robot 20 relative to, for example, its surrounding environment, its geographic location, and/or one or more locators (e.g., RF tags, physical landmarks, etc.). Examples of a locator sensor include, but are not limited to, a proximity sensor, a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, a radar system, an infrared system, a laser system, a radio transceiver, and a visual location system with at least one camera 58).
Theobald in view of Peterson et al. does not further disclose, however, Gordon et al. discloses:
wherein the plurality of sensor data comprises at least contamination data indicating the presence of contamination of one or more areas within the location (Gordon et al.: [0011] Aspects of the invention include delivery drop-off areas (also referred to as “delivery areas”), in which packages are physically “dropped off” at a home or a business location. Delivery drop-off areas at a home typically include areas near or extending from an entrance to the home location, such as a front or side door entrance. A delivery drop-off area at a business location may be adjacent to or nearby a “receiving” door or entrance. A delivery drop-off area includes a drop-off point at which the package is placed within the delivery area, and the area immediately surrounding the drop-off point. The drop-off area also includes one or more pathways extending from a delivery location building entrance to the target point. In some embodiments, conditions may include snow or ice that has been moved aside or treated with melt-producing materials, however, nearby snow may have melted, flowed, and refrozen near or into the drop-off area, resulting in a slip or fall hazard. In other cases, objects or surface damage in the drop-off area may present a tripping hazard ); and (Gordon et al. [0013] Surface assessment models predict the surface conditions based on the received optical data as well as the time of day, current and predicted weather conditions for the immediate area, and history associated with the drop-off location. In some embodiments, the use of disclosed optical detection technology, utilizing infrared thermometry to produce radiance measurements at specific spectral bands, can detect water and ice on pathway surfaces and distinguish each from the other. The radiance measurements also detect the presence of black ice on surfaces, which isn't easily identified by eyesight alone and may present a high injury risk to customers using the pathway surface to retrieve a delivered package). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic delivery system of Theobald in view of Peterson et al. to include the hazard sensor data input for delivery locations as taught by along with the current and forecasted weather conditions combined as taught by Gordon et al. to provide an assessment of the risk level associated with each segment of the delivery drop-off area and connecting pathway (Gordon et al.: [0016])
As per claim 4, 11, and 17, Theobald in view of Peterson et al. discloses the computer-implemented method, computer program, and system of claims 1, 8, and 15. Theobald further discloses wherein determining the optimal path for delivery of the package comprises:
defining, by the computing device, a plurality of zones within the location based on the location profile (Theobald:, col. 7, lines 1-10 teaches greeting/drop off locations at lodging business; col. 14, lines 44-55 teaches greeting/drop off locations at airport terminal;; col. 13, lines 42-55 teaches delivery routes); and
assigning, by the computing device, the user to at least one zone of the plurality of zones (Theobald: col. 2, lines 57-67, The mobile robot 20, for example, may receive instructions to perform a certain task at a certain location such as, for example, to perform a hospitality service (e.g., porter luggage) for an individual (e.g., a guest of a hospitality business). The mobile robot 20 may subsequently determine and perform the operation(s) necessary to complete the task based on, for example, its current location, surrounding obstacles, its operating environment, the type of task to be performed, etc. The mobile robot 20 may also adapt to unknown, new and/or changing operating environments without additional outside control and/or intervention).
Theobald in view of Peterson et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Gordon et al. discloses:
wherein at least one zone of the plurality of zones is associated with a risk-free walkway associated with the user within the location free of contamination (Gordon et al.: Abstract: [0011] Aspects of the invention include delivery drop-off areas (also referred to as “delivery areas”), in which packages are physically “dropped off” at a home or a business location. Delivery drop-off areas at a home typically include areas near or extending from an entrance to the home location, such as a front or side door entrance. A delivery drop-off area at a business location may be adjacent to or nearby a “receiving” door or entrance. A delivery drop-off area includes a drop-off point at which the package is placed within the delivery area, and the area immediately surrounding the drop-off point. The drop-off area also includes one or more pathways extending from a delivery location building entrance to the target point. In some embodiments, conditions may include snow or ice that has been moved aside or treated with melt-producing materials, however, nearby snow may have melted, flowed, and refrozen near or into the drop-off area, resulting in a slip or fall hazard. In other cases, objects or surface damage in the drop-off area may present a tripping hazard ). The Examiner interprets that to mean that the risk is mitigated and therefore, the delivery area id risk-free. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic delivery system of Theobald in view of Peterson et al. to include the hazard sensor data input for delivery locations as taught by along with the current and forecasted weather conditions combined as taught by Gordon et al. to provide an assessment of the risk level associated with each segment of the delivery drop-off area and connecting pathway where a user retrieves packages and mitigate any hazards (Gordon et al.: [0016])
As per claims 5, 12, and 18, Theobald in view of Peterson et al. and Gordon et al. discloses the computer-implemented method, computer program, and system of claims 4, 11, and 17. Theobald further discloses wherein deploying the robot further comprises:
unlocking, by the computing device, the security lock mechanism of the robot at the at least one zone in response to a verification of the user profile (Theobald: [0059] Once the requested hospitality service articles 44 are within the drawer 46, the mobile robot 20 may receive instructions through the user interface 26 from the staff member to close and/or secure the drawer 46 using the manipulator system 34 and/or the security system 36. In this manner, unauthorized individuals (e.g., other guests) may be unable to access the requested hospitality service articles 44.)
wherein unlocking the security lock mechanism allows the package to be released to the user (Theobald: col. 10, lines 4-10, In step 910, the mobile robot 20 delivers the requested hospitality service articles 44 to the guest where, for example, the security information satisfies the security criteria. The controller 38, for example, may signal the security system 36 and/or the manipulator system 34 to unlock and/or open the drawer 46 to provide the guest access to the hospitality service articles 44.
As per claims 6, 13, and 20, Theobald in view of Peterson et al. and Gordon et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, 9, and 16. Theobald further discloses, wherein the location profile comprises one or more of a length of each conveyor belt within the location, an amount of required time to deliver packages, and an amount of required time for the user to collect packages from a package receiving location (Theobald: col. 14, lines 12-18, In some embodiments, the mobile robot may select the locations of where the items are to be delivered based on a distance and/or a period of time the mobile robot 20 moves along its path. The distance and/or period of time may be tracked from, for example, a common point (e.g., starting point) or the last location at which an item was delivered (e.g., placed); and (Theobald: col. 11, lines 27-41).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theobald (US Patent No. 9,720,414 B1) in view of Peterson et al. (US PG Pub. 20180300676 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above and further in view of Fox et al. (US PG Pub. 2024/0149443 A1)
As per claims 3 and 10, Theobald discloses the computer-implemented method and computer program product of claims 1 and 8. Theobald in view of Peterson et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Fox et al. discloses wherein the optimal path is derived from one or more outputs of a machine learning model trained on data derived from the location profile (Fox et al.: Abstract and [0021] After training the model to determine an optimal movement path for transporting items using mobile robots and receiving certain information pertaining to the transportation of the items, such as the source and target locations, the number of items to be transported and the properties of the items to be transported, simulations of mobile robots transporting the items from the source location to the target location using various movement paths are performed. An optimal movement path for transporting such items from the source location to the target location is identified using the trained model based on the simulated movement paths, the historical times for the movement of the items using various movement paths, the number of items to be transported and the properties of the items. Mobile robots out of the available mobile robots are then organized to implement the identified optimal movement path to transport the items from the source location to the target location using the optimal movement path). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic delivery system of Theobald in view of Peterson et al. to include training a model to determine the optimal path as taught by Fox et al. in order to provide items transported by robots from a source location to a target location, in an efficient manner (lowest item movement time) using artificial intelligence (Fox et al.: [0021].
Claims 7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Theobald (US Patent No. 9,720,414 B1) in view of Peterson et al. (US PG Pub. 20180300676 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above and further in view of Otsuki et al. (US Patent No. 12,062,006 B2).
As per claims 7, 14, and 19, Theobald in view of Peterson et al. discloses the computer-implemented method, computer program, and system of claims 1, 8, and 15. Theobald in view of Peterson et al. does not further disclose, however, Otsuki et al. discloses wherein determining the optimal path for delivery of the package further comprises:
determining, by the computing device, a priority of package delivery based on the location profile (Otsuki et al.: col. 8, lines 13-19, The respective delivery robots 20A, 20B, 20C generate the optimum traveling routes RA, RB, RC based on the map data. However, since the travelable area on the map is limited, the traveling routes naturally overlap. Even if the traveling routes overlap, there will be no problem if the location is such that many delivery robots can pass through at the same time, such as on a wide road); and (Otsuki et al.: col. 11, lines 5-29 teaches FIG. 6A shows an example in which two delivery robots 20A, 20B arrived at almost the same time at the entrance of the elevator 42, which is a bottleneck section. The delivery management server 32 confirms that the delivery robots 20A, 20B are gathered at the entrance of the elevator 42 based on the monitoring information transmitted from the delivery robots 20A, 20B. In this case, the delivery management server 32 determines that the arbitration of the order of riding the elevator 42 is required, and compares the delivery priority levels of the packages 60A, 60B delivered by the respective delivery robots 20A, 20B by referring to the delivery priority level management table. Then, the delivery management server 32 instructs to each of the delivery robots 20A, 20B how they should behave based on the comparison.; also see FIGS. 5, 6B, and 7A; also see col. 13, lines 38-43 which teaches a robot sharing human use elevator rather than using a cargo elevator if the priority level is high).
calculating, by the computing device, an amount of time for package delivery based on the priority determination (Otsuki et al.: col. 10, lines 10-17, (5) Scheduled Return Home Time of Resident in Destination:: When the scheduled return home time of the resident in the destination can be expected, for example, the delivery priority level is lowered as the margin time to the scheduled return home time is longer, and is raised as the margin time becomes shorter. This makes it possible to deliver the package matching the time when the resident returns to the destination); and (Otsuki et al.: col. 10, lines 32-48 teaches priority levels based on elapsed time from departure of delivery robot from a delivery source and elapsed time from order from residence in destination). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic delivery system of Theobald in view of Peterson et al.to include the prioritization of deliveries amongst robots as taught by Otsuki et al. to preferentially permitting packages with higher priority levels to pass through bottlenecks (Otsuki et al.: Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Ferguson et al. (US Patent No. 11830058 B2) discloses automated retail store on autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle which uses an identification module for identifying the customer based at least on input data and a compartment module unlocking the compartment based at least on the identity of the customer.
2) Zahra Tayeb, "Hotels across the US are using room-service robots to assist guests and deliver food, amid staffing shortages", Jan 23, 2022, businessinsider.com, 3 pages discloses that hotels across the US are using room-service robots to deal with staffing issues caused by a perpetual labor shortage.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights