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 .
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.
After 2019 PEG
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-25 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.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim recites:
1. A system for data collection in an industrial production system including a plurality of components, the system for data collection comprising:
a sensor communication circuit structured to interpret a plurality of data values from a sensed parameter group, wherein the sensed parameter group includes a plurality of sensors including a vibration sensor and a temperature sensor, and wherein the plurality of sensors are operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of components;
a data analysis circuit structured to detect an off-nominal operating condition of at least one component of the industrial production system based on detecting that the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor indicate a vibration pattern that matches a stored vibration fingerprint together with detecting that the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor indicate a change in a temperature, wherein the stored vibration fingerprint is associated with the off-nominal operating condition of the at least one component of the industrial production system; and
a response circuit structured to modify a production-related operating parameter of the industrial production system in response to the detected off-nominal operating condition.
These above bold-faced limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements as underlined above. The industrial production system and sensed parameter group coupled to the components are recited as to indicate the technological environment and the source of data (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The sensor communication circuit, data analysis circuit, and response circuit can be a generic processor or computer invoked for the data processing (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are to invoke a generic computer for its computing power to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and to indicate the data source or environment, which is a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to more the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is similarly rejected by analogy to claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-25 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea., as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the claims into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 11-17, 19, 20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 20200284694 A1; cited previously) in view of Zhang (US 20060174707 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Scott teaches a system for data collection in an industrial production system including a plurality of components (i.e., “A monitoring system for monitoring a machine”; see Abstract; “inspect machines”; see [0188]), the system for data collection comprising:
a sensor communication circuit structured to interpret a plurality of data values from a sensed parameter group (i.e., “The one or more processing systems receive the sensor data”; see Abstract), wherein the sensed parameter group includes a plurality of sensors including a vibration sensor and a temperature sensor (i.e., “The monitoring device typically includes a plurality of sensors 113, each of which is adapted to sense one or more characteristics. Whilst any suitable sensors could be used, in general the sensors 113 include at least a vibration sensor that senses vibrations transmitted from the machine to the vibration sensor via the coupling 121. However, other sensors, such as temperature sensors, or the like, could be used”; see [0085]), and wherein the plurality of sensors are operatively coupled to at least one of the plurality of components (i.e., “a monitoring device 110 having a housing 120 and a coupling 121 that physically attaches the housing 120 to machine E that is to be monitored”; see [0084]);
a data analysis circuit structured to detect an off-nominal operating condition of at least one component of the industrial production system (i.e., “the processing system 130 analyses the sensor data to determine a machine status… include an indication of whether the machine is functioning as expected, or if not the nature of any problem”; see [0091]) based on detecting that the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor indicate a vibration pattern that matches a stored vibration fingerprint together with detecting that the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor indicate a change in a temperature (i.e., “the reference data being indicative of at least one of: signals from the one or more sensors; parameters derived from signals from the one or more sensors; patterns derived from signals from the one or more sensors; reference thresholds derived from the signals from the one or more sensors; and, reference ranges derived from the signals from the one or more sensors”; see [0027]; “the parameters include at least one of: a noise level; a noise frequency; a temperature; a temperature change; a rate of temperature change; a vibration frequency; a vibration magnitude; a vibration pattern; a vibration change; and, a rate of vibration change”; see [0029]; “comparing the sensor signals to reference behaviour of the machine, which is usually at least partially indicative of normal operation of the machine… using signals from the one or more sensors outside this first time period, together with the reference behaviour, to determine a machine status”; see [0112]),
a response circuit structured to modify a production-related operating parameter of the industrial production system in response to the detected off-nominal operating condition (i.e., “generates an alert depending on results of the determination”: see [0037]; “provide alerts… schedule maintenance”; see [0188]).
Scott does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the stored vibration fingerprint is associated with the off-nominal operating condition of the at least one component of the industrial production system.
But Zhang teaches:
wherein the stored vibration fingerprint is associated with the off-nominal operating condition of the at least one component of the industrial production system (i.e., “extracting a sound or vibration signatures including components of liquid flowing through a know broken pipe or hose, such as a plastic or copper pipe cracked by frozen water, to be connected to a liquid carrying infrastructure, and store them in digital form as signatures of ABNORMAL FLOWS. This signature can be in time domain or frequency domain or a composite signature with multiple characteristics. An ABNORMAL EVENT PROFILE is created by tracking vibration and sound signal during the process when a section burst pipe starting to leak after a thaw”; see [0039]); and
using both stored normal and abnormal signatures to identify abnormalities (i.e., “By comparing the detected signatures with NORMAL and ABNORMAL digital signatures, the present invention is able to intelligently and rapidly identify events that are likely to cause damages and take appropriate actions”; see [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scott in view of Zhang to also incorporate the abnormal signatures (i.e., off-nominal condition fingerprint), such that the stored vibration fingerprint is associated with the off-nominal operating condition of the at least one component of the industrial production system, as claimed. The rationale would be to better identify abnormality of the machine (such as the types or sources of abnormality associated with the matching abnormal signature).
Regarding claim 2, Scott further teaches:
wherein the sensed parameter group comprises a fused plurality of sensors including the vibration sensor and the temperature sensor (i.e., “the plurality of sensors include at least one of: at least one current sensor; a noise sensor; an acoustic sensor; a temperature sensor; a pressure sensor; a humidity sensor; a movement sensor; and, an optical sensor”; see [0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Scott further teaches:
a pattern recognition circuit structured to determine a recognized pattern value in response to the plurality of data values from the sensed parameter group comprising the fused plurality of sensors (i.e., “determines operational data using signals from the one or more sensors, the operational data being based on at least one of: signals from the one or more sensors; parameters derived from signals from the one or more sensors; and, patterns derived from signals from the one or more sensors… a vibration pattern”; see [0028]-[0029]), wherein the recognized pattern value includes a secondary value comprising a component overtemperature value (i.e., “a temperature change”; see [0029]; “if signals from the sensors do not exceed certain threshold values during the first time period, then if signals exceed these threshold values during monitored operation, this could be indicative of a problem that requires maintenance or additional investigation”; see [0113]).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Scott does not explicitly disclose:
an input selection system that determines a fusion of the plurality of sensors including the vibration sensor and the temperature sensor based on learning from feedback to improve prediction of the off-nominal operating condition.
However, it is well-known to verify assumptions by experiments. Also, Scott further teaches determining the fused sensors based on the nature of the machine and preferred implementation (see [0116]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an input selection system that determines a fusion of the plurality of sensors including the vibration sensor and the temperature sensor based on learning from feedback to improve prediction of the operating condition, as claimed. The rationale would be to select a preferred combination of fusion of sensors based on a result (feedback) of experiment with different combinations of fusion of sensors.
Regarding claim 5, Scott further teaches:
wherein the data analysis circuit analyzes the plurality of data values including a variation in the temperature over time in fusion with the vibration pattern from the vibration sensor (i.e., “the parameters include at least one of: a noise level; a noise frequency; a temperature; a temperature change; a rate of temperature change; a vibration frequency; a vibration magnitude; a vibration pattern; a vibration change; and, a rate of vibration change”; see [0029]).
Regarding claim 7, as a result of modification applied to claim 1 above, Scott in view of Zhang further teaches:
a library, wherein the library stores a plurality of vibration fingerprints and associated off-nominal operating conditions, and wherein the plurality of vibration fingerprints include the stored vibration fingerprint that matches the vibration pattern (i.e., “extracting a sound or vibration signatures including components of liquid flowing through a know broken pipe or hose, such as a plastic or copper pipe cracked by frozen water, to be connected to a liquid carrying infrastructure, and store them in digital form as signatures of ABNORMAL FLOWS. This signature can be in time domain or frequency domain or a composite signature with multiple characteristics. An ABNORMAL EVENT PROFILE is created by tracking vibration and sound signal during the process when a section burst pipe starting to leak after a thaw”; see Zhang, [0039]; “By comparing the detected signatures with NORMAL and ABNORMAL digital signatures, the present invention is able to intelligently and rapidly identify events that are likely to cause damages and take appropriate actions”; see Zhang, [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Scott further teaches:
wherein each of the plurality of vibration fingerprints stored in the library includes at least one of a frequency, a spectra, a peak frequency location, a wave peak shape, a waveform shape, a wave envelope shape, phase information, or a phase shift (i.e., “the parameters include at least one of: a noise level; a noise frequency; a temperature; a temperature change; a rate of temperature change; a vibration frequency; a vibration magnitude; a vibration pattern; a vibration change; and, a rate of vibration change”; see [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Scott further teaches:
wherein the fused plurality of sensors is self-organized (i.e., “Sensor data indicative of the vibrations and any other measured parameters can then be transferred to one or more remote processing systems, allowing these to be analysed to ensure the machine is functioning correctly. This reduces the level of processing required by the monitoring device, allowing this to be implemented using relatively cheap and straightforward sensors and associated hardware, in turn allowing the sensors to be deployed widely without undue expense. Consequently, a number of different monitoring devices can be attached to a variety of different pieces of machine (generally referred to as assets), allowing these to be monitored centrally, making it easy for an entity to monitor a wide range of distributed assets”; see [0094).
Regarding claim 12, Scott further teaches:
an expert system seeded with the data values from the vibration sensor to determine if a change in a parameter (i.e., “different pumping levels”) of a machine of the industrial production system affects an intrinsic operation of the machine (i.e., “a pump in a pumping facility may be adapted to operate at different pumping levels during different times of the day, for example starting up at 7 am, operating at an intermediate capacity until midday and then operating at maximum capacity until 5 pm. Accordingly, the machine learning approach can identify these patterns and then analyse reference and operational data at similar times of the day to ensure that operational data is compared to reference data collected when the pump is exhibiting similar behaviours”; see [0122]).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 2 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 3 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 4 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 5 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 7 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 8 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 23, Scott further teaches:
detecting the operating condition further based on one or more additional parameters, wherein the one or more additional parameters includes at least one of a decreased flow rate, an increase in the temperature, a material in use, a duration of use, a power source, an installation, or an ambient sensed condition including at least one of an ambient noise or an ambient temperature (i.e., “the parameters include at least one of: a noise level; a noise frequency; a temperature; a temperature change; a rate of temperature change; a vibration frequency; a vibration magnitude; a vibration pattern; a vibration change; and, a rate of vibration change”; see [0029]).
Regarding claim 24, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 12 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 25, Scott further teaches:
determining that the change in the parameter alters a vibration fingerprint of the machine such that a stored vibration fingerprint of the machine for a normal operation is no longer correct (i.e., “the system can be adapted to compare reference and operational data determined during corresponding time intervals during which the machine is expected to exhibit similar behaviour. For example, a pump in a pumping facility may be adapted to operate at different pumping levels during different times of the day, for example starting up at 7 am, operating at an intermediate capacity until midday and then operating at maximum capacity until 5 pm. Accordingly, the machine learning approach can identify these patterns and then analyse reference and operational data at similar times of the day to ensure that operational data is compared to reference data collected when the pump is exhibiting similar behaviours”; see [0122]; note that the stored reference data cannot be applied when no matching pumping level (i.e., no similar behaviour) is found).
Claims 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Zhang and Sakatani et al. (US 7034711 B2; cited previously; hereinafter “Sakatani”).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Scott does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor and the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor are multiplexed into a data steam that combines the plurality of data values in a time series.
But Sakatani teaches:
wherein the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor and the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor are multiplexed into a data steam that combines the plurality of data values in a time series (i.e., “The multiplexer 6 multiplexes the signals output from the vibration sensor module 4 and the temperature sensor module 5 respectively so that the signals can be separated later as detection data independent of each other”; see col. 10, lines 32-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scott in view of Zhang, further in view of Sakatani, by providing a multiplexer, such that the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor and the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor are multiplexed into a data steam that combines the plurality of data values in a time series, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate data communications.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 9 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Zhang and Miyasaka et al. (US 20080234964 A1; cited in IDS; hereinafter “Miyasaka”).
Regarding claim 10, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Scott does not explicitly disclose:
a peak detection circuit structured to verify consistency of timing of peak values between the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor and the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor.
But Scott further teaching presenting both time-series vibration data and time-series temperature data to allow an operator to view and verify the data (see [0175]-[0176] and FIG. 8B).
And Miyasaka teaches the timing relationships between the vibration peaks and temperature signals in an aging status (see [0185] and FIGs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scott in view of Zhang, further in view of Miyasaka to provide a peak detection circuit structured to verify consistency of timing of peak values between the plurality of data values from the vibration sensor and the plurality of data values from the temperature sensor, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate better assessment of the machine’s status using the additional timing information.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 10 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Notes
Claims 6 and 18 distinguish over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the feature (claim 6 as the representative): “wherein the data analysis circuit omits an average temperature from a variation in the temperature over time to produce a resulting delta change in the temperature that is processed through a Fourier transform to produce a frequency spectrum, and wherein the data analysis circuit determines whether the frequency spectrum correlates to the off-nominal operating condition,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Scott, Zhang, Sakatani, and Miyasaka are silent about the indicated feature.
Response to Arguments
The objections to the drawings have been withdrawn in view of the arguments.
Regarding 35 USC 101, Applicant argued: Applicant respectfully submits that comparing data values of a vibration sensor with a "stored vibration fingerprint [that] is associated with [an] off-nominal operating condition of [] at least one component of the industrial production system," as recited in claim 1, enables an automated determination of a likely point of failure of the machine, which may further inform the user as opposed to simply notifying the user of "abnormal" sensor readings that the user is required to investigate, diagnose, and assess. Further, such automated determination may enable an automated response to address the off-nominal operating condition, such as automatically changing a rate of operation of the at least one component (e.g., operating the component at a different speed to mitigate the off-nominal vibration), automatically changing an operation of the industrial production system to avoid using the component associated with the off-nominal operating condition (e.g., relying on a backup or substitute component in place of the off- components in order to maintain the production of the industrial production system), or automatically shutting down the at least one component to avoid damage and/or dangerous conditions. Applicant respectfully submits that these automated techniques may enable a faster and/or more direct response to the off-nominal operating condition of the at least one component, which provides a practical application of any "abstract ideas" that the Examiner may believe that the claims require.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the argued “automated determination,” “inform the user,” “enable an automated response,” “automatically changing a rate of operation,” “automatically changing an operation of the industrial production,” and “automatically shutting down the at least one component” etc. are not recited in the claim. Instead, the claim recites “to modify a production-related operating parameter of the industrial production system in response to the detected off-nominal operating condition” in the end. It is recited at a high level of generality that it can be a modification of data (i.e., parameter) that is part of the abstract idea.
Regarding 35 USC 102/103, Applicant argued: Based on at least these portions, Applicant understands Scott to disclose a comparison of current sensor readings with reference data that indicates normal operation of the machine, wherein a deviation between the current sensor readings and the reference data indicates abnormal operation. Applicant respectfully submits that Scott does not disclose, teach, or fairly suggest comparing the sensor readings with reference data that indicates a specific abnormal operation of a component of the machine, such as a failure of a particular part. Rather, Applicant believes that Scott only discloses that the comparison with normal reference data is "abnormal," optionally with information such as changes in the "normal" or "abnormal" determinations over time, allows a user to determine a likely point of failure. Id. at paragraph [0123]… Applicant respectfully submits that these automated techniques may enable a faster and/or more direct response to the off-nominal operating condition of the at least one component than requiring a user to investigate, diagnose, and assess the machine to address a generic indication of an "abnormal" operating condition, as disclosed in Scott. Applicant submits that because Scott fails to disclose, teach, or fairly suggest each and every limitation of amended claim 1, amended claim 1 is allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Claim 13, as amended, includes similar limitations as amended claim 1, and is therefore allowable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 for similar reasons as amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 USC 103 is made further in view of Zhang (see rejections above).
Conclusion
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 JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857