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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 11/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-10 are pending in the application. In response to Applicant's amendments, Examiner withdraws the previous objections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach all of the limitations (specifically, “a supplier that picks up the component” and “a controller… controls the supplier to move the component that is unpickable on a basis of the calculated operation amount”) of independent claim 1 and similar language in independent claims 9 and 10 on pages 6-8 of Applicant’s Remarks. Given claims 3-8 depend on independent claim 1, Applicant similarly argues that the prior art of record does not teach claims 3-8.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a broader interpretation of the claim limitation “supplier”. Where the supplier of Muto is the component supply system 10, comprising both robot hand 16 and movable tray 11, Muto teaches “a supplier that picks up the component” and “controls the supplier to move the component that is unpickable on a basis of the calculated operation amount” in independent claim 1 and the similar language in independent claims 9 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muto and Sasaki (publication JP 2018008343; hereafter “Muto”). Citations are made to paragraph numbers of the English translation.
Regarding claim 10, Muto discloses
A non-transitory recording medium storing a computer readable program causing a computer to execute (See at least “A program (for example, the component pickup program 1) executed by the control device 20 may be recorded and stored in the memory 22 or may be recorded and stored in the auxiliary storage device 23” in paragraph [0027] and “the auxiliary storage device 23 is a memory device that… includes, for example, a non-volatile memory” in paragraph [0026].):
detecting a component loaded on the picker base (See “a plurality of components 40 (workpieces) placed on a movable tray 11 are photographed by a camera 15” [0011].) and
determining a state of the component (“The information of the image photographed by the camera 15 is transmitted to the control device 20” and “the overlapping state.. of each component 40 [is] grasped by known image processing,” [0012]);
determining whether the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable by a supplier on a basis of the state of the component (The supplier is the component supply system 10, comprising both robot hand 16 and movable tray 11. See “The above determination of the isolated [pickable] component 41 and the candidate [unpickable] component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component” [0024]. “When an isolated component 41 is present in an image, the pickup unit 3 causes the robot hand 16 to pick up the isolated component 41,” [0033]. See also paragraphs [0020] and [0032].);
calculating an operation amount for rearranging the component that is unpickable to a rearrangement position (“The calculation unit 5 calculates in which direction and to what extent the candidate part 42 should be moved in order to eliminated the overlap between the candidate part 42 and another part,” such that the unpickable candidate part 42 becomes the pickable isolated part 41 [0035]. See also [0020] and [0024].);
determining there is no interference between an obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (At the component’s original position, interference with “the candidate [unpickable] component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component,” where the other component is a possible obstacle [0024]. It is determined there is no interference with the candidate component 42 (and that the candidate component 42 is the isolated component 41) “when the component [42] does not overlap the first regions 31 of all the other components” [0024]. At the component’s expected rearrangement position, interference with the peripheral wall portion 14 is determined by comparing the separation distance between the candidate component 42 and peripheral wall portion 14 in the movement direction and the movement distance [0043]. See “At this time, it is preferable to operate the actuator 13 after confirming that the movement distance of the candidate part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14”—that there is no interference between the candidate component’s expected rearrangement position and an obstacle [0043].);
controlling the supplier to move the component that is unpickable on a basis of the calculated operation amount in response to the determination that there is no interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (“The control unit 6 controls the operation of the movable tray 11 to move the candidate component 42 based on the movement distance, the movement direction, and the separation distance of the candidate component 42 calculated by the calculation unit 5” using actuator(s) 13 [0043]. See “At this time, it is preferable to operate the actuator 13 after confirming that the movement distance of the candidate part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14… the moving target may be determined on the condition that the separation distance is equal to or greater than the moving distance”—that the actuator(s) 13 moves the candidate component 42 when there is no interference between the candidate component’s expected rearrangement position and an obstacle [0043]. All isolated (pickable) components are preferentially picked before candidate (unpickable) components; see [0033] and [0034].).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Oda (U.S. Patent No. 8,630,737).
Regarding claim 1, Muto discloses
a picker base on which a component is to be loaded (movable tray 11, Fig. 1);
a supplier that picks up the component loaded on the picker base… (The supplier is the component supply system 10, comprising both robot hand 16 and movable tray 11. See “a plurality of components 40 (workpieces) placed on a movable tray 11 are photographed by a camera 15, and one of the components 40 is picked up by a robot hand 16 using the photographed image” [0011]);
a detector that detects the component loaded on the picker base (See camera 15 in Fig. 1. See also [0011].); and
a hardware processor that determines a state of the component loaded on the picker base, on a basis of information detected by the detector (“The information of the image photographed by the camera 15 is transmitted to the control device 20” and “the overlapping state… of each component 40 [is] grasped by known image processing” [0012]. The control device 20 contains a processor 21 [0025].),
wherein the hardware processor determines whether the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable by the supplier on a basis of the state of the component (“The above determination of the isolated [pickable] component 41 and the candidate [unpickable] component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component” [0024]. “When an isolated component 41 is present in an image, the pickup unit 3 causes the robot hand 16 to pick up the isolated component 41,” [0033]. See also paragraphs [0020] and [0032].),
calculates an operation amount for rearranging the component that is unpickable to a rearrangement position (“The calculation unit 5 calculates in which direction and to what extent the candidate part 42 should be moved in order to eliminated the overlap between the candidate part 42 and another part,” such that the unpickable candidate part 42 becomes the pickable isolated part 41 [0035]. See also [0020] and [0024].),
determines whether or not there is interference between an obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (At the component’s original position, interference with “the candidate [unpickable] component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component,” where the other component is a possible obstacle [0024]. At the component’s expected rearrangement position, interference with the peripheral wall portion 14 is determined by comparing the separation distance between the candidate component 42 and peripheral wall portion 14 in the movement direction and the movement distance [0043]. See “At this time, it is preferable to operate the actuator 13 after confirming that the movement distance of the candidate part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14”—that there will be no interference between the candidate component’s expected rearrangement position and an obstacle [0043].), and
controls the supplier to move the component that is unpickable on a basis of the calculated operation amount in a case where there is no interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (“The control unit 6 controls the operation of the movable tray 11 to move the candidate component 42 based on the movement distance, the movement direction, and the separation distance of the candidate component 42 calculated by the calculation unit 5” using actuator(s) 13 [0043]. See “At this time, it is preferable to operate the actuator 13 after confirming that the movement distance of the candidate part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14… the moving target may be determined on the condition that the separation distance is equal to or greater than the moving distance”—that the actuator(s) 13 will only move the candidate component 42 when there will be no interference between the candidate component’s expected rearrangement position and an obstacle [0043]. All isolated (pickable) components are preferentially picked before candidate (unpickable) components; see [0033] and [0034].).
However, Muto does not explicitly teach “a supplier that… supplies the component to a predetermined position.”
Oda, in the same field of endeavor (component supply devices), teaches
a supplier that picks up the component loaded on the picker base and supplies the component to a predetermined position (Supplier: see article taking out device 10 in Fig. 1. Picker base: see container 20 in Fig. 1. See “Then, arm 22 is upwardly moved while keeping this state [gripping an article 18], and article 18 is conveyed to a predetermined place,” [col. 4, lines 38-39].).
determines whether or not there is interference between an obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (At the component’s original position, interference with container 20 is determined in step S3 of Fig. 2 [col. 4, lines 6-13]. See also col. 4, lines 40-54].).
It is further noted that Oda teaches using the robot 12 to move an unpickable component to a rearrangement position; see col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 1 and col. 5, lines 11-20.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the picking device of Muto to supply a picked component to a predetermined place as taught by Oda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of completing “delivery to the next process,” such as “assembly” or “inspection” (Muto, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 3, Muto/Oda disclose the limitations of claim 1 as addressed above, and Muto additionally discloses
wherein the hardware processor sorts the state of the component into a plurality of types on a basis of the information detected by the detector (The overlapping state of the component can be assigned a type ‘isolated’ or a type ‘candidate’: “The above determination of the isolated component 41 and the candidate component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component” [0024]. See also [0020].).
Regarding claim 4, Muto/Oda disclose the limitations of claim 3 as addressed above, and Muto additionally discloses
wherein the hardware processor calculates an operation amount for adjusting the component that is unpickable to a pickable state according to a type indicating a state of the sorted component (“The calculation unit 5 calculates in which direction and to what extent the candidate [unpickable] part 42 should be moved in order to eliminated the overlap between the candidate part 42 and another part” [0035]. “When there are a plurality of candidate parts 42, the candidate part 42 having the minimum movement distance is selected as the movement target,” indicating that the movement calculations are performed according to component type ‘candidate’ [0056].).
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Oda, and further in view of Ikeyama and Kuroda (publication JP 2012235056; hereafter “Ikeyama”) and Iwaki (US 20190223335). Citations are made to paragraph numbers of the English translation of Ikeyama.
Regarding claim 5, Muto/Oda disclose the limitations of claim 3 as addressed above. However, they do not explicitly teach “a storage that stores a minimum area threshold and a maximum area threshold for each posture of the component, wherein the hardware processor determines whether a state of the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable on a basis of the information detected by the detector and the minimum area threshold and the maximum area threshold.”
Ikeyama, in the same field of endeavor (component supply devices), teaches
a storage that stores a minimum area threshold and a maximum area threshold… of the component (“a memory (not shown) built in the control device 90 stores... dimension data necessary for obtaining projection areas of side images of a plurality of types of components” [0047]. A component is identified “based on the acquired imaging area of the object… and the calculated minimum projection area and maximum projection area of the component,” i.e., if the area of the component in the image is within predefined area thresholds [0050]. The thresholds “are set by adding a predetermined margin in consideration of the suction posture of the components” [0051].).
wherein the hardware processor determines… a component… on a basis of the information detected by the detector and the minimum area threshold and the maximum area threshold (“Then, based on the acquired imaging area of the object to be sucked and the calculated minimum projection area and maximum projection area of the component…, it is determined whether the sucked object is a component or a foreign substance other than the component” [0050]. The acquired imaging area of the object is derived from information detected by the detector (an image by camera 21); see [0044] and [0049]. The control device 90 is a computer, commonly known to have a hardware processor; the control device contains memory [0047] and controls a screen [0052] and motors [0042].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the component supply device of Muto/Oda to determine whether an imaged object is a component or foreign object based on minimum and maximum area thresholds as taught by Ikeyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications “to improve the discrimination accuracy between the component and the foreign matter [or other component] regardless of the sucking posture of the sucked object” (Ikeyama, [0012]).
However, Ikeyama does not explicitly teach “a minimum area threshold and a maximum area threshold for each posture of the component” (emphasis added) or “wherein the hardware processor determines whether a state of the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable.”
Iwaki, in the same field of endeavor (component supply devices), teaches
a storage that stores… for each posture of the component (See “Identification information is information related to the form of each leaded component 410 supplied by loose component supply device 32, and is configured from information representing the form of four side surfaces of leaded components 410,” and “‘identification information’ is stored in individual control device 452 of loose component supply device 32” in paragraph [0080]. The example identification information appears to be the top side of each of the four postures of the component (see Fig. 15).).
wherein the hardware processor determines whether a state of the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable on a basis of the information detected by the detector… (The individual control device 452 is a computer, commonly known to have a hardware processor [0067]. “The image data of camera 290 [information detected by the detector] and the identification information stored in individual control device 452 are compared, and items that match identification information 460 of leaded components 410a are… identified as a pickup target [pickable] component” [0082]. An unpickable component is a component that does not match the identification information.).
Ikeyama stores the dimensions of the component, and, for the example in paragraph [0051], Ikeyama calculates the area of two postures out of three possible postures of the component. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand how to calculate the area of the remaining posture, set the minimum and maximum area thresholds to a posture’s area ± a margin such that each posture can be identified, and store those thresholds as Iwaki’s “identification information” for each posture. Then, the combination of Muto/Oda/Ikeyama/Iwaki as a whole teaches all of the limitations of claim 5.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the control method of component supply device of Muto/Oda/Ikeyama to use identification information for each posture of a component as taught by Iwaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications “to supply many types of components using the component supply device” at once (Iwaki, [0007]).
Regarding claim 6, Muto/Oda/Ikeyama/Iwaki disclose the limitations of claim 5 as addressed above. Ikeyama additionally discloses
wherein the hardware processor determines a posture of the component on a basis of the information detected by the detector and the minimum area threshold and the maximum area threshold (The control device 90 is a computer, commonly known to have a hardware processor. “Based on the acquired imaging area of the object to be sucked [derived from information detected by the detector] and the calculated minimum projection area and maximum projection area of the component…, it is determined whether the sucked object is a component or a foreign substance other than the component” [0050]. Then, “when it is determined that the object to be mounted is a component, it is also possible to detect the suction state, that is, the suction posture of the component” by comparing the stored height t of the component with the acquired height h from an image of the component; see [0061] and [0062]. Thus, the component posture is determined by identifying a component by minimum and maximum area thresholds and then comparing a component’s stored and detected heights.).
Regarding claim 7, Muto/Oda/Ikeyama/Iwaki disclose the limitations of claim 5 as addressed above, and Muto additionally discloses
wherein the storage stores a hand approach region indicating a size of the supplier, the size being required when the supplier picks up the component (Hand approach region: “The second region 32 is a region corresponding to a gripping margin of the robot hand 16 in each component 40” [0024] and “Each of the vertical size W1 and the horizontal size W2 of the second region 32 is set according to the size of the claw 17 of the robot hand 16” [0031]. This claw size (size of the supplier) is necessarily stored in storage, for example in “the component pickup program 1 written in the recording medium 27,” in order to run the pickup program as disclosed [0027].), and
the hardware processor sets the hand approach region for the component on a basis of the information detected by the detector (“In the setting unit 2 [run by processor 21], the position of each component 40 included in the image is identified and… the contour shape of each component 40 is extracted (see FIG. 5 b), and the first region 31, the second region [hand approach region] 32, and the proximity region 33 are set for each component 40,” where the image is information detected by the detector [0032].) and
determines whether the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable (The overlapping state of the component can be assigned a type ‘isolated’ or a type ‘candidate’: “when [the proximity region 33, including the component shape region 31 and hand approach region 32, of] the component A does not overlap the first regions 31 of all the other components, …‘the component A is the isolated component 41’. On the other hand, when the proximity region 33 of the component A overlaps the first region 31 of only the component B and does not overlap the first region 31 of another component, ...‘the component A is the candidate component 42’” [0024]. The isolated component is pickable and the candidate component is unpickable. See also [0020], [0032], [0033], and [0035].).
Regarding claim 8, Muto/Oda/Ikeyama/Iwaki disclose the limitations of claim 7 as addressed above, and Muto additionally discloses
wherein the hardware processor determines whether the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable according to whether or not there is another component or an obstacle in the hand approach region (“when setting the movement target, it is a condition that the movement distance of the candidate [unpickable] part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance… to avoid a situation in which the moving target collides with the peripheral wall portion 14 and does not become the isolated component 41” [0056]. Therefore, the isolated (pickable) component has no other component (see above [0020] or [0024]) or obstacle (such as the wall 14) in its proximity region 33, which contains the hand approach region 32. A component (such as the candidate part 42) that does have a component or obstacle in its proximity region 33 is unpickable. See also paragraph [0035], where the processor runs the calculation unit 5 that calculates the separation distance, defined as the “distance between the peripheral wall portion 14 of the movable tray 11 and the candidate component 42 with reference to the movement direction,” and the movement distance.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto in view of Noda et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,469,035; hereafter “Noda”).
Regarding claim 9, Muto discloses
detecting the component loaded on the picker base (See “a plurality of components 40 (workpieces) placed on a movable tray 11 are photographed by a camera 15” [0011].) and
determining a state of the component (“The information of the image photographed by the camera 15 is transmitted to the control device 20” and “the overlapping state.. of each component 40 [is] grasped by known image processing” [0012]);
determining whether the component is a component that is pickable or a component that is unpickable by a supplier on a basis of the state of the component (The supplier is the component supply system 10, comprising both robot hand 16 and movable tray 11. See “The above determination of the isolated [pickable] component 41 and the candidate [unpickable] component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component” [0024]. “When an isolated component 41 is present in an image, the pickup unit 3 causes the robot hand 16 to pick up the isolated component 41,” [0033]. See also paragraphs [0020] and [0032].);
calculating an operation amount for rearranging the component that is unpickable to a rearrangement position (“The calculation unit 5 calculates in which direction and to what extent the candidate part 42 should be moved in order to eliminated the overlap between the candidate part 42 and another part,” such that the unpickable candidate part 42 becomes the pickable isolated part 41 [0035]. See also [0020] and [0024].);
determining there is no interference between an obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (At the component’s original position, interference with “the candidate [unpickable] component 42 is determined in accordance with the overlapping state between the first region 31 of the other component and the proximity region 33 of the own component,” where the other component is a possible obstacle [0024]. It is determined there is no interference with the candidate component 42 (and that the candidate component 42 is the isolated component 41) “when the component [42] does not overlap the first regions 31 of all the other components” [0024]. At the component’s expected rearrangement position, interference with the peripheral wall portion 14 is determined by comparing the separation distance between the candidate component 42 and peripheral wall portion 14 in the movement direction and the movement distance [0043]. See “At this time, it is preferable to operate the actuator 13 after confirming that the movement distance of the candidate part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14”—that there is no interference between the candidate component’s expected rearrangement position and an obstacle [0043].);
controlling the supplier to move the component that is unpickable on a basis of the calculated operation amount in response to the determination that there is no interference between the obstacle and the component to be rearranged to the rearrangement position (“The control unit 6 controls the operation of the movable tray 11 to move the candidate component 42 based on the movement distance, the movement direction, and the separation distance of the candidate component 42 calculated by the calculation unit 5” using actuator(s) 13 [0043]. See “At this time, it is preferable to operate the actuator 13 after confirming that the movement distance of the candidate part 42 is equal to or less than the separation distance from the peripheral wall portion 14… the moving target may be determined on the condition that the separation distance is equal to or greater than the moving distance”—that the actuator(s) 13 moves the candidate component 42 when there is no interference between the candidate component’s expected rearrangement position and an obstacle [0043]. All isolated (pickable) components are preferentially picked before candidate (unpickable) components; see [0033] and [0034].).
However, Muto does not explicitly teach “loading a component on a picker base.”
Noda, in the same field of endeavor (component supply), discloses
A component supply method comprising: loading a component on a picker base (See Fig. 1. Robot 3 moves components from bulk component box 2 to temporary placing table 4 (“a picker base”). Components are then supplied to pallet 8 by robot group 6.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the component supply method of Muto to load components on a picker base as taught by Noda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of throwing components “onto the temporary placing table 4 [so that] entangled components are disentangled” (Noda, col. 7, lines 7). Additionally, “when the removal mechanism 4a is provided to the temporary placing table 4, there is an advantage that error recovery is rapidly performed to suppress an increase in tact time” (Noda, col. 7, lines 42-45).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moya Ly whose telephone number is (571)272-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am-6:00 pm ET.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/MOYA LY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658