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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/24/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are not withdrawn, and new grounds are presented below.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims alter the scope of the claims, therefore new prior art has been applied and applicant’s arguments are moot.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “location calculator” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites “a rotation member”. It is unclear if “a rotation member” in claim 11 refers to “a rotation member” in claim 1 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a rotation member”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a rotation member” in claim 11 to mean any rotation member.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites “the amount of rotation”. It is unclear if “the amount of rotation” in claim 11 refers to “an amount of rotation” in claim 1 or is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “the amount of rotation”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the amount of rotation” in claim 11 to mean an amount of rotation of the encoder ring.
Regarding claim 13, claim limitation “location calculator” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is disclosed that the location calculator is part of the driving control apparatus 100, however the specification is devoid of any description of structure of what the location calculator is physically made of. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teague (US 20110198136 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Cho 2 (US 20210041866 A1, cited in a previous office action), Qi (US 10423159 B1, cited in a previous office action), and Yoon (US 20180208423 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Teague discloses a driving control apparatus for a moving object configured to be fixed to a predetermined location on the moving object, the driving control apparatus comprising (Paragraph 0033-0041, 0052);
a wire having one end accommodated inside the driving control apparatus and another end extending to an outside of the driving control apparatus (Abstract, Paragraph 0033, 0036);
the wire having a tension in accordance with a movement of the user (Abstract, Paragraph 0033, 0036);
and being wound or unwound in a form of a straight line (Abstract, Paragraph 0033, 0036-0039, Figs. 2, 3);
a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory including a program, wherein when the program stored in the memory is executed, the processor is configured to (Paragraph 0043);
generate a control signal for a driving control of the moving object, wherein the processor is configured to: generate the control signal for controlling the moving object so that the moving object is driven (Paragraphs 0009);
while keeping a predetermined separation distance range from the user based on an unwinding length and an unwinding angle of the wire (Abstract, Paragraphs 0038-0039);
and transfer the generated control signal to a driving device of the moving object (Paragraphs 0031-0032);
a rotation sensor configured to sense a rotation direction of the driving control apparatus (Paragraphs 0039, 0061);
wherein the processor is configured to determine any one of a plurality of driving modes based on the rotation direction sensed by the rotation sensor (Paragraphs 0039, 0061, 0083);
wherein the rotation member has a cylindrical shape, is connected to one end of the wire, and is configured so that the wire is wound or unwound on an outside of the rotation member (Teague - Paragraphs 0065-0067) “Line 402 is wound around reel 404”.
Teague does not specifically state and fixed to a predetermined location of a user.
However Cho 2 teaches and fixed to a predetermined location of a user (Paragraph 0137, Figs. 27A-27G).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Teague with the wire fixed to a location on the user of Cho 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the accompanying device can be fixed to a location on the user in order to provide convenience. The user does not have to hold a handle in his hands so his/her hands can be used to perform other tasks. One would have been motivated to combine Teague with Cho 2 as this provides the user with hands free convenience. As stated in Cho 2, “the present disclosure may be implemented in various applications such as shopping carts, strollers, golf carts, travel luggage, toy cars, and jogging guiders” (Paragraph 0137).
Teague does not specifically state and determine any one of one or more predefined driving modes before driving of the moving object; wherein in each of the one or more predefined driving modes, a location relationship between the moving object and the user is defined before driving of the moving object; wherein the one or more predefined driving modes are configured to include at least one of: a front driving mode in which the moving object is driven in front of the user; a rear driving mode in which the moving object is driven in a rear of the user; a right horizontal driving mode in which the moving object is driven side by side on a right side of the user; and a left horizontal driving mode in which the moving object is driven side by side on a left side of the user.
However, Qi teaches and determine any one of one or more predefined driving modes before driving of the moving object (Col. 3 Line 38 – Col. 5 Line 22);
wherein in each of the one or more predefined driving modes, a location relationship between the moving object and the user is defined before driving of the moving object (Col. 3 Line 38 – Col. 5 Line 22);
wherein the one or more predefined driving modes are configured to include at least one of: a front driving mode in which the moving object is driven in front of the user; a rear driving mode in which the moving object is driven in a rear of the user; a right horizontal driving mode in which the moving object is driven side by side on a right side of the user; and a left horizontal driving mode in which the moving object is driven side by side on a left side of the user (Col. 3 Line 38 – Col. 5 Line 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Teague with determining predefined driving modes before driving of the moving object of Qi with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the moving object can accompany a user, but might encounter obstacles when traveling. In order to continue following the user and avoid colliding with obstacles, the moving object can transition between right, left, and rear following positions. One would have been motivated to combine Teague with Qi as this improves maneuverability of the moving object. As stated in Qi, “The smart luggage system 100 is capable of maneuvering across any number of travel paths and avoiding any number of obstacles. The smart luggage system 100 is also capable of transitioning between a right side follow position and a rear follow position. The smart luggage system 100 is also capable of transitioning between a left side follow position and a rear follow position. The smart luggage system 100 is also capable of transitioning from a right side follow position, to a rear follow position, and then to a left side follow position” (Col. 5 Line 11 – Col. 5 Line 22).
Teague does not teach a length calculator comprising a rotation member and a rotation amount measurement sensor comprising a potentiometer; and wherein the rotation amount measurement sensor is connected to the rotation member, and is configured to measure an amount of rotation of the rotation member, due to winding or unwinding of the wire; and the rotation amount measurement sensor is a potentiometer that outputs a voltage in proportion to the amount of rotation of the rotation member.
However, Yoon teaches a length calculator comprising a rotation member and a rotation amount measurement sensor comprising a potentiometer (Yoon - Paragraph 0096) “The length calculation module (123) can calculate the unwinding length of the wire (110) in proportion to the rotation amount of the first rotating member (121) measured by the rotation amount measurement sensor (122)”
wherein the rotation amount measurement sensor is connected to the rotation member, and is configured to measure an amount of rotation of the rotation member, due to winding or unwinding of the wire (Yoon - Paragraphs 0091-0095) “the rotation amount measurement sensor (122) may be connected to the first rotating member (121) to measure the rotation amount of the first rotating member (121) due to the wire (110) being unwound”
the rotation amount measurement sensor is a potentiometer that outputs a voltage in proportion to the amount of rotation of the rotation member (Yoon - Paragraph 0095) “the rotation amount measurement sensor (122) may be a potentiometer that outputs a voltage proportional to the rotation amount”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Teague with a length calculator comprising a rotation member and a rotation amount measurement sensor comprising a potentiometer of Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Teague and Yoon both describe an accompanying robot with wire length sensors. One would have been motivated to combine as this maintains the distance between the user and the robot (Teague – Paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 5, Teague discloses the processor is configured to generate the control signal for controlling the moving object so that the moving object is driven (Paragraphs 0009);
while keeping the location relationship defined in a determined driving mode and a separation distance range (Abstract, Paragraphs 0038-0039, 0083).
Regarding claim 10, Teague discloses the control signal includes at least one of a speed control signal of the moving object (Paragraphs 0009);
and a steering control signal of the moving object (Paragraphs 0009).
Claim 11
Teague teaches:
an angle calculator configured to calculate the unwinding angle of the wire, wherein the angle calculator comprises a rotation member and a rotation angle measurement sensor (Teague - Paragraph 0071, Fig. 4) “angle monitoring device 422 may include a rotary encoder coupled to arm 412 at rotation point 416”
wherein the rotation member of the angle calculator is configured to be penetrated by the wire and to be rotated to correspond to the winding or unwinding angle of the wire, wherein the rotation angle measurement sensor is configured to measure a rotation angle of the rotation member of the angle calculator due to a change of the unwinding angle of the wire (Teague - Paragraph 0071, Fig. 4) “angle monitoring device 422 may include a rotary encoder coupled to arm 412 at rotation point 416”
Teague does not teach:
Rotation angle measurement sensor for the wire comprising a rotational encoder.
However, Yoon teaches:
wherein the rotation angle measurement sensor is an encoder, and wherein the encoder has a rotation encoder ring and is configured to measure the amount of rotation by counting a number of grooves being passed as the rotation encoder ring in which the grooves are formed at equal intervals is rotated together with the rotation member of the angle calculator (Yoon - Paragraphs 0093-0094, 0103, 0125-0129, Fig. 8) “measures the rotation amount by counting the number of grooves passed by the rotary encoder ring with grooves formed at equal intervals”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Teague with a rotation angle measurement sensor for the wire comprising a rotational encoder of Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Teague and Yoon both describe an accompanying robot with wire angle sensors. One would have been motivated to combine as this maintains the distance between the user and the robot (Teague – Paragraph 0074).
Claim 12
Teague teaches:
an angle calculator configured to calculate the unwinding angle of the wire, wherein the angle calculator comprises a sliding member and a rotation angle measurement sensor, wherein the sliding member of the angle calculator is configured to be penetrated by the wire and to slide to correspond to the winding or unwinding angle of the wire (Teague - Paragraph 0071, Fig. 4) “Angle monitoring device 422 may include a linear encoder that is coupled, for example, to arm 412”
wherein the rotation angle measurement sensor is configured to measure a rotation angle of the sliding member of the angle calculator based on a movement distance of the sliding member of the angle calculator due to a change of the unwinding angle of the wire (Teague - Paragraph 0071, Fig. 4) “Angle monitoring device 422 may include a linear encoder that is coupled, for example, to arm 412”
Claim 13
Teague does not teach:
derive location information of the user based on the unwinding length and the unwinding angle of the wire, by using Mathematical Expression 1:
[Mathematical Expression 1] (x,y)=(Sl*cos(Sa),Sl*sin(Sa))
However, Yoon teaches:
a location calculator configured to derive location information of the user based on the unwinding length and the unwinding angle of the wire, by using Mathematical Expression 1: [Mathematical Expression 1] (x,y)=(Sl*cos(Sa),Sl*sin(Sa)), where x is an x-axis value of a user location in a x-y Cartesian coordinate system, y is a y- axis value of the user location in the x-y Cartesian coordinate system, Sl is the unwinding length of the wire, and Sa is the unwinding angle of the wire (Yoon - Paragraphs 0109-0112) “x=l×cos r [Equation 3]… y=l×sin r [Equation 4]”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Teague with determining the location of the user with mathematical expression 1 of Yoon with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Teague and Yoon describe an accompanying robot based on the user’s position. One would have been motivated to combine as this allows the robot to determine a speed to follow the user (Yoon – Paragraph 0116).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teague, Cho 2, Qi, and Yoon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiramatsu (US 20180246525 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Regarding claim 9, Teague discloses the processor is configured to (Paragraph 0043);
define a reference location of the user in accordance with the determined driving mode (Paragraphs 0079-0083);
and generate the control signal (Paragraphs 0009).
Teague does not specifically state derive location information of the user based on the reference location based on the unwinding length and the unwinding angle of the wire; being changed in accordance with the movement of the user; based on the derived location information of the user.
However, Cho 2 teaches derive location information of the user based on the reference location based on the unwinding length and the unwinding angle of the wire (Paragraphs 0006-0008, 0065, 0129, Fig. 2);
being changed in accordance with the movement of the user (Paragraphs 0006-0008, 0065, 0129, Fig. 2);
based on the derived location information of the user (Paragraphs 0006-0008, 0064-0065, 0129, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Teague with deriving location information of the user in accordance with the movement of the user, and controlling movement of the moving object based on the derived location information of Cho 2 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that accompanying devices such as luggages and shopping carts should follow the user. These items could be made to autonomously follow the user, providing convenience and allowing the user to be free from the device. One would have been motivated to combine Teague with Cho 2 as this improves user convenience. As stated in Cho 2, “the locomotion devices may include personal locomotion devices such as a robotic travel luggage, an intelligent shopping cart, etc. In some examples, a human following locomotion system may be controlled to follow a path of a human operator while avoiding obstacles if necessary. One of the methods used in a human following device may include obtaining information about the human operator's location relative to a locomotion device by real-time processing of human images obtained by one or more cameras installed on the device. In these examples, the human operator may be free from the device” (Paragraphs 0002-0003).
Teague does not specifically state derive location information of the user every predetermined time.
However, Hiramatsu, which is also in vehicle controls, teaches derive location information of the user every predetermined time unit (Paragraphs 0061, 0077-0079, 0095, 0102-0103).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Teague with deriving location information of the user every predetermined time unit of Hiramatsu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a robot needs to take multiple position data points of a human to determine if the human is stationary or moving. This allows the robot to determine whether to follow the human. One would have been motivated to combine Teague with Hiramatsu as this achieves gathering data to determine whether a robot should follow a human. As stated in Hiramatsu, “tracks the image of the human H in the subsequent photographed images, and identifies the behavior of the human H, namely, whether the human H is stationary or is moving” (Paragraph 0055).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 14 recites:
“The driving control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control signal is generated by using Mathematical Expression 2:
[Mathematical Expression 2] V=(R-S1)*Vg W=Sa*Wg,
where V is speed of the moving object, R is a separation distance between the moving object and the user, Sl is the unwinding length of the wire, Vg is speed gain of the moving object, W is an angular velocity of the moving object, Sa is the unwinding angle of the wire, and Wg is angle gain of the moving object”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Teague teaches determining a velocity for the robot based on the determined line length and the selected length (Teague – Paragraph 0074) “control the speed of movement of a self-propelled machine in a manner so as to eliminate the difference between the determined line length and the selected length”
Teague, however, does not teach the separation distance subtracted from the unwinding length of the wire, or a gain.
Yoon teaches control signals for velocity based on the length of the wire (Paragraphs 0117-0118) “when the wire (110) is unwound or wound up on the first rotating member (121), the speed value (V) of the at least a point on the wire (110) may increase and then decrease once”
Yoon, however, does not teach subtracting the unwinding length of the wire, and the gain.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 14 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 14 is objected to.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights