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 .
Restart the Period of Reply
The period for reply is restarted on the mailing date of this action per MPEP 710.06.
Applicant’s representative contacted the examiner of 3 March 2026 to inform the examiner that the action filed on 24 February 2026 examined claims submitted on 2 December 2025 in error. The claims submitted on 16 January 2026 are the claims that should have been examined. The examiner acknowledges the error. This action is in response to the claims submitted on 16 January 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 11, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claim 1-20 are pending in this action.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 2 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the applicant amended claims 1, 19, and 20 to correct the unclear language. The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 2 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant argues that Kukshya does not disclose the amended claim language, including "wherein a target of the spectral library of targets is a fraction in a range of 0.1 to 0.5 of the candidate GSD cell". The examiner disagrees. Kukshya discloses in [0048] a relative abundance of a target material "where yi is a relative abundance of the target material in each of the p pixels, . . . For example, if yi is equal to 1, then the ith pixel comprises about 100% of the target material, if yi is equal to 0, then the ith pixel comprises about 0% of the target material,". A person of ordinary skill in the art when reading the previous quotation would understand that yi may have any value between the examples listed of 100% and 0%, whatever the relative abundance may be. "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original) (Claims to titanium (Ti) alloy with 0.6-0.9% nickel (Ni) and 0.2-0.4% molybdenum (Mo) were held anticipated by a graph in a Russian article on Ti-Mo-Ni alloys because the graph contained an actual data point corresponding to a Ti alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni and this composition was within the claimed range of compositions.). "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Thus, if prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, it anticipates the claim. As the range 0% to 100% of Kukysha overlaps the range of the claim, the range of Kukysha reads on the range of the claim.
The applicant argues that Nam does not disclose the amended claim language, including “spectral demixing by employing local formulation and subspace tests” and "wherein the candidate GSD cell is formed when a single pixel". The examiner disagrees.
Specifically, the examiner understands local formulation as considering the local characteristics of a cell such as estimating a spectrum for the background of a GSD cell, see the applicant's specification paragraph [00167]. Nam paragraph [0043] and Fig. 5 discloses that the spectral demixing process passes through step 2b which "in order to choose background samples, the correlation coefficient (A) is compared to maximum correlation coefficient between input image and background (Ab)". Comparing the correlation coefficients of the input and background is understood as estimating the background of the cell which is employing local formulation.
Further, the examiner understands subspace tests as tests to determine the subcomponents of a pixel such as those listed by the applicant in their specification paragraph [00187]. The examiner is not limiting his understanding to the applicant's list of tests but is giving the term a broader interpretation of any test to determine the subcomponents of a pixel. Nam paragraph [0043] and Fig. 5 discloses that the effective bands are determined, which is understood as demixing, by "using the contribution coefficient". The contribution coefficient is understood as indicating the level of contribution a spectral band makes in the final pixel spectrum, see Nam [0006] "a list of effective bands for the pixel, based on contribution factor" as well as Nam [0040] and claim 2. Determining the level of contribution of a spectral band is understood as a test to determine the subcomponents of a pixel which is understood as subspace tests.
Finally with regard to Nam, Nam discloses considering a single pixel in [0043], note the singular language "an input pixel", which is understood as a GSD cell comprising a "single pixel".
The applicant argues that Loughlin does not disclose the amended claim language, including "when the GSD cell comprises a distance between the single pixel projected on the ground and an adjacent pixel projected on the ground". The amended claim language states "the GSD comprises a distance between the single pixel projected on the ground and an adjacent pixel projected on the ground”. In considering this language, there are two possible interpretations that are apparent to the examiner. One is that the "distance between the single pixel … and an adjacent pixel" is the distance between the edges of the pixels. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand there to be no distance, or a distance of zero, between the edges of adjacent pixels. This distance is inherent to any image comprised of pixels. The second interpretation is that it is a distance between the center of the single pixel and the center of the adjacent pixel. Both interpretations may be included in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the former interpretation is relied on, any image comprised of pixels will teach the limitation inherently. If the latter interpretation is relied on, the distance between the center of two adjacent pixels is equal to the length of an edge of the pixel. Therefore, the distance is equal to the size of the pixel which is taught by Loughlin (see the final rejection filed 11/07/2025 pg. 9).
Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, and 11-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 1-2, 5, 8, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukshya et al. (US 20110200225 A1; hereafter, Kukshya) in view of Nam et al. (US 20100329512 A1; hereafter, Nam) in further view of Loughlin et al. ("Efficient Hyperspectral Target Detection and Identification With Large Spectral Libraries", full reference on PTO-892 included with this action; hereafter, Loughlin).
Regarding claim 1, Kukshya discloses:
A computer-implemented ([0056] the process may be performed on a combination of software, hardware, or firmware which is understood as computer-implemented) method of real-time ([0057] the process may be executed real-time) subpixel detection and classification ([0042] the pixels are comprised of sub-pixels. [0056] the process is for target detection in image data. [0062] the process determines pixel with a material and "an amount (CEM value) of the specified target material in each of the pixels is estimated." As the amount in the pixel is estimated, it is understood that the amount may be less than the entire pixel, i.e. subpixel), the method comprising: using a number of processors to perform the operations of ([0043] the process uses a processor in performing calculations):
receiving input of a spectral library of targets ([0057] the process receives target spectra, i.e. a spectral library of targets), a multi-spectral image cube ([0057] the process receives hyper-spectra image data understood as a multi-spectral image cube, see fig. 3), and a list of background image samples ([0057] the process receives background spectra, understood as a list of background image samples);
selecting a candidate ground spatial distance (GSD) cell within the multi-spectral image cube (the examiner interprets a ground spatial distance (GSD) cell as a pixel of the multi-spectral image cube per paragraph [0036] of the applicant's disclosure. [0058] pixels are identified which pass a first filter. Pixels which pass the filter are understood as candidate cells) for spectral demixing (this limitation is understood as an intended use limitation and art is not required for this limitation) by employing local formulation and subspace tests (the examiner understands these to define the demixing to be performed and they are taught by Nam below), wherein a target of the spectral library of targets is a fraction in a range of 0.1 to 0.5 of the candidate GSD cell ([0048] a relative abundance of a target material is considered. "where yi is a relative abundance of the target material in each of the p pixels, . . . For example, if yi is equal to 1, then the ith pixel comprises about 100% of the target material, if yi is equal to 0, then the ith pixel comprises about 0% of the target material,". A person of ordinary skill in the art when reading the previous quotation would understand that yi may have any value between the examples listed of 100% and 0%, whatever the relative abundance may be. As shown in the response to arguments section above and the reference to UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023), if prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, it anticipates the claim. Therefore, the range disclose by Nam is understood to teach the claimed range), and wherein the GSD cell comprises a plurality of objects on the ground ([0004] "multiple objects can be captured in the same pixel". For example [0038], a soldier and a rifle are captured which is understood as at least two objects);
determining whether the candidate GSD cell contains an identifiable target ([0060] the process may identify a target in the pixel(s)), wherein the candidate GSD cell is labeled unknown if it does not resemble a sample in the list of background image sample ([0059] background materials are unknown and must be estimated, which is understood as labeling as unknown);
and outputting, in real-time ([0057] the process may be executed real-time) detected targets from the candidate GSD cell or an unknown ([0060] the process may identify a target in the pixel(s) which is understood as outputting targets)
Kukshya does not disclose expressly that the candidate GSD cell is formed from a single pixel and demixing the candidate GSD cell and comparing it against the spectral library and list of background samples.
Nam discloses:
wherein the candidate GSD cell is formed when a single pixel ([0043] and Fig. 5, a single input pixel, "an input pixel")
spectrally demixing the candidate GSD cell ([0043] the beginning of the process is iteratively informed by step 5 which selects effective bands. Selecting effective bands and considering bands as individual entities is understood as spectrally demixing) by employing local formulation (the examiner understands local formulation as considering the local characteristics of a cell such as estimating a spectrum for the background of a GSD cell, see the applicant's specification paragraph [00167]. Nam [0043] and Fig. 5, the spectral demixing process passes through step 2b which "in order to choose background samples, the correlation coefficient (A) is compared to maximum correlation coefficient between input image and background (Ab)". Comparing the correlation coefficients of the input and background is understood as estimating the background of the cell) and subspace tests (the examiner understands subspace tests as tests to determine the subcomponents of a pixel such as those listed by the applicant in their specification paragraph [00187]. The examiner is not limiting his understanding to the applicant's list of tests but is giving the term a broader interpretation of any test to determine the subcomponents of a pixel. Nam [0043] and Fig. 5, effective bands are determined, which is understood as demixing, by "using the contribution coefficient". The contribution coefficient is understood to as indicating the level of contribution a spectral band makes in the final pixel spectrum, see [0006] "a list of effective bands for the pixel, based on contribution factor" as well as [0040] and claim 2. Determining the level of contribution of a spectral band is understood as a test to determine the subcomponents of a pixel);
comparing the spectrally demixed candidate GSD cell against the spectral library of targets ([0043] "Step 2a is for target detection and Step 2b is for background detection. In Step 2a, if the correlation coefficient (A) is over the minimum correlation coefficient between library and input image (At), the pixel is detected as a target and the spectrum contents in the pixel are reserved for the library refinement." This is understood as comparing to the library) and the list of background image samples ([0043] " Also, in order to choose background samples, the correlation coefficient (A) is compared to maximum correlation coefficient between input image and background (Ab) in Step 2b." This is understood as comparing to the background list);
Kukshya and Nam are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor of detection in hyperspectral images (Kukshya, [0001]; Nam, [0001]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the demixing of Nam with the invention of Kukshya.
The motivation for doing so would have been that demixing refines the library “which also reduces the complexity for execution time since the improved library can reduce the amount of library” (Nam, [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nam with Kukshya.
Kukshya in view of Nam does not disclose expressly that the GSD cell is formed when a pixel is projected onto a ground, that the GSD cell comprises a distance between itself and an adjacent cell, labeling the candidate GSD cell unknown if it does not resemble the spectral library, and applying local global reconciliation to the cell to reject false detections and confirm true detections.
Loughlin discloses:
wherein the candidate GSD cell is formed when a single pixel is projected onto a ground (the examiner understands a pixel being projected onto a ground as a pixel of an image capturing an image of the ground with information about the physical size of the ground related to the pixel, e.g. the pixel captures 1 meter of ground space in the image. pg. 6026 col. 2 para. 1, the pixel has a size of 3 meters. The pixel captures the ground in the pixel. Therefore, it is a pixel projected onto the ground. When considered in combination with Nam, the single pixel of Nam is combined with the ground projection of Loughlin),
PNG
media_image1.png
220
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and when the GSD cell comprises a distance between the single pixel projected on the ground and an adjacent pixel projected on the ground (the examiner interprets one meaning of "distance between" pixels to be the distance between the centers of pixels. pg. 6026 col. 2 para. 1, the pixel has a size of 3 meters. As pixels are understood to be square, the size of a pixel, the length of an edge, is understood to be equal to the distance between the center of two equally sized pixels. Therefore, the distance to an adjacent pixel is taught by Loughlin) and wherein the candidate GSD cell corresponds to the single pixel projected on the ground (Nam disclosed that a single pixel is considered as a GSD cell, [0043] “an input pixel”. Loughlin discloses projecting the pixel(s) onto the ground, pg. 6026 col. 2 para. 1 as applied above. When considered in combination, the ground projection of pixels of Loughlin is understood to apply to the single pixel of Nam. The suggestion for doing so is that considering a single pixel allows each single pixel in an image to be considered in order to detect material in the image, see [0043] a single pixel is input and [0046] “the function load() works on each pixel” and [0006] “there is provided a real-time target detection method based on hyperspectral processing, the method including: detecting a preprocessed pixel as a target and/or a background, based on a library;” the targets are detected)
wherein the candidate GSD cell is labeled unknown if it does not resemble the target in the spectral library of targets (pg. 6020 col. 1 para. 4, pixels that are not in the spectral library are labelled as "target material is absent". With regard to the spectral library, this may be understood as an "unknown" label)
PNG
media_image2.png
102
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
applying local global reconciliation to the candidate GSD cell (the examiner is interpreting local global reconciliation as considering both local features and global features in detection per the applicant's disclosure [00344]. Pg. 6022 col. 2 para. 1, each pixel is considered which is understood as global. Pg. 6022 col. 2 para. 3, the pixels in the local area are considered to determine background, which is understood as local. Pg. 6023 col. 1 para. 2, each object is modeled based on the previous calculations, which is understood as material detection. Therefore, it is understood as local global reconciliation)
PNG
media_image3.png
62
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
66
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
50
344
media_image5.png
Greyscale
to reject false detections of non-targets (pg. 6022 col. 1 para. 2, false alarms are not reported, i.e. are rejected) and confirm true detection of targets (pg. 6022 col. 1 para. 2, if the selected signature is a target it is reported, i.e. true detections are confirmed);
PNG
media_image6.png
50
350
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Loughlin is combinable with Kukshya in view of Nam because it is in the same field of endeavor of detection of materials in hyper-spectral images (Loughlin, pg. 6019 col. 1 para. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the false alarm mitigation of Loughlin with the invention of Kukshya in view of Nam.
The motivation for doing so would have been that “This process automatically mitigates false alarms by determining if pixels are best modeled by target or confuser materials” (Loughlin, pg. 6022 col. 1 para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Loughlin with Kukshya in view of Nam to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin discloses the subject matter of claim 1. Kukshya further discloses:
wherein selecting the candidate GSD cell within the multi-spectral image cube comprises: determining global target-to-background relationships (per the applicant’s specification [00378] and [00380], the examiner interprets this limitation broadly as target and background relationships, not necessarily as only relationships between a target and a background. [0049] the CEM, the filter which selects candidate pixels, uses both background and target relationships from the image, which is understood as determining target and background relationships);
determining a mean local background spectrum ([0052] the estimated background spectrum excludes target pixels. [0053] the estimated background spectra is an averaged spectra of non-excluded pixels. This is understood as a mean local background spectrum) for each GSD cell of interest ([0052] the mean local background is calculated around target pixels. The target pixels are understood as GSD cells of interest);
performing a number of subpixel target and background relationship tests ([0048] the relative abundance of the target material and the background are considered which is understood as a subpixel target and background relationship test) on each GSD cell ([0047] the test is performed for p pixels. [0046] p is the total number of pixels under consideration which is understood as each pixel);
and determining which of the GSD cells may contain a subpixel target ([0045] pixels which may comprise target material are identified).
Regarding claim 5, Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin discloses the subject matter of claim 2. Kukshya further discloses:
wherein determining the mean local background spectrum for each GSD cell of interest comprises: determining an outer frame comprising GSD cells surrounding the GSD cell of interest ([0052] the estimated background spectrum excludes target pixels. Therefore, given a target pixel, the background spectrum is understood to include the pixels around the target pixel which is understood as an outer frame surrounding the pixel of interest);
and computing a mean of spectral data of the GSD cells comprising the outer frame ([0053] the estimated background spectra is an averaged spectra of non-excluded pixels. This is understood as a mean local background spectrum).
Regarding claim 8, Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin discloses the subject matter of claim 1. Kukshya further discloses:
wherein comparing the spectrally demixed candidate GSD cell against the spectral library and the list of background image samples comprises determining an amount of spectral contribution made to the candidate GSD cell by background ([0048] the relative abundance of the target material is determined. The contribution of the background would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as one minus the relative abundance of the target material) and library targets ([0048] the relative abundance of the target material is determined which is understood as the contribution of the library targets).
Regarding claim 11, Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Kukysha does not disclose expressly that the spectral library of targets comprises at least one of spectra from a blend of materials, atmospherically corrected spectra, or emissivity.
Nam discloses:
wherein the spectral library of targets comprises at least one of spectra from a blend of materials ([0043] a library of spectra is used for correlation and is refined. The library is refined by a contribution of effective bands which includes spectrum from the background area. Therefore, the library is understood to contain spectral bands from both target and background bands which is understood as spectra from a blend of materials), atmospherically corrected spectra, or emissivity (due to the language "at least one of" and "or", it is understood that only one item of the list needs to be taught to read on this claim).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the spectral library of Name with the invention of Kukysha in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin.
The motivation for doing so would have been that in the library of Nam "the number of spectral bands is reduced for high throughput applications" (Nam, [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nam with Kukysha to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin discloses the subject matter of claim 1. Kukshya further discloses:
wherein the multi-spectral image cube includes subpixel size targets ([0048] the relative abundance of the target material in a pixel may be less than 100%, therefore the image includes subpixel targets).
Regarding claim 13, Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin discloses the subject matter of claim 1. Kukshya further discloses:
wherein the multi-spectral image cube includes multi-pixel sized targets ([0004] object may be captured by several pixels which is understood as the object is larger than a single pixel).
Regarding claim 14, Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Kukshya does not disclose expressly that the multi-spectral cube includes at least one infra-red data.
Nam discloses:
wherein the multi-spectral image cube includes at least one of: visual near infra-red (VNIR) data; short wave infra-red (SWIR) data; mid wave infra-red (MWIR) data; or long wave infra-red (LWIR) data ([0002] the spectral range include infrared).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the infrared data of Nam with the invention of Kukshya.
The motivation for doing so would have been that “Detailed spectral resolution makes hyperspectral image technology a powerful tool for detecting chemical substances, anomalies and camouflaged objects, as well as for target-tracking” (Nam, [0002]). Including the infrared spectrum adds detail to the spectral resolution of the image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nam with Kukshya to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Kukshya in view of Nam does not disclose expressly that the multi-spectral image cube comprises atmospherically corrected data.
Loughlin discloses:
wherein the multi-spectral image cube comprises atmospherically corrected data (pg. 6024 col. 1 para. 4, atmospheric absorption bands are removed with is understood as atmospherically corrected data).
PNG
media_image7.png
56
398
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the atmospherically corrected data of Loughlin in the invention of Kukshya in view of Nam.
The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the number of bands in the calculation which reduces the complexity of the calculations (Loughlin, pg. 6024 col. 1 para. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Loughlin with Kukshya in view of Nam to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin discloses the subject matter of claim 1.
Kukshya in view of Nam does not disclose expressly that the multi-spectral image cube comprises emissivity data.
Loughlin discloses:
wherein the multi-spectral image cube comprises emissivity data (pg. 6020 col. 1 para. 4, some light that is considered includes emissivity measurements).
PNG
media_image8.png
52
390
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include emissivity data of Loughlin with the invention of Kukshya in view Nam.
The motivation for doing so is that it is combining prior art elements (multi-spectral image data and emissivity data) according to known methods (it is known to collect a broad range of electromagnetic waves in multi-spectral images including infrared waves i.e. emissivity data) to yield predictable results (having data which relates the emissivity of subjects in the image). Further, the multi-spectral image cube and the emissivity data in combination perform the same function as they do separately. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include emissivity data, i.e. infrared wavelength, in the multi-spectral image cube.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Loughlin with Kukshya in view of Nam to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin discloses the subject matter of claim 1. Kukshya further discloses:
wherein the multi-spectral image cube is from a low contrast environment ([0051] the spectra of materials may include random noise which may mask the spectra of the materials. This is understood as having low-contrast between material spectra as they are masked and is understood as being from a low-contrast environment).
Regarding claim 18, Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin discloses the subject matter of claim 1. Kukshya does not disclose expressly that the spectral library comprises any type of spectra.
Nam discloses:
wherein the spectral library of targets comprises any type of spectra ([0006] a spectral library is used. It is understood as some type of spectral library which is included by any type of spectral library).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to combine the spectral library of Nam with the invention of Kukshya.
The motivation for doing so would have been that “The target library contains spectral information about the object that it is intended to detect” (Nam, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nam with Kukshya to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Kukshya discloses:
A system for real-time subpixel detection and classification, the system comprising: a storage device ([0043] the system may include a microprocessor. A microprocessor is commonly understood in the art to include a storage device) that stores program instructions ([0043] it is commonly understood that microprocessors may store instructions for operating the steps of a process);
one or more processors ([0043] the process uses a processor in performing calculations) operably connected to the storage device ([0043] the processors in a microprocessor are operably connected to the storage of the microprocessor) and configured to execute the program instructions ([0043] a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a processor which performs functions does so by executing instructions) to:
receive input of a spectral library of targets ([0057] the process receives target spectra, i.e. a spectral library of targets), a multi-spectral image cube ([0057] the process receives hyper-spectra image data understood as a multispectral image cube, see fig. 3), and a list of background image samples ([0057] the process receives background spectra, understood as a list of background image samples);
select a candidate ground spatial distance (GSD) cell within the multi-spectral image cube (the examiner interprets a ground spatial distance (GSD) cell as a pixel of the multi-spectral image cube per paragraph [0036] of the applicant's disclosure. [0058] pixels are identified which pass a first filter. Pixels which pass the filter are understood as candidate cells) for spectral demixing (this limitation is understood as an intended use limitation and art is not required for this limitation) by employing local formulation and subspace tests (the examiner understands these to define the demixing to be performed and they are taught by Nam below), wherein a target of the spectral library of targets is a fraction in a range of 0.1 to 0.5 of the candidate GSD cell ([0048] a relative abundance of a target material is considered. "where yi is a relative abundance of the target material in each of the p pixels, . . . For example, if yi is equal to 1, then the ith pixel comprises about 100% of the target material, if yi is equal to 0, then the ith pixel comprises about 0% of the target material,". A person of ordinary skill in the art when reading the previous quotation would understand that yi may have any value between the examples listed of 100% and 0%, whatever the relative abundance may be. As shown in the response to arguments section above and the reference to UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023), if prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, it anticipates the claim. Therefore, the range disclose by Nam is understood to teach the claimed range), and wherein the GSD cell comprises a plurality of objects on the ground ([0004] "multiple objects can be captured in the same pixel". For example [0038], a soldier and a rifle are captured which is understood as at least two objects);
determine whether the candidate GSD cell contains an identifiable target ([0060] the process may identify a target in the pixel(s)), wherein the candidate GSD cell is labeled unknown if it does not resemble a sample in the list of potential background image sample ([0059] background materials are unknown and must be estimated);
and output, in real-time ([0057] the process may be executed real-time) detected targets from the candidate GSD cell or an unknown ([0060] the process may identify a target in the pixel(s) which is understood as outputting targets)
Kukshya does not disclose expressly that the candidate GSD cell is formed from a single pixel and demixing the candidate GSD cell and comparing it against the spectral library and list of background samples.
Nam discloses:
wherein the candidate GSD cell is formed when a single pixel ([0043] and Fig. 5, a single input pixel, "an input pixel")
spectrally demix the candidate GSD cell ([0043] the beginning of the process is iteratively informed by step 5 which selects effective bands. Selecting effective bands and considering bands as individual entities is understood as spectrally demixing) by employing local formulation (the examiner understands local formulation as considering the local characteristics of a cell such as estimating a spectrum for the background of a GSD cell, see the applicant's specification paragraph [00167]. Nam [0043] and Fig. 5, the spectral demixing process passes through step 2b which "in order to choose background samples, the correlation coefficient (A) is compared to maximum correlation coefficient between input image and background (Ab)". Comparing the correlation coefficients of the input and background is understood as estimating the background of the cell) and subspace tests (the examiner understands subspace tests as tests to determine the subcomponents of a pixel such as those listed by the applicant in their specification paragraph [00187]. The examiner is not limiting his understanding to the applicant's list of tests but is giving the term a broader interpretation of any test to determine the subcomponents of a pixel. Nam [0043] and Fig. 5, effective bands are determined, which is understood as demixing, by "using the contribution coefficient". The contribution coefficient is understood to as indicating the level of contribution a spectral band makes in the final pixel spectrum, see [0006] "a list of effective bands for the pixel, based on contribution factor" as well as [0040] and claim 2. Determining the level of contribution of a spectral band is understood as a test to determine the subcomponents of a pixel);
compare the spectrally demixed candidate GSD cell against the spectral library of targets ([0043] "Step 2a is for target detection and Step 2b is for background detection. In Step 2a, if the correlation coefficient (A) is over the minimum correlation coefficient between library and input image (At), the pixel is detected as a target and the spectrum contents in the pixel are reserved for the library refinement." This is understood as comparing to the library) and the list of background image samples ([0043] " Also, in order to choose background samples, the correlation coefficient (A) is compared to maximum correlation coefficient between input image and background (Ab) in Step 2b." This is understood as comparing to the background list);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the demixing of Nam with the invention of Kukshya.
The motivation for doing so would have been that demixing refines the library “which also reduces the complexity for execution time since the improved library can reduce the amount of library” (Nam, [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nam with Kukshya.
Kukshya in view of Nam does not disclose expressly that the GSD cell is formed when a pixel is projected onto a ground, that the GSD cell comprises a distance between itself and an adjacent cell, labeling the candidate GSD cell unknown if it does not resemble the spectral library and applying local global reconciliation to the cell to reject false detections and confirm true detections.
Loughlin discloses:
wherein the candidate GSD cell is formed when a single pixel is projected onto a ground (the examiner understands a pixel being projected onto a ground as a pixel of an image capturing an image of the ground with information about the physical size of the ground related to the pixel, e.g. the pixel captures 1 meter of ground space in the image. pg. 6026 col. 1 para. 1, the pixel has a size of 3 meters. The pixel captures the ground in the pixel. Therefore, it is a pixel projected onto the ground. When considered in combination with Nam, the single pixel of Nam is combined with the ground projection of Loughlin),
PNG
media_image1.png
220
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and when the GSD cell comprises a distance between the single pixel projected on the ground and an adjacent pixel projected on the ground (the examiner interprets one meaning of "distance between" pixels to be the distance between the centers of pixels. pg. 6026 col. 2 para. 1, the pixel has a size of 3 meters. As pixels are understood to be square, the size of a pixel, the length of an edge, is understood to be equal to the distance between the center of two equally sized pixels. Therefore, the distance to an adjacent pixel is taught by Loughlin) and wherein the candidate GSD cell corresponds to the single pixel projected on the ground (Nam disclosed that a single pixel is considered as a GSD cell, [0043] “an input pixel”. Loughlin discloses projecting the pixel(s) onto the ground, pg. 6026 col. 2 para. 1 as applied above. When considered in combination, the ground projection of pixels of Loughlin is understood to apply to the single pixel of Nam. The suggestion for doing so is that considering a single pixel allows each single pixel in an image to be considered in order to detect material in the image, see [0043] a single pixel is input and [0046] “the function load() works on each pixel” and [0006] “there is provided a real-time target detection method based on hyperspectral processing, the method including: detecting a preprocessed pixel as a target and/or a background, based on a library;” the targets are detected)
wherein the candidate GSD cell is labeled unknown if it does not resemble the target in the spectral library of targets (pg. 6020 col. 1 para. 4, pixels that are not in the spectral library are labelled as "target material is absent". With regard to the spectral library, this may be understood as an "unknown" label)
PNG
media_image2.png
102
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
apply local global reconciliation to the candidate GSD cell (the examiner is interpreting local global reconciliation as considering both local features and global features in detection per the applicant's disclosure [00344]. Pg. 6022 col. 2 para. 1, each pixel is considered which is understood as global. Pg. 6022 col. 2 para. 3, the pixels in the local area are considered to determine background, which is understood as local. Pg. 6023 col. 1 para. 2, each object is modeled based on the previous calculations, which is understood as material detection. Therefore, it is understood as local global reconciliation)
PNG
media_image3.png
62
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
66
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
50
344
media_image5.png
Greyscale
to reject false detections of non-targets (pg. 6022 col. 1 para. 2, false alarms are not reported, i.e. are rejected) and confirm true detection of targets (pg. 6022 col. 1 para. 2, if the selected signature is a target it is reported, i.e. true detections are confirmed);
PNG
media_image6.png
50
350
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the false alarm mitigation of Loughlin with the invention of Kukshya in view of Nam.
The motivation for doing so would have been that “This process automatically mitigates false alarms by determining if pixels are best modeled by target or confuser materials” (Loughlin, pg. 6022 col. 1 para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Loughlin with Kukshya in view of Nam to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Kukshya discloses:
A computer program product for real-time subpixel detection and classification, the computer program product comprising: a computer-readable storage medium ([0043] the system may include a microprocessor. A microprocessor is commonly understood in the art to include a storage device) having program instructions embodied thereon to perform the steps ([0043] it is commonly understood that microprocessors may store instructions for operating the steps of a process) of:
receiving input of a spectral library of targets ([0057] the process receives target spectra, i.e. a spectral library of targets), a multi-spectral image cube ([0057] the process receives hyper-spectra image data understood as a multispectral image cube, see fig. 3), and a list of background image samples ([0057] the process receives background spectra, understood as a list of background image samples);
selecting a candidate ground spatial distance (GSD) cell within the multi-spectral image cube (the examiner interprets a ground spatial distance (GSD) cell as a pixel of the multi-spectral image cube per paragraph [0036] of the applicant's disclosure. [0058] pixels are identified which pass a first filter. Pixels which pass the filter are understood as candidate cells) for spectral demixing (this limitation is understood as an intended use limitation and art is not required for this limitation) by employing local formulation and subspace tests (the examiner understands these to define the demixing to be performed and they are taught by Nam below), wherein a target of the spectral library of targets is a fraction in a range of 0.1 to 0.5 of the candidate GSD cell ([0048] a relative abundance of a target material is considered. "where yi is a relative abundance of the target material in each of the p pixels, . . . For example, if yi is equal to 1, then the ith pixel comprises about 100% of the target material, if yi is equal to 0, then the ith pixel comprises about 0% of the target material,". A person of ordinary skill in the art when reading the previous quotation would understand that yi may have any value between the examples listed of 100% and 0%, whatever the relative abundance may be. As shown in the response to arguments section above and the reference to UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023), if prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, it anticipates the claim. Therefore, the range disclose by Nam is understood to teach the claimed range), and wherein the GSD cell comprises a plurality of objects on the ground ([0004] "multiple objects can be captured in the same pixel". For example [0038], a soldier and a rifle are captured which is understood as at least two objects);
determining whether the candidate GSD cell contains an identifiable target ([0060] the process may identify a target in the pixel(s)), wherein the candidate GSD cell is labeled unknown if it does not resemble a sample in the list of potential background image sample ([0059] background materials are unknown and must be estimated, this is understood as labeling as unknown);
and outputting, in real-time ([0057] the process may be executed real-time) detected targets from the candidate GSD cell or an unknown ([0060] the process may identify a target in the pixel(s) which is understood as outputting targets)
Kukshya does not disclose expressly that the candidate GSD cell is formed from a single pixel and demixing the candidate GSD cell and comparing it against the spectral library and list of background samples.
Nam discloses:
wherein the candidate GSD cell is formed when a single pixel ([0043] and Fig. 5, a single input pixel, "an input pixel")
spectrally demixing the candidate GSD cell ([0043] the beginning of the process is iteratively informed by step 5 which selects effective bands. Selecting effective bands and considering bands as individual entities is understood as spectrally demixing) by employing local formulation (the examiner understands local formulation as considering the local characteristics of a cell such as estimating a spectrum for the background of a GSD cell, see the applicant's specification paragraph [00167]. Nam [0043] and Fig. 5, the spectral demixing process passes through step 2b which "in order to choose background samples, the correlation coefficient (A) is compared to maximum correlation coefficient between input image and background (Ab)". Comparing the correlation coefficients of the input and background is understood as estimating the background of the cell) and subspace tests (the examiner understands subspace tests as tests to determine the subcomponents of a pixel such as those listed by the applicant in their specification paragraph [00187]. The examiner is not limiting his understanding to the applicant's list of tests but is giving the term a broader interpretation of any test to determine the subcomponents of a pixel. Nam [0043] and Fig. 5, effective bands are determined, which is understood as demixing, by "using the contribution coefficient". The contribution coefficient is understood to as indicating the level of contribution a spectral band makes in the final pixel spectrum, see [0006] "a list of effective bands for the pixel, based on contribution factor" as well as [0040] and claim 2. Determining the level of contribution of a spectral band is understood as a test to determine the subcomponents of a pixel);
comparing the spectrally demixed candidate GSD cell against the spectral library of targets ([0043] "Step 2a is for target detection and Step 2b is for background detection. In Step 2a, if the correlation coefficient (A) is over the minimum correlation coefficient between library and input image (At), the pixel is detected as a target and the spectrum contents in the pixel are reserved for the library refinement." This is understood as comparing to the library) and the list of background image samples ([0043] " Also, in order to choose background samples, the correlation coefficient (A) is compared to maximum correlation coefficient between input image and background (Ab) in Step 2b." This is understood as comparing to the background list);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the demixing of Nam with the invention of Kukshya.
The motivation for doing so would have been that demixing refines the library “which also reduces the complexity for execution time since the improved library can reduce the amount of library” (Nam, [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nam with Kukshya.
Kukshya in view of Nam does not disclose expressly that the GSD cell is formed when a pixel is projected onto a ground, that the GSD cell comprises a distance between itself and an adjacent cell, labeling the candidate GSD cell unknown if it does not resemble the spectral library and applying local global reconciliation to the cell to reject false detections and confirm true detections.
Loughlin discloses:
wherein the candidate GSD cell is formed when a single pixel is projected onto a ground (the examiner understands a pixel being projected onto a ground as a pixel of an image capturing an image of the ground with information about the physical size of the ground related to the pixel, e.g. the pixel captures 1 meter of ground space in the image. pg. 6026 col. 1 para. 1, the pixel has a size of 3 meters. The pixel captures the ground in the pixel. Therefore, it is a pixel projected onto the ground. When considered in combination with Nam, the single pixel of Nam is combined with the ground projection of Loughlin),
PNG
media_image1.png
220
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and when the GSD cell comprises a distance between the single pixel projected on the ground and an adjacent pixel projected on the ground (the examiner interprets one meaning of "distance between" pixels to be the distance between the centers of pixels. pg. 6026 col. 2 para. 1, the pixel has a size of 3 meters. As pixels are understood to be square, the size of a pixel, the length of an edge, is understood to be equal to the distance between the center of two equally sized pixels. Therefore, the distance to an adjacent pixel is taught by Loughlin) and wherein the candidate GSD cell corresponds to the single pixel projected on the ground (Nam disclosed that a single pixel is considered as a GSD cell, [0043] “an input pixel”. Loughlin discloses projecting the pixel(s) onto the ground, pg. 6026 col. 2 para. 1 as applied above. When considered in combination, the ground projection of pixels of Loughlin is understood to apply to the single pixel of Nam. The suggestion for doing so is that considering a single pixel allows each single pixel in an image to be considered in order to detect material in the image, see [0043] a single pixel is input and [0046] “the function load() works on each pixel” and [0006] “there is provided a real-time target detection method based on hyperspectral processing, the method including: detecting a preprocessed pixel as a target and/or a background, based on a library;” the targets are detected)
wherein the candidate GSD cell is labeled unknown if it does not resemble the target in the spectral library of targets (pg. 6020 col. 1 para. 4, pixels that are not in the spectral library are labelled as "target material is absent". With regard to the spectral library, this may be understood as an "unknown" label)
PNG
media_image2.png
102
404
media_image2.png
Greyscale
applying local global reconciliation to the candidate GSD cell (the examiner is interpreting local global reconciliation as considering both local features and global features in detection per the applicant's disclosure [00344]. Pg. 6022 col. 2 para. 1, each pixel is considered which is understood as global. Pg. 6022 col. 2 para. 3, the pixels in the local area are considered to determine background, which is understood as local. Pg. 6023 col. 1 para. 2, each object is modeled based on the previous calculations, which is understood as material detection. Therefore, it is understood as local global reconciliation)
PNG
media_image3.png
62
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
66
344
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
50
344
media_image5.png
Greyscale
to reject false detections of non-targets (pg. 6022 col. 1 para. 2, false alarms are not reported, i.e. are rejected) and confirm true detection of targets (pg. 6022 col. 1 para. 2, if the selected signature is a target it is reported, i.e. true detections are confirmed);
PNG
media_image6.png
50
350
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the false alarm mitigation of Loughlin with the invention of Kukshya in view of Nam.
The motivation for doing so would have been that “This process automatically mitigates false alarms by determining if pixels are best modeled by target or confuser materials” (Loughlin, pg. 6022 col. 1 para. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Loughlin with Kukshya in view of Nam to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukshya et al. (US 20110200225 A1; hereafter, Kukshya) in view of Nam et al. (US 20100329512 A1; hereafter, Nam) in further view of Loughlin et al. ("Efficient Hyperspectral Target Detection and Identification With Large Spectral Libraries", full reference on PTO-892 included with this action; hereafter, Loughlin) and Warren et al. ("Hyperspectral Unmixing by the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers", full reference on PTO-892 included with this action; hereafter, Warren).
Regarding claim 7, Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin disclose the subject matter of claim 1.
Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin does not disclose expressly that the demixing is performed according to the Dual Augment Lagrange Multiplier technique.
Warren discloses:
wherein spectrally demixing the candidate GSD cell is performed according to the Dual Augment Lagrange Multiplier technique (the unmixing algorithm, pg. 3 para. 2 title, includes dual Lagrange multiplier parameters in the optimization for unmixing, pg. 4 para. 1).
Warren is combinable with Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin because it is in the same field of endeavor of determining material in hyperspectral imaging (Warren, pg. 1 para. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the demixing technique of Warren with the invention of Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin.
The motivation for doing so would have been that “The resulting algorithm is an efficient and reliable unmixing method that requires no prior information about the data such as its spectral content or the assumption of pure pixels” (Warren, pg. 8 para. 6).
Therefore, it would be obvious to combine Warren with Kukshya in view of Nam in further view of Loughlin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 , 6, and 9-10 are 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:
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art, Halper et al. (US 20140185864 A1), discloses whitening the image spectral data and the spectral library of target. Halper does not disclose expressly a candidate selection threshold based on maximum and standard deviation. Biller et al. (CN 103810226 A) discloses a system which compares a maximum and standard deviation against a threshold in identifying material in a hyper-spectral image. The closest prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest whitening data from the background image samples and determining global target and background relationships according to a candidate selection threshold.
The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including:
whitening data from the background image samples;
and determining global target and background match relationships according to a candidate selection threshold
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 and includes the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 3. The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest increasing the candidate selection threshold according to regional statistical change.
The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including:
increasing the candidate selection threshold according to regional statistical change.
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior, Kukshya et al. (US 20110200225 A1), discloses determining whether a GSD cell differs from the neighboring cells above a first threshold. Kukshya does not disclose expressly determining whether the GSD cell is colinear with the mean local background spectrum and any target in the spectral library. Loughlin et al. ("Efficient Hyperspectral Target Detection and Identification With Large Spectral Libraries", full reference on PTO-892 included with this action) discloses determining whether the GSD cell is collinear with the mean local spectrum and any target in the spectral library within a defined tolerance. The prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest responsive to a determination that the GSD cell is not collinear with the mean local background and the targets in the spectral library determining whether the GSD cell is spectrally unknown due to differences from the mean local background spectrum and the target in the spectral library above a second threshold, and responsive to a determination that the GSD cell is not unknown determining whether a best match to the GSD cell from the spectral library has a filtered matching strength above a third threshold. The examiner notes that the examiner is interpreting “determining whether the GSD cell is spectrally unknown due to differences from the mean local background spectrum and the targets in the spectral library” as determining a difference between the mean local background spectrum and the targets in the spectral library.
The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including:
responsive to a determination that the GSD is not collinear with the mean local background spectrum and targets in the spectral library, determining whether the GSD cell is spectrally unknown due to differences from the mean local background spectrum and the targets in the spectral library above a second threshold;
and responsive to a determination that the GSD cell is not unknown, determining whether a best match to the GSD cell from the spectral library has a filtered matching strength above a third threshold.
Regarding claim 9, the closest prior art, Kukshya et al., discloses making a local hit decision whether a subpixel target exists in the GSD cell. The closest prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest clustering the GSD cells within a defined radius to form a group and centroiding members GSD cells of the group to produce a single centroided local hit.
The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including:
clustering hit GSD cells within a defined radius to form a group;
and centroiding members GSD cells of the group to produce a single centroided local hit.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art, Boardman et al. ("Analysis of Imaging Spectrometer Data Using N -Dimensional Geometry and a Mixture-Tuned Matched Filtering Approach", full reference on PTO-892 included in this action), discloses using a match filter in determining local hit location. The closest prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest using a spatial match filter to find matching global hit locations, for unmatched local hits with no corresponding global hits determining if the unmatched local hists exceed a specified distance from confirmed hits and eliminating any unmatched local hits that exceed the specified distance.
The claim as a whole is found non-obvious over the prior art including:
using a spatial match filter to find matching . . . global hit locations;
for unmatched local hits with no corresponding global hits, determining if the unmatched local hits exceed a specified distance from confirmed hits;
and eliminating any unmatched local hits that exceed the specified distance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Robinson et al., US 20130044963 A1, discloses a system which determines a target in pixels of hyperspectral image data using methods which include background variation calculation, spatial filtering, and the use of thresholds.
Boardman et al., "Analysis of Imaging Spectrometer Data Using N -Dimensional Geometry and a Mixture-Tuned Matched Filtering Approach", full reference on PTO-892 included in this action, discloses a method for detecting sub-pixel materials in a hyperspectral image with steps including using a match filter for determining false positive results.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA B CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-7989. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-5pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/JOSHUA B. CROCKETT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661