Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed August 2, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-6, 18, and 20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed May 6, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 2, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Johnston does not teach “a detector…spaced apart from a photovoltaic module (page 14, last sentence). The examiner agrees and withdraws this rejection. However, this limitation is taught in Benatto 2, which discloses a detector positioned at a user-controllable position (Fig. 3 depicts a camera which can move) spaced apart from the photovoltaic module (Fig. 3 also depicts the camera 5 meters away from the photovoltaic module).
Additionally, the applicant argues Johnston fails to teach a camera “configured to capture…a first image…while only the first illuminated portion is illuminated by the illumination beam, the first image depiction at least a part of the first illuminated portion and at least a part of the unilluminated first remaining portion” (page 15, second paragraph) and that Johnston explicitly states the images are taken of the unilluminated portions (page 15, third paragraph). The examiner agrees that Johnston does teach taking an image of the unilluminated portion, however Johnston also teaches taking an image of both the illuminated and unilluminated portions. The last sentence of para. [0061] discloses: “Alternatively, a first image may be taken of the entire PV device 200, to be saved for later processing (e.g. cropping/removal of the illuminated portion 210).” It is the opinion of the examiner that if an image is taken of the entire PV device, this would include at least a part of the illuminated and unilluminated portions, thus anticipating the limitation.
Similarly, the applicant argues Johnston fails to teach a camera “configured to capture…a second image…while only the second illuminated portion is illuminated by the illumination beam, the second image depicting at least a part of the second illuminated portion and at least a part of the unilluminated second remaining portion.” Paragraph [0062] discloses “a second portion of the light-receiving surface of the PV device 200 may be illuminated” and “Alternatively, a first image may be taken of the entire device 200, to be saved for later processing (e.g. cropping/removal of the illuminated portion 210).” It is the opinion of the examiner that if an image is taken of the entire PV device, this would include at least a part of the illuminated and unilluminated portions, thus anticipating the limitation.
The applicant has also amended claim 1 to add the limitation “wherein the processor is configured to process each of the plurality of captured images to separate first image data from second image data, wherein the first image data is indicative of photoluminescence emitted by respective illuminated portions of the light-receiving surface, and wherein the second image data is indicative of induced luminescence emitted by unilluminated portions of the light-receiving surface.” The applicant argues that Johnston cannot separate first and second image data as claimed (page 16, second paragraph). The examiner disagrees. It is disclosed in para. [0022] that Figs. 5a and 5b illustrate (a) photoluminescence of a PV cell and (b) induced luminescence. The last sentence of para. [0022] discloses: “Both images were acquired in two steps where light was applied to opposite halves of the PV cell, and the two separate images corresponding to opposite halves of the PV cell were subsequently spliced together to form the complete images shown.” The examiner is interpreting this disclosure, in combination with the last sentences of para. [0061] and [0062] that disclose an image of the entire PV cell may be taken, to mean Johnston takes two images of the entire PV cell, splits the images into first image data (illuminated portions) and second image data (non-illuminated portions), and then splices them together to create a full image of either the illuminated PV cell or the non-illuminated PV cell. Further, para. [0082], along with Fig. 5a discloses an image depicting photoluminescence of the PV cell which corresponds to the first image data (illuminated portion), and para. [0083], along with Fig. 5b discloses an image depicting induced luminescence of the PV cell which corresponds to the second image data (non-illuminated portions).
This amendment narrows the scope of the claims so that the current interpretation of the claims falls outside the current interpretation of the prior art, therefore the applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston (US20160218670A1) in view of Benatto 2 (Thorseth, A., Dam-Hansen, C., Kenn H. B., F., Vedde, J., Larsen, M., Voss, H., Parikh, H., Spataru, S., & Sera, D. (2018). Outdoor Electroluminescence Acquisition Using a Movable Testbed. In Proceedings of 7th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion (pp. 0400-0404). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2018.8547628)
Regarding claim 1, Johnston teaches an inspection system (600, Fig. 7a) for outdoor inspection of a photovoltaic module in situ (paragraph [0093] discloses the device is intended to be used in photovoltaic plants), the inspection system comprising a movable detector (paragraph [0012] discloses the detector is movable) and a processor (paragraphs [0059] and [0068] discloses an image processor) wherein the detector comprises:
a light source configured to emit an illumination beam (paragraph [0059]);
means for selectively directing the illumination beam onto respective portions of a light-receiving surface of the photovoltaic module (paragraph [0060] discloses redirecting the light source onto different portions of the photovoltaic device; paragraph [0069] discloses "hardware" which moves the light source) and
an imaging system ('camera' - 620, Fig. 7a),
wherein said means for selectively directing the illumination beam onto respective portions of the light-receiving surface are configured to:
only illuminate a first illuminated portion of the light-receiving surface while leaving a corresponding first remaining portion of the light-receiving surface unilluminated by the illumination beam when the illumination beam is directed onto said first illuminated portion (paragraph [0060] discloses illuminating a first localized area and leaving a non-illuminated area; Fig. 2a depicts an illumination portion, 210, and a non-illuminated portion, 220); and
to only illuminate a second illuminated portion of the light-receiving surface while leaving a corresponding second remaining portion of the light-receiving surface unilluminated by the illumination beam, when the illumination beam is directed onto said second illuminated portion (paragraph [0060] discloses directing the light source to a second area to illuminate a different area and leaving a non-illuminated, second area; Fig. 2b depicts a second illuminated portion, 215, and a second non-illuminated portion, 225)
wherein the imaging system is configured to capture a plurality of images of the light- receiving surface, the plurality of images including a first image captured while only the first illuminated portion is illuminated by the illumination beam (paragraph [0060] discloses capturing a first image while the first area of interest is illuminated), the first image depicting at least a part of the first illuminated portion and at least a part of the unilluminated first remaining portion (paragraphs [0061], [0069] and [0073] disclose an image may be taken of the entire PV device, 200, Fig. 2a. This would include the illuminated and unilluminated portions, 210 and 220), the plurality of images further including a second image captured while only the second illuminated portion is illuminated by the illumination beam (paragraph [0060] discloses capturing subsequent images while areas different from the first area of interest are illuminated), the second image depicting at least a part of the second illuminated portion and at least a part of the unilluminated second remaining portion (paragraphs [0061], [0069] and [0073] disclose an image may be of the entire PV device, 200, Fig. 2a. This would include the illuminated and unilluminated portions, 225 and 215);
wherein the processor is configured to process each of the plurality of captured images to separate first image data from second image data (paragraphs [0022], [0082] and [0083] disclose the images are separated into illuminated (first image data) and non-illuminated regions (second image data)), wherein the first image data is indicative of photoluminescence emitted by respective illuminated portions of the light-receiving surface (paragraphs [0022] and [0082] discloses an image depicting photoluminescence which corresponds to the illuminated image data (first image data), see Fig. 5a), and wherein the second image data is indicative of induced luminescence emitted by unilluminated portions of the light-receiving surface (paragraphs [0022] and [0083] discloses an image depicting induced luminescence which corresponds unilluminated image data (second image data), see Fig. 5b).
Johnston fails to teach the detector is configured to obtain luminescence data from the light-receiving surface when the detector is positioned at a user-controllable position spaced apart from the photovoltaic module.
However, in the same field of endeavor of photovoltaic inspection, Benatto 2 discloses a detector positioned at a user-controllable position (Fig. 3 depicts a camera which can move) spaced apart from the photovoltaic module (Fig. 3 also depicts the camera 5 meters away from the photovoltaic module).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the inspection system taught in Johnston with the movable detector spaced apart from the photovoltaic module as this configuration allows for multiple PV modules to be imaged (Benatto 2: Section II B, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 5, Johnston teaches a system according to claim 1, wherein the illumination beam is configured to illuminate an illuminated spot (paragraph [0072] discloses illuminated spots).
Regarding claim 6, Johnston teaches a system according to claim 1, where the illumination beam is a divergent beam (paragraph [0088], the examiner is interpreting "the light spreads out" to imply a divergent beam).
Regarding claim 8, Johnston teaches the device as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach a movable support structure, in particular a tripod or ground vehicle, for supporting the detector.
However, in the same field of endeavor of PV module inspection, Benatto 2 teaches a camera that is placed on a moving tripod (Fig. 3).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the invention of Johnston with the movable detection unite as it allows multiple PV modules to be imaged (Section II B, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 18, Johnston teaches a method (paragraph [0008]) for outdoor inspection of a photovoltaic module in situ (paragraph [0093] discloses the device is intended to be used in photovoltaic plants), the method comprising:
selectively directing an illumination beam emitted by a light source of the detector onto respective portions of the light-receiving surface (paragraph [0060] discloses redirecting the light source onto different portions of the photovoltaic device; paragraph [0069] discloses "hardware" which moves the light source) so as, when the illumination beam is directed onto a first illuminated portion of the light-receiving surface, to only illuminate the first illuminated portion while leaving a corresponding first remaining portion of the light- receiving surface unilluminated by the illumination beam (paragraph [0060] discloses illuminating a first localized area and leaving a non-illuminated area; Fig. 2a depicts an illumination portion, 210, and a non-illuminated portion, 220) and, when the illumination beam is directed onto a second illuminated portion of the light-receiving surface, to only illuminate the second illuminated portion while leaving a corresponding second remaining portion of the light- receiving surface unilluminated by the illumination beam (paragraph [0060] discloses directing the light source to a second area to illuminate a different area and leaving a non-illuminated, second area; Fig. 2b depicts a second illuminated portion, 215, and a second non-illuminated portion, 225);
capturing, by an imaging system ('camera' - 620, Fig. 7a) a plurality of images of the light-receiving surface, wherein the plurality of images includes a first image captured while only the first portion is illuminated by the illumination beam (paragraph [0060] discloses capturing a first image while the first area of interest is illuminated), the first image depicting at least a part of the first illuminated portion and at least a part of the unilluminated first remaining portion (paragraphs [0061], [0069] and [0073] disclose an image may be taken of the entire PV device, 200, Fig. 2a. This would include the illuminated and unilluminated portions, 210 and 220), wherein the plurality of images further includes a second image captured while only the second portion is illuminated by the illumination beam (paragraph [0060] discloses capturing subsequent images while areas different from the first area of interest are illuminated), the second image depicting at least a part of the second illuminated portion and at least a part of the unilluminated second remaining portion (paragraphs [0061], [0069] and [0073] disclose an image may be of the entire PV device, 200, Fig. 2a. This would include the illuminated and unilluminated portions, 225 and 215);
processing each of the plurality of images to separate first image data from second image data (paragraphs [0022], [0082] and [0083] disclose the images are separated into illuminated (first image data) and non-illuminated regions (second image data)), wherein the first image data is indicative of photoluminescence emitted by respective illuminated portions of the light-receiving surface (paragraphs [0022] and [0082] discloses an image depicting photoluminescence which corresponds to the illuminated image data (first image data), see Fig. 5a), and wherein the second image data is indicative of induced luminescence emitted by unilluminated portions of the light-receiving surface (paragraphs [0022] and [0083] discloses an image depicting induced luminescence which corresponds unilluminated image data (second image data), see Fig. 5b).
Johnston fails to teach positioning a detector spaced apart from the photovoltaic module.
However, Benatto 2 discloses a spaced apart from the photovoltaic module (Fig. 3 depicts the camera 5 meters away from the photovoltaic module).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the inspection system taught in Johnston with the movable detector spaced apart from the photovoltaic module as this configuration allows for multiple PV modules to be imaged (Benatto 2: Section II B, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 20, Johnston in view of Benatto 2 teaches the invention as explained above in claim 18, and Johnston further teaches processing each of the plurality of images comprises analyzing and distinguishing respective luminescence signals (paragraph [0009] discloses analyzing images for both luminescing and non-luminescing regions), and reconstructing final images corresponding to respective signal levels of the luminescence signals (paragraph [0009] discloses combining representations of the luminescing regions to create a full representation of the surface), and wherein the processing comprises creating more than two reconstructed images corresponding to respective signal levels of the luminescence signals (paragraph [0022] discloses combining representations of the non-luminescing regions as well as the luminescing regions).
Claims 3, 4, 9, 12, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Benatto 1 (Benatto, G. A. D. R., Chi, M., Jensen, O. B., Santamaria Lancia, A. A., Riedel, N., Iandolo, B., Davidsen, R. S., Hansen, O., Thorsteinsson, S., & Poulsen, P. B. (2018). Photoluminescence Imaging Induced by Laser Line Scan: Study for Outdoor Field Inspections. In Proceedings of 7th World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion (pp. 0395-0399). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2018.8547416).
Regarding claim 3, Johnston teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the system configured to cause the means for selectively directing the illumination beam onto respective portions of the light-receiving surface to sweep or scan the illumination beam across the light-receiving surface of the photovoltaic module.
However, in the same field of endeavor of PV module inspection, Benatto 1 teaches a lens system to direct the laser source to the PV cell surface (Fig. 1). Further, the laser is a line scan laser which sweeps over the surface of the cell (Section II B, paragraph 3).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the invention of Johnston with the laser sweeping taught in Benatto 1 to allow for the detection of faults not shown in a uniformly illuminated area (Section I, paragraph 3) while also allowing for speedy automated inspection (Section I, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 4, Johnston teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the illumination beam is a structured illumination beam and/or a line-shaped beam.
However, Benatto 1 teaches a line shaped beam (Fig. 2; Section I, paragraph 4).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the invention of Johnston with the line beam taught in Benatto 1 as it allows for the detection of faults not shown in a uniformly illuminated area (Section I, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 9, Johnston teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the means for selectively directing the illumination beam onto respective portions of the light-receiving surface comprises a movable reflective or refractive element configured to redirect the illumination beam emitted by the light source towards different directions.
However, Benatto 1 teaches a lens system used to direct the laser onto different areas of the PV module surface (Fig. 1).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the invention of Johnston with the lens system taught in Benatto 1 as it allows for scanning over the entire PV cell (Section II B, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 12, Johnston teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the light source is configured to emit an illumination beam having an illumination wavelength different from a luminescence peak wavelength of a semiconductor material of the photovoltaic module, wherein the imaging system is configured to image light at least at said luminescence peak wavelength , and wherein the imaging system comprises one or more optical filters configured to allow radiation of said luminescence peak wavelength pass and to block radiation of the illumination wavelength.
However, Benatto 1 teaches a laser at a different wavelength than the PV cell luminescence emission peak (Section II B, paragraphs 1 and 2), with a camera configured to capture images at the luminescence peak (Section II B, paragraph 1). Further, Benatto, 3 also teaches the use of an optical filter to avoid the detection of the laser (Section II B, paragraph 1).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the invention of Johnston with the illumination wavelength taught in Benatto 1 as it is a way to accurately image the defects in the PV cell without interference from the light source.
Regarding claim 15, Johnston teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but Johnston fails to teach the light source is configured to emit pulsed light.
However, Benatto 1 teaches the laser light source is pulsed (Section I, paragraph 4).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the invention of Johnston with the pulsing laser light source taught in Benatto 1 as it a way to allow ambient light subtraction (Section I, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 16, Johnston teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, but Johnston fails to teach the light source is configured to emit pulsed light having a pulse rate smaller than or corresponding to a frame rate of the imaging system, and wherein the pulses of the laser light are aligned with the exposure times of the imaging system.
However, Benatto 1 teaches the laser light source is pulsed in sync to the camera (Section I, paragraph 4). It is the position of the examiner that this light source is also capable of changing the pulse rate to be smaller, as the camera properties can differ (Section II B, paragraph 3; Section IV, paragraph 2).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the invention of Johnston with the laser light source pulsing in sync, or a at a smaller rate than the camera taught in Benatto 1 as it a way to allow ambient light subtraction (Section I, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 17, Johnston teaches the invention as explained above in claim 15, and Johnston further teaches the system is configured to use images acquired without illumination from the light source for background detection and/or elimination (paragraphs [0065]-[0066]).
However, Johnston fails to teach the light source is configured to emit pulsed light having a pulse rate smaller than the frame rate of the imaging system.
However, Benatto teaches However, Benatto 1 teaches the laser light source is pulsed in sync to the camera (Section I, paragraph 4). It is the position of the examiner that this light source is also capable of changing the pulse rate to be smaller, as the camera properties can differ (Section II B, paragraph 3; Section IV, paragraph 2).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the invention of Johnston with the laser light source pulsing in sync, or a at a smaller rate than the camera taught in Benatto 1 as it a way to allow ambient light subtraction (Section I, paragraph 4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Benatto 3 (Benatto, G. A. D. R., Riedel, N., Thorsteinsson, S., Poulsen, P. B., Thorseth, A., Dam-Hansen, C., Mantel, C., Forchhammer, S., H. B. Frederiksen, K., Vedde, J., Petersen, M., Voss, H., Messerschmidt, M., Parikh, H., Spataru, S., & Sera, D. (2017). Development of outdoor luminescence imaging for drone-based PV array inspection. In Proceedings of the 44th Ieee Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Pvsc 2017 IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/PVSC.2017.8366602).
Regarding claim 10, Johnston teaches the device as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the detector comprises a reference structure and a movable member movable relative to the reference structure, wherein the light is mounted onto the movable member.
However, in the same field of endeavor of PV inspection systems, Benatto 3 teaches a camera that is placed on a drone (Fig. 1; Section I, paragraphs 1 and 2) that flies above the PV cells (reference structure). Benatto 3 does not explicitly disclose a drive unit to move the drone (movable member), however it is the position of the examiner that it is obvious a drone would have some sort of unit to move the drone.
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the invention of Johnston with the drone moving in reference to the PV cell as a way to automate inspection of the PV cells (Benatto 3: Section I, paragraph 2).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Benatto 3 and Jia.
Regarding claim 11, Johnston teaches the invention as explained above, but fails to teach a self-propelled vehicle for supporting the detector, and wherein the means for selectively directing the illumination beam onto respective portions of the light-receiving surface comprises a controller configured to control movement of the detector unit along a motion path relative to the photovoltaic module.
However, in the same field of endeavor of PV inspection systems, Benatto 3 teaches a laser and camera on a drone (Fig. 1; Section I, paragraphs 1 and 2).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the invention of Johnston with the drone taught in Benatto 3 as a way to automate the inspection of PV cells (Benatto 3: Section 1, paragraph 2).
Benatto 3 fails to teach the means for selectively directing the illumination beam onto respective portions of the light-receiving surface comprises a control unit configured to control movement of the detector unit along a motion path relative to the PV module.
However, Jia teaches a control unit which controls the position of the light source and the imaging unit (abstract; Fig. 3; paragraph [0011]), where the imaging unit moves in order to image different illuminated regions of the inspection surface.
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the invention of Johnston as modified by Benatto 3 with the control unit of Jia as it enables the imaging unit to follow the light source and ensures the imaging unit is photographing the desired area (Jia: paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 14, Johnston teaches the invention as explained above, but fails to teach the detector unit and/or a vehicle on which the detector unit is mounted, includes a positioning system, and wherein the detector unit is configured to associate positioning data to the captured images so as to allow matching the captured images with known positions of respective photovoltaic modules within a photovoltaic power system.
However, Benatto 3 teaches a drone (Fig. 1) which inherently has some sort of positioning system.
Benatto 3 fails to teach the detector unit is configured to associate positioning data to the captured images so as to allow matching the captured images with known positions of respective PV modules within a PV power system.
However, Jia teaches a control unit which determines the position of the illuminated region on the inspection surface based on images of illuminated areas of the inspection surface (paragraphs [0031], [0033], [0117]).
Given the known positions of PV modules, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be able to compare this calculated position with the known positions. It would be obvious to combine the device taught by Johnston as modified by Benatto 3 with the position determining method of Jia and compare with the known positions of the PV modules as a way to identify which PV modules are damaged.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston and Hirofumi (JP2014082272A).
Regarding claim 13, Johnston teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the detector is configured to process at least one image captured by the detector unit so as to recognize a photovoltaic module in the captured image and/or so as to detect one or more other objects, different from the photovoltaic module, obstructing at least a part of the photovoltaic module from view, and to selectively activate and/or deactivate the illumination beam responsive to the detection of the photovoltaic module or other object.
However, in the same field of endeavor of solar cell inspection, Hirofumi teaches a device with a control center that identifies foreign objects (page 3, lines 14-18) and also signals whether to turn the light source on or off (page 8, lines 3-4).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the invention of Johnston with the foreign object identifying and light source control taught in Hirofumi as foreign objects blocking the PV cell lead to decreases power generation (page 3, line 18). Further, turning the light source on/off is a well-known way to preserve energy and save costs.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877