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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant filed remarks and amendments on 05/29/2026. Claims 1 and 9 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 103: Applicant's arguments filed 05/29/2026 with respect to Windorfer (DE102013107160A1) in view of Hickey et al. (US9346426B2), and Wallmeyer et al. (DE102008061259B4) have been fully considered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all of the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument in view of Schneider et al. (US8458854B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider et al. (US 20100306932 A1) in view of Hickey et al. (US20150183389A1), hereinafter referred to as Schneider and Hickey respectively.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Schneider discloses an obstacle detection device for a cleaning robot (“During movement across the surface, obstacles may be hit. In such a case, the bumper is moved with respect to the body so that the spring is bent. The movement is preferably detected by means of a sensor, after which the body is stopped.” [0026]), comprising:
an action component, provided on an outer side of a main body of the cleaning robot (“The bumper 6 comprises a ring-shaped part 7 surrounding the body 2 and being located at a distance from the body 2, which ring-shaped part 7 is connected to a cover part 8 to which the springs 9 are connected. The outer surface of the bumper 6 is provided with a sensor layer 10” [0036]);
and a controller, configured to control a movement state of the cleaning robot according to the strain signal (“another embodiment of the device according to the invention is characterized in that the device comprises at least one sensor for detecting a displacement of the bumper with respect to the body, and stopping means for stopping the movement of the body if the detected displacement is larger than a predetermined displacement.” [0022]).
an elastic component, wherein the elastic component is movably connected to the action component, so that the action component is able to move relative to the elastic component, and when the cleaning robot collides with an obstacle, the action component move in a direction towards the main body due to resistance generated by the collision with the obstacle, such that a pressure is exerted on the elastic component, causing deformation of elastic component (“Due to the fact that the spring extends at least substantially perpendicularly to the direction into which the bumper is movable, the spring will be bent when the bumper is moved with respect to the body.” [0011]
“During movement across the surface, obstacles may be hit. In such a case, the bumper is moved with respect to the body so that the spring is bent. The movement is preferably detected by means of a sensor, after which the body is stopped.” [0026]
“As soon as the bumper hits an obstacle during movement of the body 2 across the surface, for example, a force Fx is exerted on the bumper 6 (see FIG. 1B), due to which the bumper 6 is moved from its initial position to the position shown in broken lines in FIG. 1B. The springs 9 are then bent to a shape denoted by 9′.” [0043]).
Schneider does not explicitly teach a detection component, mounted on the elastic component and configured to sense the deformation of the elastic component to generate a strain signal.
However, Hickey does teach a detection component, mounted on the elastic component and configured to sense the deformation of the elastic component to generate a strain signal (“The first and second sensor arrays may be pressure sensitive. Additionally, or alternatively, the second sensor array may extend vertically along the height of the angled top portion of the bumper body.” [0007]). Both Schneider and Hickey teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Hickey explicitly teaches a detection component, mounted on the elastic component and configured to sense the deformation of the elastic component to generate a strain signal.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider to also include a detection component, mounted on the elastic component and configured to sense the deformation of the elastic component to generate a strain signal, as taught by Hickey, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using a mounted elastic component with a strain signal improves the robot operation and obstacle detection (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Hickey, 0007]).
Claim 2, 5-8, 10-13, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Hickey and further in view of Windorfer (DE102013107160A1), hereinafter referred to as Schneider Hickey and Windorfer respectively.
Regarding claims 2 and 15,
The combination of Schneider and Hickey does not explicitly teach wherein the action component is provided with two through holes for the elastic component to pass through
and two ends of the elastic component pass through the two through holes, respectively, and are connected to a base of the cleaning robot.
However, Windorfer does teach wherein the action component is provided with two through holes for the elastic component to pass through (“two centering projections 18 arranged at a distance from one another are provided on the inside of the U-shaped web 11. These pass through a window-like opening 22 in the end face of the chassis 2 facing the rear side of the U-shaped web 11, the longitudinal extent of the opening 22-as viewed in the longitudinal extent of the U-shaped web 11-being selected in such a way that a displacement of the U-shaped web 11 both in one direction and in the other direction transversely to the usual direction of travel is made possible when the centering projections 18 are pushed through the opening 22.” [0072]);
and two ends of the elastic component pass through the two through holes, respectively, and are connected to a base of the cleaning robot (“two centering projections 18 arranged at a distance from one another are provided on the inside of the U-shaped web 11. These pass through a window-like opening 22 in the end face of the chassis 2 facing the rear side of the U-shaped web 11, the longitudinal extent of the opening 22-as viewed in the longitudinal extent of the U-shaped web 11-being selected in such a way that a displacement of the U-shaped web 11 both in one direction and in the other direction transversely to the usual direction of travel is made possible when the centering projections 18 are pushed through the opening 22.” [0072]). Both Schneider in view of Hickey and Windorfer teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Windorfer explicitly teaches wherein the action component is provided with two through holes for the elastic component to pass through and two ends of the elastic component pass through the two through holes, respectively, and are connected to a base of the cleaning robot.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider in view of Hickey to also include wherein the action component is provided with two through holes for the elastic component to pass through and two ends of the elastic component pass through the two through holes, respectively, and are connected to a base of the cleaning robot, as taught by Windorfer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Directly connecting the elastic component to the base of the robot improves obstacle detection and better response times (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Windorfer, 0072]).
Regarding claims 5 and 18,
The combination of Schneider and Hickey does not explicitly teach wherein the elastic component comprises a first elastic arm, a second elastic arm and a connector, an end of the first elastic arm is connected to an end of the second elastic arm through the connector, and the connector is provided with an avoidance notch.
However, Windorfer does teach wherein the elastic component comprises a first elastic arm, a second elastic arm and a connector, an end of the first elastic arm is connected to an end of the second elastic arm through the connector, and the connector is provided with an avoidance notch (“The button element 9 is preferably also held on the chassis 2 in this embodiment in the region of its U-leg 10. For this purpose, on the inside, i.e. the U-shaped legs 10 correspondingly facing each other, guide parts 14 in the form of engagement sections are provided. In a preferred embodiment, these engage on the top side of the surface of the chassis 2 facing the housing ceiling, slot-like guide parts 13 which are directed in the usual direction of travel r and formed in the chassis top side. In this case, the button element 9 is further supported--with respect to the usual working position--via U-leg-side cross-webs which are supported on the surface of the chassis 2 via the U-legs 10. The transverse webs preferably carry the guide parts 14.” [0068]). Both Schneider in view of Hickey and Windorfer teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Windorfer explicitly teaches wherein the elastic component comprises a first elastic arm, a second elastic arm and a connector, an end of the first elastic arm is connected to an end of the second elastic arm through the connector, and the connector is provided with an avoidance notch.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider in view of Hickey to also include wherein the elastic component comprises a first elastic arm, a second elastic arm and a connector, an end of the first elastic arm is connected to an end of the second elastic arm through the connector, and the connector is provided with an avoidance notch, as taught by Windorfer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Having an elastic component with two arms increases the sensitivity and response time in obstacle detection (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Windorfer, 0068]).
Regarding claims 6 and 19,
The combination of Schneider and Hickey does not explicitly teach wherein the two detection components are located at an end of the first elastic arm and an end of the second elastic arm that are close to the connector, respectively.
However, Windorfer does teach wherein the two detection components are located at an end of the first elastic arm and an end of the second elastic arm that are close to the connector, respectively (“In a preferred embodiment, the spring centering is formed by a centering projection which is connected to the button element and extends into the U interior and is supported in a chassis-fixed manner by a spring acting in the horizontal direction.” [0012]). Both Schneider in view of Hickey and Windorfer teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Windorfer explicitly teaches wherein the two detection components are located at an end of the first elastic arm and an end of the second elastic arm that are close to the connector, respectively.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider in view of Hickey to also include wherein the two detection components are located at an end of the first elastic arm and an end of the second elastic arm that are close to the connector, respectively, as taught by Windorfer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves the robot operation and obstacle detection (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Windorfer, 0068]).
Regarding claims 7 and 20,
The combination of Schneider and Hickey does not explicitly teach wherein the action component is a circular arc-shaped cover, and the circular arc-shaped cover is provided outside the main body.
However, Windorfer does teach wherein the action component is a circular arc-shaped cover, and the circular arc-shaped cover is provided outside the main body (“In a preferred embodiment, the spring centering is formed by a centering projection which is connected to the button element and extends into the U interior and is supported in a chassis-fixed manner by a spring acting in the horizontal direction. With regard to the spring, it can be a leaf spring, furthermore for example also a cylindrical compression spring or else tension spring.” [0012]). Both Schneider in view of Hickey and Windorfer teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Windorfer explicitly teaches wherein the action component is a circular arc-shaped cover, and the circular arc-shaped cover is provided outside the main body.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider in view of Hickey to also include wherein the action component is a circular arc-shaped cover, and the circular arc-shaped cover is provided outside the main body, as taught by Windorfer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Having the elastic component in a circular shape gives the robot more surface are for obstacle detection (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Windorfer, 0072]).
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Schneider and Hickey does not explicitly teach wherein the detection component is a strain sensor.
However, Windorfer does teach wherein the detection component is a strain sensor (“In a further embodiment, the sensors are proximity sensors, and so on, for example, inductive, capacitive magnetic or optical proximity switches.” [0010] and “the sensors 20 are realized in the form of electrical micro-sensors 25 preferably anchored in the chassis 2. Acting on these are, preferably with the interposition of a compression spring 26 compensating for forces which may be too high and act on the micro-sensors 25, a respective wing element 27 which is mounted on the chassis 2 such that it can be pivoted about an axis which is preferably oriented perpendicularly to the floor surface during normal operation of the floor cleaning appliance 1 and is acted upon on the inside, i.e. facing away from the sensor element 9, by the associated compression spring 26 in the direction of the sensor element 9. Accordingly, the sensing surface 28 facing away from the compression spring 26 and preferably configured in a circular segment shape in a plan view lies on the inside of the sensing element 9 against the respective U-leg 10 or the U-web 11.” [0077]). Both Schneider in view of Hickey and Windorfer teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Windorfer explicitly teaches wherein the detection component is a strain sensor.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider in view of Hickey to also include wherein the detection component is a strain sensor, as taught by Windorfer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Adding a strain sensor enables better robot obstacle detection (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Windorfer, 0077]).
Regarding claim 10,
The combination of Schneider and Hickey does not explicitly teach wherein the cleaning robot comprises at least one of a sweeping robot, a mopping robot, a floor polishing robot or a weeding robot.
However, Windorfer does teach wherein the cleaning robot comprises at least one of a sweeping robot, a mopping robot, a floor polishing robot or a weeding robot (“the sensors 20 are realized in the form of electrical micro-sensors 25 preferably anchored in the chassis 2. Acting on these are, preferably with the interposition of a compression spring 26 compensating for forces which may be too high and act on the micro-sensors 25, a respective wing element 27 which is mounted on the chassis 2 such that it can be pivoted about an axis which is preferably oriented perpendicularly to the floor surface during normal operation of the floor cleaning appliance 1 and is acted upon on the inside, i.e. facing away from the sensor element 9, by the associated compression spring 26 in the direction of the sensor element 9. Accordingly, the sensing surface 28 facing away from the compression spring 26 and preferably configured in a circular segment shape in a plan view lies on the inside of the sensing element 9 against the respective U-leg 10 or the U-web 11.” [0001]). Both Schneider in view of Hickey and Windorfer teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Windorfer explicitly teaches wherein the cleaning robot comprises at least one of a sweeping robot, a mopping robot, a floor polishing robot or a weeding robot.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider in view of Hickey to also include wherein the cleaning robot comprises at least one of a sweeping robot, a mopping robot, a floor polishing robot or a weeding robot, as taught by Windorfer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Including robots of different cleaning tools improves the efficiency of obstacle detection under different conditions (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Windorfer, 0072]).
Regarding claim 11,
The combination of Schneider and Hickey does not explicitly teach further comprising: a sweeping component, comprising at least one brush; and a driving motor, configured to drive the at least one brush to rotate.
However, Windorfer does teach further comprising: a sweeping component, comprising at least one brush; and a driving motor, configured to drive the at least one brush to rotate (“In a corner region of this rectangular section, in particular in the right corner region viewed in the direction of travel r, an edge processing brush 7 is arranged on the underside. Starting from a mandrel which can be driven by electric motor, this has bristles which project radially outwards and which, viewed in the circumferential direction of the brush 7, project at least partially beyond the circumferential edge of the floor cleaning appliance 1.” [0039]). Both Schneider in view of Hickey and Windorfer teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Windorfer explicitly teaches a sweeping component, comprising at least one brush; and a driving motor, configured to drive the at least one brush to rotate.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider in view of Hickey to also include a sweeping component, comprising at least one brush; and a driving motor, configured to drive the at least one brush to rotate, as taught by Windorfer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Including robots of different cleaning tools and configurations improves the efficiency of obstacle detection under different conditions (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Windorfer, 0072]).
Regarding claim 12,
The combination of Schneider and Hickey does not explicitly teach wherein, the least one brush is provided at a bottom of the main body of the cleaning robot; and the driving motor is provided inside the main body of the cleaning robot.
However, Windorfer does teach wherein, the least one brush is provided at a bottom of the main body of the cleaning robot; and the driving motor is provided inside the main body of the cleaning robot (“In a corner region of this rectangular section, in particular in the right corner region viewed in the direction of travel r, an edge processing brush 7 is arranged on the underside. Starting from a mandrel which can be driven by electric motor, this has bristles which project radially outwards and which, viewed in the circumferential direction of the brush 7, project at least partially beyond the circumferential edge of the floor cleaning appliance 1.” [0039]). Both Schneider in view of Hickey and Windorfer teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Windorfer explicitly teaches wherein, the least one brush is provided at a bottom of the main body of the cleaning robot; and the driving motor is provided inside the main body of the cleaning robot.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider in view of Hickey to also include wherein, the least one brush is provided at a bottom of the main body of the cleaning robot; and the driving motor is provided inside the main body of the cleaning robot, as taught by Windorfer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Including robots of different cleaning tools improves the efficiency of obstacle detection under different conditions (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Windorfer, 0072]).
Regarding claim 13,
The combination of Schneider and Hickey does not explicitly teach further comprising: a walking unit, wherein the walking unit comprises: driving wheels, configured to drive the cleaning robot to move forward or backward; and a guide wheel, configured to change a travel direction of the cleaning robot in a travelling process.
However, Windorfer does teach further comprising: a walking unit, wherein the walking unit comprises: driving wheels, configured to drive the cleaning robot to move forward or backward; and a guide wheel, configured to change a travel direction of the cleaning robot in a travelling process (“This is fed via an accumulator accommodated in the suction device, which also serves to feed electric motors for driving travel wheels 6. Furthermore, the accumulator serves to supply an electronic system, not shown, in the device 1, in particular for controlling and orienting the same.” [0036]). Both Schneider in view of Hickey and Windorfer teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Windorfer explicitly teaches a walking unit, wherein the walking unit comprises: driving wheels, configured to drive the cleaning robot to move forward or backward; and a guide wheel, configured to change a travel direction of the cleaning robot in a travelling process.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider in view of Hickey to also include a walking unit, wherein the walking unit comprises: driving wheels, configured to drive the cleaning robot to move forward or backward; and a guide wheel, configured to change a travel direction of the cleaning robot in a travelling process, as taught by Windorfer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Including robots of different configurations improves the efficiency of obstacle detection under different conditions (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Windorfer, 0072]).
Claims 3-4, 14 and 16-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Hickey and further in view of Wallmeyer et al. (DE102008061259B4), hereinafter referred to as Schneider, Hickey and Wallmeyer respectively.
Regarding claims 3 and 16,
Schneider in view of Hickey does not explicitly teach wherein a number of the detection component is one, and the detection component is located in a middle of the elastic component.
However, Wallmeyer does teach wherein a number of the detection component is one, and the detection component is located in a middle of the elastic component (“Due to the foot-side movement detection, the obstacle detection of the collecting device can be limited to only one button element, which extends over a wide circumferential section facing the usual direction of travel of the collecting device.” [0006]). Both Schneider in view of Hickey and Wallmeyer teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Wallmeyer explicitly teaches wherein a number of the detection component is one, and the detection component is located in a middle of the elastic component.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider in view of Hickey to also include wherein a number of the detection component is one, and the detection component is located in a middle of the elastic component, as taught by Wallmeyer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Locating the detection component in a middle of the elastic component improves the obstacle detection (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Wallmeyer, 0006]).
Regarding claims 4 and 17,
Schneider in view of Hickey does not explicitly teach wherein a number of the detection component is two, and two detection components are symmetrically provided on the elastic component.
However, Wallmeyer does teach wherein a number of the detection component is two, and two detection components are symmetrically provided on the elastic component (“One or more proximity sensors or one or more buttons are provided as sensors for detecting the foot-side movement of the button element, for example inductive, capacitive, magnetic or optical proximity switches with regard to proximity sensors.” [0020]). Both Schneider in view of Hickey and Wallmeyer teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Wallmeyer explicitly teaches wherein a number of the detection component is two, and two detection components are symmetrically provided on the elastic component.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider in view of Hickey to also include wherein a number of the detection component is two, and two detection components are symmetrically provided on the elastic component, as taught by Wallmeyer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Locating the detection components symmetrically on the elastic component improves the obstacle detection method (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Wallmeyer, 0020]).
Regarding claim 14,
Schneider in view of Hickey does not explicitly teach wherein, the driving wheels comprise two driving wheels mounted on two sides of a bottom of the main body of the cleaning robot; and the guide wheel is provided in front of the main body of the cleaning robot in the travel direction.
However, Wallmeyer does teach wherein, the driving wheels comprise two driving wheels mounted on two sides of a bottom of the main body of the cleaning robot; and the guide wheel is provided in front of the main body of the cleaning robot in the travel direction (“Shown and described is a floor dust collector 1 in the form of a cleaning robot with a chassis 2 which, on the underside facing the floor to be cared for, carries electric motor-driven travel wheels (not shown) as well as a brush projecting beyond the lower edge of the chassis floor and also driven by an electric motor. The chassis 2 is covered by a cover 3 in the form of a device hood, whereby the floor cleaning device 1 has a circular floor plan. However, the device 1 can also have a floor plan that deviates from a circular shape, which can further be composed, for example, of a semicircular circular section and an adjoining rectangular section.” [0023]). Both Schneider in view of Hickey and Wallmeyer teach methods for cleaning robot obstacle detection. However, Wallmeyer explicitly teaches wherein, the driving wheels comprise two driving wheels mounted on two sides of a bottom of the main body of the cleaning robot; and the guide wheel is provided in front of the main body of the cleaning robot in the travel direction.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to robot control method of Schneider in view of Hickey to also include wherein, the driving wheels comprise two driving wheels mounted on two sides of a bottom of the main body of the cleaning robot; and the guide wheel is provided in front of the main body of the cleaning robot in the travel direction, as taught by Wallmeyer, with a reasonable expectation of success. Including different robot configurations improves the robot operation and obstacle detection method (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Wallmeyer, 0023]).
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 AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights