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 Application
This final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment received by the Office on 25-SEP-2025. Claims 1-19 have been presented in the application, of which, 1-12 and 14-19 are previously presented/original. Claim 13 is amended. Accordingly, pending claims 1-19 are addressed herein.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11-SEP-2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b), 112(a), and 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 30-JUN-2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11-SEP-2025, with respect to the rejections of claims under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 8-10, Applicant argues that Huang and Zimmerman do not teach “controlling the robot to reduce its mechanical impedance if the distance value is smaller than a distance threshold value and the temperature value is higher than a temperature threshold value” in part because Zimmerman does not explicitly disclose the distance value being smaller than a distance threshold value, only discloses control in a compliant manner only in this spatial direction, i.e. based on a direction of approach. The examiner disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a distance value being smaller than a distance threshold value includes any approaching object proximity being detected due to the sensor’s threshold range triggering a response of the robot, as taught by Zimmerman.
Additionally, on page 10, Applicant argues “a robot responding to detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature of Huang et al., to include reducing the mechanical rigidity of the manipulator when approaching a contact point, as taught by Zimmerman. ... a robot [1] reducing its mechanical rigidity when detecting objects with a proximity sensor and [2] using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature” does not teach “controlling the robot to reduce its mechanical impedance if the distance value is smaller than a distance threshold value and the temperature value is higher than a temperature threshold value”, as required by the claims. The examiner disagrees. The mechanical impedance is not further defined in the claims, and in light of the specification (Page 4, lines 6-9, “The mechanical impedance may be a stiffness of the robot. Since the mechanical impedance of the robot is reduced when the robot is proximate to a human, the robot will move in a more compliant fashion”), can be interpreted as an increase in compliant behavior. “A robot reducing its mechanical rigidity when detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature” as written in the rejection below does teach the claim limitations. The threshold values, under the broadest reasonable interpretations, can be interpreted as the range of the respective sensors. The temperature threshold value, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can be interpreted as the minimum heat signature temperature recognizable by a sensor, or as the minimum heat signature temperature for a human. Both the cited art references describe a robotic response to these detections, and thus it would be predictable to incorporate them as described in the 103 rejections to cover the claim limitations.
It is also noted that the claims do not state reducing the mechanical impedance only if both the distance value is smaller than a distance threshold value and the temperature value is higher than a temperature threshold value. As it is written, the mechanical impedance reduction being triggered by one or the other values, in this case the distance value, and the other value by mere happenstance being within a threshold can be taught.
Because of the arguments above, the prior 103 rejection is upheld.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20220043441 A1) in view Zimmerman (EP 2073084 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al. teaches: A method of controlling a robot (Paragraph [5], "Exemplary autonomous systems to which the disclosed embodiments may be applied include autonomous vehicles, factory assembly, logistics, or manufacturing robots"), the method comprising: obtaining, by a proximity sensor on the robot (element 114; Paragraph [19], "proximity sensors"), a distance value indicative of a distance between an object and the robot (Paragraph [30], "detect obstacles or other information present in the environment surrounding the autonomous system 110"); obtaining, by a thermal sensor on the robot (element 114; Paragraph [19], "thermal imaging devices"), a temperature value indicative of a temperature of the object (Paragraph [30], "Infrared images may be provided by an infrared camera and used to distinguish between human objects and non-human objects (e.g., human objects may have a heat signature that may be recognized by the AI/ML algorithms 250 while other objects may not")… and the temperature value is higher than a temperature threshold value (Paragraph [30], "Infrared images may be provided by an infrared camera and used to distinguish between human objects and non-human objects"; Paragraph [32], "The AI/ML algorithms 250 may receive the sensor data 202 and the processed data 204 as inputs and generate one or more outputs 206. Exemplary outputs that may be determined by the AI/ML algorithms 250 may include detected obstacles (e.g., objects or persons) in the path of travel or proximate the path of travel of the autonomous system 110”)
While Huang et al. teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
and controlling the robot to reduce its mechanical impedance if the distance value is smaller than a distance threshold value
However, Zimmerman teaches: and controlling the robot to reduce its mechanical impedance if the distance value is smaller than a distance threshold value (Paragraph [39-41], “Thus, for example, when approaching a contact point in an excellent spatial direction, such as vertically from above, the manipulator model based only be compliant controlled in this spatial direction”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a robot responding to detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature of Huang et al., to include reducing the mechanical rigidity of the manipulator when approaching a contact point, as taught by Zimmerman. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot reducing its mechanical rigidity when detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature.
Regarding claim 2, while Huang et al. and Zimmermann teach the limitations as stated above, including a robot method for reducing mechanical impedance, it does not expressly disclose:
the reduction comprises reducing the mechanical impedance more for a smaller distance value than for a larger distance value
However, Zimmerman teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the reduction comprises reducing the mechanical impedance more for a smaller distance value than for a larger distance value (Paragraph [39-41], "Thus, for example, when approaching a contact point in an excellent spatial direction, such as vertically from above, the manipulator model based only be compliant controlled in this spatial direction… On the other hand, in the process area where there is little risk of a human or other obstacle being between the operating point of the manipulator and the workpiece to be machined, high process forces can be applied by correspondingly stiffer control of the controller")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a robot reducing its mechanical rigidity when detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature of Huang et al and Zimmerman., to include reducing the mechanical rigidity of the manipulator when approaching a contact point, but not inside an area where a human or obstacle will be present as taught by Zimmerman. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot reducing its mechanical rigidity when determining an infrared detected human is in the approaching path of robot but not if outside an area where it is less likely a human or obstacle will be present.
Regarding claim 3, Huang et al. teaches: The method according to claim 1, further comprising modifying a movement strategy of the robot if the distance value is smaller than the distance threshold value and the temperature value is higher than the temperature threshold value (Paragraph [32], "To illustrate, suppose that a stationary obstacle is identified and determined to be a person standing 10 feet to the side of the path of travel of the autonomous system 110. The navigation subsystem 122 may determine to slow the speed of the autonomous system 110… Exemplary commands that may be provided to the propulsion subsystem 120 may include steering commands (e.g., commands to turn the autonomous system 110 or otherwise control steering of the autonomous system 110 along an intended path of travel)")
Regarding claim 4, Huang et al. teaches: The method according to claim 1, further comprising limiting a speed of the robot if the distance value is smaller than the distance threshold value and the temperature value is higher than the temperature threshold value (Paragraph [32], "To illustrate, suppose that a stationary obstacle is identified and determined to be a person standing 10 feet to the side of the path of travel of the autonomous system 110. The navigation subsystem 122 may determine to slow the speed of the autonomous system 110 ")
Regarding claim 5, Huang et al. teaches: The method according to claim 1, further comprising increasing a smoothness of motion of the robot if the distance value is smaller than the distance threshold value and the temperature value is higher than the temperature threshold value (Paragraph [32], "To illustrate, suppose that a stationary obstacle is identified and determined to be a person standing 10 feet to the side of the path of travel of the autonomous system 110. The navigation subsystem 122 may determine to slow the speed of the autonomous system 110"; Applicant’s specification states, [Page 7, lines 16-19] “The smoothness of motion may for example be increased by increasing a size of blending zones associated with points of a trajectory and/or by limiting acceleration of movable parts of the robot”)
Regarding claim 6, while Huang et al. and Zimmermann teach the limitations as stated above, including a robot method for reducing mechanical impedance, it does not expressly disclose:
the robot comprises a manipulator, and wherein the reduction of the mechanical impedance includes reducing a mechanical impedance of the manipulator
However, Zimmerman teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the robot comprises a manipulator, and wherein the reduction of the mechanical impedance includes reducing a mechanical impedance of the manipulator (Figure 1; element 1; Paragraph [50], "the manipulator after Fig. 1 when the operating point enters the process area")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a robot reducing its mechanical rigidity when detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature of Huang et al and Zimmerman., to include reducing the mechanical rigidity of a manipulator of the robot as taught by Zimmerman. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot reducing its manipulator mechanical rigidity when detecting objects nearby with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature.
Regarding claim 7, Huang et al. teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the robot is a mobile robot (Paragraph [5], "Exemplary autonomous systems to which the disclosed embodiments may be applied include autonomous vehicles, factory assembly, logistics, or manufacturing robots")
Regarding claim 8, Huang et al. teaches: A control system for controlling a robot, the control system comprising at least one data processing device (element 112) and at least one memory having a computer program stored thereon (element 130), the computer program including a program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device, causes the at least one data processing device to perform the steps (element 132; Paragraph [18]) of: obtaining, from a proximity sensor on the robot (element 114; Paragraph [19], "proximity sensors"), a distance value indicative of a distance between an object and the robot (Paragraph [30], "detect obstacles or other information present in the environment surrounding the autonomous system 110"); obtaining, from a thermal sensor on the robot (element 114; Paragraph [19], "thermal imaging devices"), a temperature value indicative of a temperature of the object (Paragraph [30], "Infrared images may be provided by an infrared camera and used to distinguish between human objects and non-human objects (e.g., human objects may have a heat signature that may be recognized by the AI/ML algorithms 250 while other objects may not")… and the temperature value is higher than a temperature threshold value (Paragraph [30], "Infrared images may be provided by an infrared camera and used to distinguish between human objects and non-human objects"; Paragraph [32], "The AI/ML algorithms 250 may receive the sensor data 202 and the processed data 204 as inputs and generate one or more outputs 206. Exemplary outputs that may be determined by the AI/ML algorithms 250 may include detected obstacles (e.g., objects or persons) in the path of travel or proximate the path of travel of the autonomous system 110”)
While Huang et al. teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
and controlling the robot to reduce its mechanical impedance if the distance value is smaller than a distance threshold value
However, Zimmerman teaches: and controlling the robot to reduce its mechanical impedance if the distance value is smaller than a distance threshold value (Paragraph [39-41], “Thus, for example, when approaching a contact point in an excellent spatial direction, such as vertically from above, the manipulator model based only be compliant controlled in this spatial direction”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a robot responding to detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature of Huang et al., to include reducing the mechanical rigidity of the manipulator when approaching a contact point, as taught by Zimmerman. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot reducing its mechanical rigidity when detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature.
Regarding claim 9, while Huang et al. and Zimmermann teach the limitations as stated above, including a robot method for reducing mechanical impedance, it does not expressly disclose:
the reduction comprises reducing the mechanical impedance more for a smaller distance value than for a larger distance value
However, Zimmerman teaches: The control system according to claim 8, wherein the reduction comprises reducing the mechanical impedance more for a smaller distance value than for a larger distance value (Paragraph [39-41], "Thus, for example, when approaching a contact point in an excellent spatial direction, such as vertically from above, the manipulator model based only be compliant controlled in this spatial direction… On the other hand, in the process area where there is little risk of a human or other obstacle being between the operating point of the manipulator and the workpiece to be machined, high process forces can be applied by correspondingly stiffer control of the controller")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a robot reducing its mechanical rigidity when detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature of Huang et al and Zimmerman., to include reducing the mechanical rigidity of the manipulator when approaching a contact point, but not inside an area where a human or obstacle will be present as taught by Zimmerman. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot reducing its mechanical rigidity when determining an infrared detected human is in the approaching path of robot but not if outside an area where it is less likely a human or obstacle will be present.
Regarding claim 10, Huang et al. teaches: The control system according to claim 8, wherein the computer program comprises program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device, causes the at least one data processing device to perform the step of: modifying a movement strategy of the robot if the distance value is smaller than the distance threshold value and the temperature value is higher than the temperature threshold value (Paragraph [32], "To illustrate, suppose that a stationary obstacle is identified and determined to be a person standing 10 feet to the side of the path of travel of the autonomous system 110. The navigation subsystem 122 may determine to slow the speed of the autonomous system 110… Exemplary commands that may be provided to the propulsion subsystem 120 may include steering commands (e.g., commands to turn the autonomous system 110 or otherwise control steering of the autonomous system 110 along an intended path of travel)")
Regarding claim 11, Huang et al. teaches: The control system according to claim 8, wherein the computer program comprises program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device, causes the at least one data processing device to perform the step of: limiting a speed of the robot if the distance value is smaller than the distance threshold value and the temperature value is higher than the temperature threshold value (Paragraph [32], "To illustrate, suppose that a stationary obstacle is identified and determined to be a person standing 10 feet to the side of the path of travel of the autonomous system 110. The navigation subsystem 122 may determine to slow the speed of the autonomous system 110 ")
Regarding claim 12, Huang et al. teaches: The control system according to claim 8, wherein the computer program comprises program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device, causes the at least one data processing device to perform the step of: increasing a smoothness of motion of the robot if the distance value is smaller than the distance threshold value and the temperature value is higher than the temperature threshold value (Paragraph [32], "To illustrate, suppose that a stationary obstacle is identified and determined to be a person standing 10 feet to the side of the path of travel of the autonomous system 110. The navigation subsystem 122 may determine to slow the speed of the autonomous system 110"; Applicant’s specification states, [Page 7, lines 16-19] “The smoothness of motion may for example be increased by increasing a size of blending zones associated with points of a trajectory and/or by limiting acceleration of movable parts of the robot”)
Regarding claim 13, while Huang et al. and Zimmermann teach the limitations as stated above, including a robot method for reducing mechanical impedance, it does not expressly disclose:
wherein the reduction of the mechanical impedance includes reducing a mechanical impedance of a manipulator of the robot
However, Zimmerman teaches: The control system according to claim 8, wherein the reduction of the mechanical impedance includes reducing a mechanical impedance of a manipulator of the robot (Figure 1; element 1; Paragraph [50], "the manipulator after Fig. 1 when the operating point enters the process area")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a robot reducing its mechanical rigidity when detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature of Huang et al and Zimmerman., to include reducing the mechanical rigidity of a manipulator of the robot as taught by Zimmerman. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot reducing its manipulator mechanical rigidity when detecting objects nearby with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature.
Regarding claim 14, Huang et al. teaches: A robot comprising: a control system including at least one data processing device (element 112) and at least one memory having a computer program stored thereon (element 130), the computer program including a program code which, when executed by the at least one data processing device, causes the at least one data processing device to perform the steps (element 132; Paragraph [18]) of : obtaining, from a proximity sensor on the robot (element 114; Paragraph [19], "proximity sensors"), a distance value indicative of a distance between an object and the robot (Paragraph [30], "detect obstacles or other information present in the environment surrounding the autonomous system 110"); obtaining, from a thermal sensor on the robot (element 114; Paragraph [19], "thermal imaging devices"), a temperature value indicative of a temperature of the object (Paragraph [30], "Infrared images may be provided by an infrared camera and used to distinguish between human objects and non-human objects (e.g., human objects may have a heat signature that may be recognized by the AI/ML algorithms 250 while other objects may not")… and the temperature value is higher than a temperature threshold value (Paragraph [30], "Infrared images may be provided by an infrared camera and used to distinguish between human objects and non-human objects"; Paragraph [32], "The AI/ML algorithms 250 may receive the sensor data 202 and the processed data 204 as inputs and generate one or more outputs 206. Exemplary outputs that may be determined by the AI/ML algorithms 250 may include detected obstacles (e.g., objects or persons) in the path of travel or proximate the path of travel of the autonomous system 110”), and proximity sensor provided on the robot (element 114; Paragraph [19], "proximity sensors"), and the thermal sensor provided on the robot (element 114; Paragraph [19], "thermal imaging devices")
While Huang et al. teaches the limitations as stated above, it does not expressly disclose:
and controlling the robot to reduce its mechanical impedance if the distance value is smaller than a distance threshold value
However, Zimmerman teaches: and controlling the robot to reduce its mechanical impedance if the distance value is smaller than a distance threshold value (Paragraph [39-41], “Thus, for example, when approaching a contact point in an excellent spatial direction, such as vertically from above, the manipulator model based only be compliant controlled in this spatial direction”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a robot responding to detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature of Huang et al., to include reducing the mechanical rigidity of the manipulator when approaching a contact point, as taught by Zimmerman. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot reducing its mechanical rigidity when detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature.
Regarding claim 15, Huang et al. teaches: The robot according to claim 14, wherein the robot is a mobile robot (Paragraph [5], "Exemplary autonomous systems to which the disclosed embodiments may be applied include autonomous vehicles, factory assembly, logistics, or manufacturing robots")
Regarding claim 16, Huang et al. teaches: The method according to claim 2, further comprising modifying a movement strategy of the robot if the distance value is smaller than the distance threshold value and the temperature value is higher than the temperature threshold value (Paragraph [32], "To illustrate, suppose that a stationary obstacle is identified and determined to be a person standing 10 feet to the side of the path of travel of the autonomous system 110. The navigation subsystem 122 may determine to slow the speed of the autonomous system 110… Exemplary commands that may be provided to the propulsion subsystem 120 may include steering commands (e.g., commands to turn the autonomous system 110 or otherwise control steering of the autonomous system 110 along an intended path of travel)")
Regarding claim 17, Huang et al. teaches: The method according to claim 2, further comprising limiting a speed of the robot if the distance value is smaller than the distance threshold value and the temperature value is higher than the temperature threshold value (Paragraph [32], "To illustrate, suppose that a stationary obstacle is identified and determined to be a person standing 10 feet to the side of the path of travel of the autonomous system 110. The navigation subsystem 122 may determine to slow the speed of the autonomous system 110 ")
Regarding claim 18, Huang et al. teaches: The method according to claim 2, further comprising increasing a smoothness of motion of the robot if the distance value is smaller than the distance threshold value and the temperature value is higher than the temperature threshold value (Paragraph [32], "To illustrate, suppose that a stationary obstacle is identified and determined to be a person standing 10 feet to the side of the path of travel of the autonomous system 110. The navigation subsystem 122 may determine to slow the speed of the autonomous system 110"; Applicant’s specification states, [Page 7, lines 16-19] “The smoothness of motion may for example be increased by increasing a size of blending zones associated with points of a trajectory and/or by limiting acceleration of movable parts of the robot”)
Regarding claim 19, while Huang et al. and Zimmermann teach the limitations as stated above, including a robot method for reducing mechanical impedance, it does not expressly disclose:
wherein the reduction of the mechanical impedance includes reducing a mechanical impedance of the manipulator
However, Zimmerman teaches: The method according to claim 2, wherein the robot comprises a manipulator, and wherein the reduction of the mechanical impedance includes reducing a mechanical impedance of the manipulator (Figure 1; element 1; Paragraph [50], "the manipulator after Fig. 1 when the operating point enters the process area")
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify a robot reducing its mechanical rigidity when detecting objects with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature of Huang et al and Zimmerman., to include reducing the mechanical rigidity of a manipulator of the robot as taught by Zimmerman. Such modification would have been obvious because such application would have been well within the level of skill of the person having ordinary skill in the art and would have yielded predictable results. The predictable results including: a robot reducing its manipulator mechanical rigidity when detecting objects nearby with a proximity sensor and using a thermal imaging device to distinguish a human by its heat signature.
Conclusion
Other art of interest is Zhang (CN 111608124 A). It is directed to an autonomous navigation method of a cleaning robot.
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 ALYSE TRAMANH TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.T.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656