DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 22 December 2020. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the German application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 22 September 2023 has been fully considered by Examiner. An annotated copy is included herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites an “arrangement for testing quality of an object of a real environment, by means of a processing apparatus which is coupleable with at least one camera for capturing at least one image of the real environment and an optical display device, wherein the processing apparatus is configured to carry out the following steps:” [emphasis added] which are then recited.
It is not clear if “arrangement” means some form of physical device, since “arrangement” is a broader term. Also, the specific language of the claim does not require that the processing apparatus, camera, and optical display actually be a part of the “arrangement”, but merely that the purpose of the arrangement is “by means of” a processing apparatus, and the processing apparatus “is coupleable with” a camera and an optical display device.
Since the language of claim 15 is ambiguous, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claim 16 is similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) due to their respective dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
8. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a “computer program product comprising software code” and is thus merely a computer program or software. Such does not fall within any one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP § 2106.03(I), which says, in part: “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: • Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 14, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holzer (US-2020/0236343).
Regarding claim 1: Holzer discloses a method for testing quality of an object in a real environment ([0005]-[0007] of Holzer) using at least one camera for capturing at least one image of the real environment ([0104]-[0105] of Holzer), an optical display device (figs 33A-33B and [0320] of Holzer), and a processing apparatus (fig 36(3601) and [0364] of Holzer), which is connectable with the at least one camera and the optical display device (fig 34, [0099], and [0335] of Holzer), the method comprising the following steps: providing a computer-assisted data model of an object of the real environment to be tested ([0079] and [0104] of Holzer); defining a test geometry as a geometric sub-area within the data model ([0106], [0181], and [0187] of Holzer), defining a reference geometry within the data model as a reference system for conducting a test ([0181] and [0187] of Holzer); defining, by the processing apparatus, a test pose, in which the camera should be placed by the user as target positioning for a quality test to be carried out of the object to be tested ([0104] of Holzer – “the user may be guided to position the camera to align with one or more perspective views of a three-dimensional model”); visualizing, by the processing apparatus, the test pose on the optical display device ([0105]-[0106] of Holzer); capturing, by the camera, at least one image of the real environment, the pose of which camera is in a range that includes the test pose ([0104] and [0187] of Holzer), and tracking, by the processing apparatus, the test geometry and the reference geometry in the at least one image ([0079] and [0187]-[0188] of Holzer); determining, by the processing apparatus, a pose of the tracked test geometry in relation to the reference geometry ([0079]-[0081] of Holzer), and determining at least one parameter on the basis of how the pose of the tracked test geometry is in relation to a target pose of the test geometry defined within the data model (fig 8(808,810), [0170]-[0171], and [0173] of Holzer); determining, by the processing apparatus, a quality indicator containing information about at least one quality property of the object to be tested on the basis of the at least one parameter (fig 8(814,818) and [0175]-[0177] of Holzer); and outputting, by the processing apparatus, the quality indicator to the user via a human-machine interface ([0177] of Holzer).
Regarding claim 2: Holzer discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein a pose of the camera is registered in a coordinate system of the reference geometry ([0090]-[0091] of Holzer).
Regarding claim 5: Holzer discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the definition of the test geometry within the data model and/or the definition of the reference geometry within the data model is instructed by the user and stored in the processing apparatus ([0106] and [0181] of Holzer – user selection can be part of the definition process).
Regarding claim 6: Holzer discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein, to determine the test pose, the user specifies a pose of the camera within the data model from which the object to be tested ([0104] of Holzer – “the user may be guided to position the camera to align with one or more perspective views of a three-dimensional model”) and, if the reference geometry has been defined, at least part of the reference geometry are visible for the camera ([0104]-[0105] of Holzer).
Regarding claim 7: Holzer discloses the method according to claim 5 (as rejected above) wherein the processing apparatus comprises at least one first data processing device and one second mobile data processing device ([0060] of Holzer – server and mobile computing device), and the definition of the test geometry and/or the definition of the reference geometry is instructed by the user on the first data processing device ([0104]-[0106] of Holzer) and, once completed, the defined test geometry or reference geometry, respectively, is transferred from the first data processing device to the mobile data processing device and stored therein ([0067] and [0115] of Holzer).
Regarding claim 8: Holzer discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), in which the test pose is specified in relation to the object to be tested, and the visualization of the test pose is carried out on the optical display device in relation to the object to be tested ([0104]-[0107] of Holzer).
Regarding claim 9: Holzer discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), in which the visualization of the test pose on the optical display is provided by the processing apparatus such as to be displayed as at least one marking, specifically a virtual frame, in the field of view of an augmented reality application on the optical display device (fig 11, [0177]-[0178], and [0242] of Holzer).
Regarding claim 14: Holzer discloses a computer program product comprising software code sections that are configured to execute a method ([0356]-[0357], and [0364] of Holzer) according to claim 1 (as rejected above) when loaded to an internal memory of at least one data processing apparatus ([0356]-[0357], and [0364] of Holzer).
Regarding claim 15: Holzer discloses an arrangement for testing quality of an object of a real environment ([0005]-[0007] of Holzer), by means of a processing apparatus (fig 36(3601) and [0364] of Holzer) which is coupleable with at least one camera (fig 34, [0099], and [0335] of Holzer) for capturing at least one image of the real environment ([0104]-[0105] of Holzer) and an optical display device (figs 33A-33B and [0320] of Holzer), wherein the processing apparatus is configured to carry out the following steps: providing a computer-assisted data model of an object of the real environment to be tested ([0079] and [0104] of Holzer); defining a test geometry as a geometric sub-area within the data model ([0106], [0181], and [0187] of Holzer); defining a reference geometry within the data model as a reference system for conducting a test ([0181] and [0187] of Holzer), defining a test pose in which the camera should be placed by a user as target positioning for a quality test to be carried out of the object to be tested ([0104] of Holzer – “the user may be guided to position the camera to align with one or more perspective views of a three-dimensional model”); visualizing the test pose on the optical display device ([0105]-[0106] of Holzer); receiving at least one image of the real environment captured by the camera, the pose of which camera is in a range that includes the test pose ([0104] and [0187] of Holzer), and tracking the test geometry and the reference geometry in the at least one image ([0079] and [0187]-[0188] of Holzer); determining a pose of the tracked test geometry in relation to the reference geometry ([0079]-[0081] of Holzer), and determining at least one parameter on the basis of how the pose of the tracked test geometry is in relation to a target pose of the test geometry defined within the data model (fig 8(808,810), [0170]-[0171], and [0173] of Holzer); determining a quality indicator containing information about at least one quality property of the object to be tested on the basis of the at least one parameter (fig 8(814,818) and [0175]-[0177] of Holzer) and outputting the quality indicator to the user via a human-machine interface ([0177] of Holzer).
Regarding claim 17: Holzer discloses the arrangement according to claim 15 (as rejected above), wherein at least part of the processing apparatus is implemented as a mobile data processing apparatus, specifically contained in a mobile PC, tablet computer, smartphone or wearable computer, or coupled thereto (fig 34, [0060], and [0335] of Holzer).
Regarding claim 18: Holzer discloses the arrangement according to claim 17 (as rejected above), wherein at least part of the processing apparatus, the camera and the optical display device are integrated in a common housing (fig 34 and [0335]-[0338] of Holzer).
Regarding claim 19: Holzer discloses the arrangement according to claim 15 (as rejected above), wherein at least a first part of the processing apparatus is implemented as a mobile data processing apparatus and a second part of the processing apparatus is implemented as a remote computer, which are coupleable with one another, particularly via a network, particularly the Internet (fig 34, fig 36, [0060], [0035], and [0192] of Holzer).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US-2020/0236343) in view of Lawlor (US-2020/0364898), and in further view of obvious engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 3: Holzer discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above).
Holzer does not disclose wherein the quality indicator indicates first information that indicates satisfactory quality if the pose of the tracked test geometry deviates by less than a predetermined distance, particularly 1 mm, from a target position of the test geometry defined within the data model, and/or deviates by less than a predetermined angle, particularly 1 degree, from a target orientation of the test geometry defined within the data model.
Lawlor discloses wherein the quality indicator indicates first information that indicates satisfactory quality if the pose of the tracked test geometry deviates by less than a predetermined distance from a target position of the test geometry defined within the data model, and/or deviates by less than a predetermined angle from a target orientation of the test geometry defined within the data model (figs 8-9, figs 10A-10B, [0032]-[0033], and [0061]-[0064] of Lawlor – satisfactory quality if pose and locations are within a certain predetermine angle and distance to ensure proper accuracy).
Holzer and Lawlor are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely ensuring accuracy in 3D imaging. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the quality indicator indicate first information that indicates satisfactory quality if the pose of the tracked test geometry deviates by less than a predetermined distance from a target position of the test geometry defined within the data model, and/or deviates by less than a predetermined angle from a target orientation of the test geometry defined within the data model, as taught by Lawlor. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the imaging data is of sufficient accuracy for the application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Holzer according to the relied-upon teachings of Lawlor.
Holzer in view of Lawlor does not disclose the predetermined distance is particularly 1mm, and the predetermined angle is particularly 1 degree. However, it would have been an obvious engineering design choice to make the predetermined distance be particularly 1mm and the predetermined angle be particularly 1 degree, since doing so would ensure sufficient accuracy for applications in which such a level of accuracy is needed, such as for the object damage aggregation system of Holzer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Holzer according to the obvious engineering design choice to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
13. Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US-2020/0236343) in view of Moteki (US-2020/0134801).
Regarding claim 4: Holzer discloses a method for testing quality of an object in a real environment ([0005]-[0007] of Holzer) using at least one camera for capturing at least one image of the real environment ([0104]-[0105] of Holzer), an optical display device (figs 33A-33B and [0320] of Holzer), and a processing apparatus (fig 36(3601) and [0364] of Holzer), which is connectable with the at least one camera and the optical display device (fig 34, [0099], and [0335] of Holzer), the method comprising the following steps: providing a computer-assisted data model of an object of the real environment to be tested ([0079] and [0104] of Holzer); defining a test geometry as a geometric sub-area within the data model ([0106], [0181], and [0187] of Holzer); defining, by the processing apparatus, a test pose, in which the camera should be placed by the user as target positioning for a quality test to be carried out of the object to be tested ([0104] of Holzer – “the user may be guided to position the camera to align with one or more perspective views of a three-dimensional model”); visualizing, by the processing apparatus, the test pose on the optical display device ([0105]-[0106] of Holzer); capturing, by the camera, at least one image of the real environment, the pose of which camera is in a range that includes the test pose ([0104] and [0187] of Holzer), and tracking, by the processing apparatus, one or more edges in the image in relation to the test geometry ([0079], [0187]-[0188], and [0298] of Holzer – tracking can include edge tracking); and outputting, by the processing apparatus, the quality indicator to the user via a human-machine interface ([0177] of Holzer).
Holzer does not disclose determining, by the processing apparatus, first edges in the image that reach or exceed a predefined first degree of matching between the data model and the image, and second edges in the image that fall below a predefined second degree of matching between the data model and the image; and determining, by the processing apparatus, a quality indicator containing information about at least one quality property of the object to be tested on the basis of the determined first and/or second edges.
Moteki discloses determining, by the processing apparatus, first edges in the image that reach or exceed a predefined first degree of matching between the data model and the image, and second edges in the image that fall below a predefined second degree of matching between the data model and the image (figs 5-7, [0075]-[0078], [0080], and equation 3 of Moteki); and determining, by the processing apparatus, a quality indicator containing information about at least one quality property of the object to be tested on the basis of the determined first and/or second edges ([0079]-[0081], and equations 3-6 of Moteki).
Holzer and Moteki are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely ensuring accuracy in 3D imaging. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine, by the processing apparatus, first edges in the image that reach or exceed a predefined first degree of matching between the data model and the image, and second edges in the image that fall below a predefined second degree of matching between the data model and the image; and determine, by the processing apparatus, a quality indicator containing information about at least one quality property of the object to be tested on the basis of the determined first and/or second edges, as taught by Moteki. The motivation for doing so would have been to accurately correlate the object edges in the captured and ground truth images to more accurately determine if there is any damage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Holzer according to the relied-upon teachings of Moteki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 16: Holzer discloses an arrangement for testing quality of an object of a real environment ([0005]-[0007] of Holzer), by means of a processing apparatus (fig 36(3601) and [0364] of Holzer) which is coupleable with at least one camera (fig 34, [0099], and [0335] of Holzer) for capturing at least one image of the real environment ([0104]-[0105] of Holzer) and an optical display device (figs 33A-33B and [0320] of Holzer), wherein the processing apparatus is adapted to carry out the following steps: providing a computer-assisted data model of an object of the real environment to be tested ([0079] and [0104] of Holzer); defining a test geometry as a geometric sub-area within the data model ([0106], [0181], and [0187] of Holzer); defining a test pose, in which the camera should be placed by the user as target positioning for a quality test to be carried out of the object to be tested ([0104] of Holzer – “the user may be guided to position the camera to align with one or more perspective views of a three-dimensional model”); visualizing the test pose on the optical display device ([0105]-[0106] of Holzer); receiving at least one image of the real environment captured by the camera, the pose of which camera is in a range that includes the test pose ([0104] and [0187] of Holzer), and tracking one or more edges in the image in relation to the test geometry ([0079], [0187]-[0188], and [0298] of Holzer – tracking can include edge tracking); and outputting the quality indicator to the user via a human-machine interface ([0177] of Holzer).
Holzer does not disclose determining first edges in the image that reach or exceed a predefined first degree of matching between the data model and the image, and second edges in the image that fall below a predefined second degree of matching between the data model and the image; and determining a quality indicator containing information about at least one quality property of the object to be tested on the basis of the determined first and/or second edges.
Moteki discloses determining first edges in the image that reach or exceed a predefined first degree of matching between the data model and the image, and second edges in the image that fall below a predefined second degree of matching between the data model and the image (figs 5-7, [0075]-[0078], [0080], and equation 3 of Moteki); and determining a quality indicator containing information about at least one quality property of the object to be tested on the basis of the determined first and/or second edges ([0079]-[0081], and equations 3-6 of Moteki).
Holzer and Moteki are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely ensuring accuracy in 3D imaging. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine first edges in the image that reach or exceed a predefined first degree of matching between the data model and the image, and second edges in the image that fall below a predefined second degree of matching between the data model and the image; and determine a quality indicator containing information about at least one quality property of the object to be tested on the basis of the determined first and/or second edges, as taught by Moteki. The motivation for doing so would have been to accurately correlate the object edges in the captured and ground truth images to more accurately determine if there is any damage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Holzer according to the relied-upon teachings of Moteki to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
14. Claims 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US-2020/0236343) in view of Rourke (US-9,852,500).
Regarding claim 10: Holzer discloses the method according to claim 9 (as rejected above). Holzer does not disclose in which a distance between the marking and the object to be tested is output to the user with the visualization of the test pose.
Rourke discloses in which a distance between the marking and the object to be tested is output to the user with the visualization of the test pose (figs 3A-3B; column 3, line 65 to column 4, line 5; and column 5, lines 29-60 of Rourke – visualized in camera pose the test object (installed part) and the guide markings, showing any distance error).
Holzer and Rourke are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely ensuring accuracy in 3D imaging. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a distance between the marking and the object to be tested output to the user with the visualization of the test pose, as taught by Rourke. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide the user with a visual indicator of possible error, so that user can easily and intuitively make any needed corrections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Holzer according to the relied-upon teachings of Rourke to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 12: Holzer discloses the method according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Holzer does not disclose wherein before capturing the at least one image of the real environment with the camera, the pose of the camera in relation to the test pose is tracked by the processing apparatus, and upon determining that the tracked camera pose deviates by more than at least one predefined parameter from a target orientation and/or a target position of the test pose, the user is notified via the human-machine interface that the camera should not capture the at least one image of the real environment, and otherwise, they are notified that the camera can capture the at least one image of the real environment.
Rourke discloses wherein before capturing the at least one image of the real environment with the camera, the pose of the camera in relation to the test pose is tracked by the processing apparatus, and upon determining that the tracked camera pose deviates by more than at least one predefined parameter from a target orientation and/or a target position of the test pose, the user is notified via the human-machine interface that the camera should not capture the at least one image of the real environment, and otherwise, they are notified that the camera can capture the at least one image of the real environment (column 7, lines 45-56 of Rourke).
Holzer and Rourke are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely ensuring accuracy in 3D imaging. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have before capturing the at least one image of the real environment with the camera, the pose of the camera in relation to the test pose is tracked by the processing apparatus, and upon determining that the tracked camera pose deviates by more than at least one predefined parameter from a target orientation and/or a target position of the test pose, the user is notified via the human-machine interface that the camera should not capture the at least one image of the real environment, and otherwise, they are notified that the camera can capture the at least one image of the real environment, as taught by Rourke. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency by not capturing images that cannot be used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Holzer according to the relied-upon teachings of Rourke to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13: Holzer in view of Rourke discloses the method according to claim 12 (as rejected above), wherein the processing apparatus, upon determining that the tracked camera pose deviates by more than the at least one predefined parameter from a target orientation and/or a target position of the test pose, does not allow for a subsequent quality test of the object to be tested (column 7, lines 45-56 of Rourke). Holzer and Rourke are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 12.
15. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US-2020/0236343) in view of Degani (A. Degani, W. B. Li, R. Sacks and L. Ma, “An Automated System for Projection of Interior Construction Layouts,” in IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 1825-1835, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1109/TASE.2019.2897135.).
Regarding claim 11: Holzer discloses the method according to claim 9 (as rejected above). Holzer does not disclose in which the visualization of the test pose on the optical display device is provided by the processing apparatus such as to additionally show at least one floor marking indicating to the user where on the floor the user should position themselves to assume the test pose.
Degani discloses in which the visualization of the test pose on the optical display device is provided by the processing apparatus such as to additionally show at least one floor marking indicating to the user where on the floor the user should position themselves to assume the test pose (Fig. 4; and Section III(B) on page 1828 of Degani – pose location found on known map).
Holzer and Degani are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely ensuring accuracy in 3D imaging. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the visualization of the test pose on the optical display device provided by the processing apparatus such as to additionally show at least one floor marking indicating to the user where on the floor the user should position themselves to assume the test pose, as taught by Degani. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an initial coarse accuracy for the test pose to save time on the finer corrections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Holzer according to the relied-upon teachings of Degani to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James A Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-7441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615