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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 9/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-19 remain pending in the application. Claims 2, 8, and 14 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the server". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-13, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue et al. (CN108427423A), referred to further as Xue, and in view of Ferguson et al. (CN110998647A), referred to further as Ferguson.
Regarding claim 1, Xue teaches:
transmitting abnormality alarm information to a target user and obtaining real-time video data when receiving abnormality information of the material pushing robot ([58-60], abnormal alarm; [62], video data transmitted from a drone);
receiving a remote monitoring request which is transmitted from the target user based on the abnormality alarm information ([61], send to remote monitoring terminal),
and transmitting the real-time video data to a remote control terminal according to the remote monitoring request ([61-62] drone records scene and sends it to remote monitoring terminal),
and to cause the remote control terminal to determine a current position of the material pushing robot and a restoring position of the material pushing robot according to the real-time video data ([69], traveling route is determined and adjusted based on location where anomaly occurred; [22], “video of the abnormal scene is sent to the remote monitoring terminal”),
and to generate a remote movement command according to the current position and the restoring position ([69], adjust traveling plan);
and receiving a remote control command returned by the remote control terminal, and transmitting the remote movement command to the material pushing robot, and to cause the material pushing robot to move according to the remote movement command ([68], remote control command is the adjusting of the driving path by the system);
wherein determining the current position of the material pushing robot and the restoring position of the material pushing robot according to the real-time video data further comprises:
determining the current position of the material pushing robot according to the real-time video data ([69], abnormality detecting system acquires appearance of traveling route; [50] includes a camera); and
taking a preset recovering point which is in a plurality of preset recovering points and is closest to the current position as the restoring position ([68], recovering points and restoring position is the charging path and charging zone)
wherein the preset recovering points are work recovering points on a work route ([47], multiple charging pads 12 are within the charging zone).
Although Xue does not explicitly teach that these recovering points are on a work route where the material pushing robot has gone through, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that these charging pads within the charging zone are on a work route where the material pushing robot has gone through as the robot necessarily returns to the charging pads in order to recharge its battery after use. It would be nonfunctional if the previous path of the robot has not gone through these zones as the robot would lack the energy and charge necessary to perform its operations.
Xue does not teach that the real-time video data is transmitted from the material pushing robot itself. However, additional reference Ferguson teaches video data being transmitted from a material pushing robot (a material pushing robot is, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, any sort of autonomous apparatus capable of transporting material/matter, and is thus the same as an autonomous vehicle; Page 22, paragraph 4, autonomous vehicle transmits a request to the system, the request includes captured video information).
Ferguson is analogous to the art of controlling a fleet of autonomously operating devices, such as vehicles or robots. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicles of Ferguson to have the vehicle itself record and transmit the video information so that the video’s perspective is from an angle from the vehicle itself, thereby mirroring a driver’s perspective of a vehicle and making remote operator control easier (Page 19, paragraph 9; Page 20, paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Xue further teaches determining a first movement path of the material pushing robot according to the current position and the restoring position ([57], plans the charging path); and generating a first remote movement command according to the first movement path ([68], adjust driving path so that it travels to the charging zone).
Regarding claim 5, the prior art remains as applied in claim 1, and Ferguson further teaches obtaining permission configuration information of a user according to current user information (Page 22, paragraph 8, empirical information relating to a remote operator) when receiving the abnormality information of the material pushing robot (Page 23, paragraph 2, when request is made based on abnormal conditions detected by an autonomous vehicle); and transmitting the abnormality alarm information to the target user according to a result that the permission configuration information of the user matches with the abnormality information of the material pushing robot (Page 23, paragraph 2, the information about a vehicle is sent to a specific operator once the system assigns them to the autonomous vehicle).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art remains as applied in claim 5, and Ferguson further teaches determining whether the current material pushing robot identity is the same as one of the one or more preset material pushing robot identities (Page 23, paragraph 2 and Page 22, paragraph 4, the empirical information that the system stores for an operator includes preset operating conditions and features for which requests said operator is preset to be defined with; the system assigning an operator to a vehicle requires determining whether the current autonomous vehicle has operating conditions that are the same as one or more preset operating conditions that operators are best suited for); generating the abnormality alarm information according to the one or more alarming modalities and the abnormality data based on a result that the current material pushing robot identity is the same as the one of the one or more preset material pushing robot identities (Page 21, paragraph 4 and Page 22, paragraph 4, generating and sending requests to a remote operator management system, including information indicative of the situation of the vehicle); and taking the user referred by the user identity as the target user, and transmitting the abnormality alarm information to the target user (Page 23, paragraph 3 and Page 20, paragraph 2, abnormality information about the requesting vehicle is sent to the appropriate operator as determined by the system).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art remains as applied in claim 6, and Xue further teaches that a number of each of the one or more alarming modalities is at least one of a group consisting of a short message service message, an email, a phone, a small video, and an image. ([22], “video of the abnormal scene is sent to the remote monitoring terminal”).
Regarding claim 9, Xue teaches a server comprising: at least one processor ([63], main system module is a PC computer) that is programmed to:
transmit abnormality alarm information to a target user and obtain real-time video data when receiving abnormality information of the material pushing robot ([58-60], abnormal alarm; [62], video data transmitted from a drone);
receive a remote monitoring request which is transmitted from the target user based on the abnormality alarm information ([61], send to remote monitoring terminal),
and transmit the real-time video data to a remote control terminal according to the remote monitoring request ([61-62] drone records scene and sends it to remote monitoring terminal),
and to cause the remote control terminal to determine a current position of the material pushing robot and a restoring position of the material pushing robot according to the real-time video data ([69], traveling route is determined and adjusted based on location where anomaly occurred; [22], “video of the abnormal scene is sent to the remote monitoring terminal”),
and to generate a remote movement command according to the current position and the restoring position ([69], adjust traveling plan);
and receive a remote control command returned by the remote control terminal, and transmit the remote movement command to the material pushing robot, and to cause the material pushing robot to move according to the remote movement command ([68], remote control command is the adjusting of the driving path by the system);
wherein the server further causes the at least one processor to:
determine the current position of the material pushing robot according to the real-time video data ([69], abnormality detecting system acquires appearance of traveling route; [50] includes a camera); and
take a preset recovering point which is in a plurality of preset recovering points and is closest to the current position as the restoring position ([68], recovering points and restoring position is the charging path and charging zone);
wherein the preset recovering points are reset points or work recovering points ([47], multiple charging pads 12 are within the charging zone).
Although Xue does not explicitly teach that these recovering points are on a work route where the material pushing robot has gone through, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that these charging pads within the charging zone are on a work route where the material pushing robot has gone through as the robot necessarily returns to the charging pads in order to recharge its battery after use. It would be nonfunctional if the previous path of the robot has not gone through these charging pads as the robot would lack the energy and charge necessary to perform its operations.
Xue does not explicitly teach a storage device storing one or more programs that cause the processor to perform the method previously described. However, it is well understood that a PC computer contains a storage device that stores the programs by which it operates. Thus, it would have been obvious to explicitly include the storage device containing the programs in the main system of Xue to enable the PC computer to be able to perform the abnormality processing method described.
Xue does not teach that the real-time video data is transmitted from the material pushing robot itself. However, additional reference Ferguson teaches video data being transmitted from a material pushing robot (a material pushing robot is, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, any sort of autonomous apparatus capable of transporting material/matter, and is thus applies to an autonomous vehicle; Page 22, paragraph 4, autonomous vehicle transmits a request to the system, the request includes captured video information).
Ferguson is analogous to the art of controlling a fleet of autonomously operating devices, such as vehicles or robots. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicles of Ferguson to have the vehicle itself record and transmit the video information so that the video’s perspective is from an angle from the vehicle itself, thereby mirroring a driver’s perspective of a vehicle and making remote operator control easier (Page 19, paragraph 9; Page 20, paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Xue teaches at least one processor of an electronic device ([63], PC computer), configured to: transmit abnormality alarm information to a target user and obtain real-time video data when receiving abnormality information of the material pushing robot ([58-60], abnormal alarm; [62], video data transmitted from a drone); receive a remote monitoring request which is transmitted from the target user based on the abnormality alarm information ([61], send to remote monitoring terminal), and transmit the real-time video data to a remote control terminal according to the remote monitoring request ([61-62] drone records scene and sends it to remote monitoring terminal), and to cause the remote control terminal to determine a current position of the material pushing robot and a restoring position of the material pushing robot according to the real-time video data ([69], traveling route is determined and adjusted based on location where anomaly occurred; [22], “video of the abnormal scene is sent to the remote monitoring terminal”), and to generate a remote movement command according to the current position and the restoring position ([69], adjust traveling plan); and receive a remote control command returned by the remote control terminal, and transmit the remote movement command to the material pushing robot, and to cause the material pushing robot to move according to the remote movement command ([68], remote control command is the adjusting of the driving path by the system).
wherein the server further causes the at least one processor to:
determine the current position of the material pushing robot according to the real-time video data ([69], abnormality detecting system acquires appearance of traveling route; [50] includes a camera); and
take a preset recovering point which is in a plurality of preset recovering points and is closest to the current position as the restoring position ([68], recovering points and restoring position is the charging path and charging zone);
wherein the preset recovering points are reset points or work recovering points ([47], multiple charging pads 12 are within the charging zone).
Although Xue does not explicitly teach that these recovering points are on a work route where the material pushing robot has gone through, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that these charging pads within the charging zone are on a work route where the material pushing robot has gone through as the robot necessarily returns to the charging pads in order to recharge its battery after use. It would be nonfunctional if the previous path of the robot has not gone through these charging pads as the robot would lack the energy and charge necessary to perform its operations.
Xue does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs that cause the processor to perform the method previously described. However, it is well understood that a PC computer contains a medium that stores the programs by which it operates. Thus, it would have been obvious to explicitly include the computer readable storage medium containing the programs in the main system of Xue to enable its PC computer to be able to perform the abnormality processing method described.
Xue does not teach that the real-time video data is transmitted from the material pushing robot itself. However, additional reference Ferguson teaches video data being transmitted from a material pushing robot (a material pushing robot is, under broadest reasonable interpretation of the examiner, any sort of autonomous apparatus capable of transporting material/matter, and is thus applies to an autonomous vehicle; Page 22, paragraph 4, autonomous vehicle transmits a request to the system, the request includes captured video information).
Ferguson is analogous to the art of controlling a fleet of autonomously operating devices, such as vehicles or robots. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vehicles of Ferguson to have the vehicle itself record and transmit the video information so that the video’s perspective is from an angle from the vehicle itself, thereby mirroring a driver’s perspective of a vehicle and making remote operator control easier (Page 19, paragraph 9; Page 20, paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art remains as applied in claim 9, and Ferguson further teaches obtaining permission configuration information of a user according to current user information (Page 22, paragraph 8, empirical information relating to a remote operator) when receiving the abnormality information of the material pushing robot (Page 23, paragraph 2, when request is made based on abnormal conditions detected by an autonomous vehicle); and transmitting the abnormality alarm information to the target user according to a result that the permission configuration information of the user matches with the abnormality information of the material pushing robot (Page 23, paragraph 2, the information about a vehicle is sent to a specific operator once the system assigns them to the autonomous vehicle).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art remains as applied in claim 11, and Ferguson further teaches determining whether the current material pushing robot identity is the same as one of the one or more preset material pushing robot identities (Page 23, paragraph 2 and Page 22, paragraph 4, the empirical information that the system stores for an operator includes preset operating conditions and features for which requests said operator is preset to be defined with; the system assigning an operator to a vehicle requires determining whether the current autonomous vehicle has operating conditions that are the same as one or more preset operating conditions that operators are best suited for); generating the abnormality alarm information according to the one or more alarming modalities and the abnormality data based on a result that the current material pushing robot identity is the same as the one of the one or more preset material pushing robot identities (Page 21, paragraph 4 and Page 22, paragraph 4, generating and sending requests to a remote operator management system, including information indicative of the situation of the vehicle); and taking the user referred by the user identity as the target user, and transmitting the abnormality alarm information to the target user (Page 23, paragraph 3 and Page 20, paragraph 2, abnormality information about the requesting vehicle is sent to the appropriate operator as determined by the system).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art remains as applied in claim 12, and Xue further teaches that a number of each of the one or more alarming modalities is at least one of a group consisting of a short message service message, an email, a phone, a small video, and an image. ([22], “video of the abnormal scene is sent to the remote monitoring terminal”).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10, and Xue further teaches determining a first movement path of the material pushing robot according to the current position and the restoring position ([57], plans the charging path); and generating a first remote movement command according to the first movement path ([68], adjust driving path so that it travels to the charging zone).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art remains as applied in claim 10, and Ferguson further teaches obtaining permission configuration information of a user according to current user information (Page 22, paragraph 8, empirical information relating to a remote operator) when receiving the abnormality information of the material pushing robot (Page 23, paragraph 2, when request is made based on abnormal conditions detected by an autonomous vehicle); and transmitting the abnormality alarm information to the target user according to a result that the permission configuration information of the user matches with the abnormality information of the material pushing robot (Page 23, paragraph 2, the information about a vehicle is sent to a specific operator once the system assigns them to the autonomous vehicle).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art remains as applied, and Ferguson further teaches determining whether the current material pushing robot identity is the same as one of the one or more preset material pushing robot identities (Page 23, paragraph 2 and Page 22, paragraph 4, the empirical information that the system stores for an operator includes preset operating conditions and features for which requests said operator is preset to be defined with; the system assigning an operator to a vehicle requires determining whether the current autonomous vehicle has operating conditions that are the same as one or more preset operating conditions that operators are best suited for); generating the abnormality alarm information according to the one or more alarming modalities and the abnormality data based on a result that the current material pushing robot identity is the same as the one of the one or more preset material pushing robot identities (Page 21, paragraph 4 and Page 22, paragraph 4, generating and sending requests to a remote operator management system, including information indicative of the situation of the vehicle); and taking the user referred by the user identity as the target user, and transmitting the abnormality alarm information to the target user (Page 23, paragraph 3 and Page 20, paragraph 2, abnormality information about the requesting vehicle is sent to the appropriate operator as determined by the system).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art remains as previously applied, and Xue further teaches that a number of each of the one or more alarming modalities is at least one of a group consisting of a short message service message, an email, a phone, a small video, and an image. ([22], “video of the abnormal scene is sent to the remote monitoring terminal”).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue and Ferguson as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 10585437 B1), referred to further as Zhou.
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination remains as addressed above, but does not teach determining a second movement path of the material pushing robot according to the restoring position and a robot original position, and generating a second remote movement command according to the second movement path.
However, additional reference Zhou teaches determining a second movement path of the material pushing robot according to the restoring position and a robot original position, and generating a second remote movement command according to the second movement path (Col. 7, lines 10-21, the autonomous robot returns to the original position it was before it went to charge, i.e. its initial position, after its charging is completed; the robot moving from the charging position to its initial position requires determining the path towards its initial position).
Zhou is analogous to the art of managing the pathing of autonomous devices, such as vehicles or robots. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the returning movement of an autonomous robot to the previous combination as addressed above for the motivation, as Zhou teaches, of the robot being able to automatically resume its operation once it is done charging (Col. 7, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 16, the previous combination remains as addressed above, but does not teach determining a second movement path of the material pushing robot according to the restoring position and a robot original position, and generating a second remote movement command according to the second movement path.
However, additional reference Zhou teaches determining a second movement path of the material pushing robot according to the restoring position and a robot original position, and generating a second remote movement command according to the second movement path (Col. 7, lines 10-21, the autonomous robot returns to the original position it was before it went to charge, i.e. its initial position, after its charging is completed; the robot moving from the charging position to its initial position requires determining the path towards its initial position).
Zhou is analogous to the art of managing the pathing of autonomous devices, such as vehicles or robots. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the returning movement of an autonomous robot to the previous combination as addressed above for the motivation, as Zhou teaches, of the robot being able to automatically resume its operation once it is done charging (Col. 7, lines 19-21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim 1, applicant contests that the asserted limitation of “determining the current position of the material pushing robot according to the real-time video data” is not taught by Xue. This argument is unpersuasive, as Xue does teach that video data of the abnormal scene is detected ([22]), and that the position and route of the robot is monitored based on this vide data ([69]).
Applicant further contests that “taking a preset recovering point which is in a plurality of preset recovering points and is closest to the current position as the restoring position, wherein the preset recovering points are reset points or work recovering points on a work route of the material pushing robot” is not taught by Xue. This is unpersuasive. Xue teaches that a charging zone is selected as a recovering point of which the path of an insufficiently charged AGV is changed to navigate towards as a restoring position ([68-69]). Applicant argues that Xue “fails to disclose the charging region arranged on the travelling path where the AGV vehicle has passed” However, as the robot necessarily travels to and from the charging station in order to receive the energy and charge necessary to perform its operation, it is obvious that this charging zone is “on a work route where the material pushing robot has gone through” as claimed. Applicant argues that “Xue fails to disclose several present recovering points”, but not only does this charging zone represent a recovering point of a path of which there are a plurality of possible paths of travel for the AGV, but the charging zone itself contains a plurality of recovering points, i.e. charging piles 12, where the AGV is guided to the closest charging pile so that it is “evading adjustment of the travel path of the AGV trolley with overlapping charging paths” ([68]; [47], and see the plurality of charging piles 12 as shown in Fig. 1 copied below).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Xue, where there are multiple charging piles 12 in the charging zone outlined in red.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies in their arguments over the amended limitations of claim 1 are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant argues that in Xue, “the reason of the AGV travelling on the charging path is based a low battery state, but is not based on the abnormal alarm (alleged to be equivalent to the abnormality alarm by the Examiner). In Xue, the low battery does not cause the abnormal alarm being generated.” However, the claim language only establishes that an “abnormality alarm” is being processed, but no definition is given for this “abnormality alarm”. As a result, both causes of the abnormality detecting system of Xue to control the path for an AGV are recognized as conditions for transmitting an “abnormality alarm”, including a detecting of an “insufficiently charged AGV car” ([68]), or “when the appearance of the traveling route and the planned path are different” ([69]). Applicant is recommended to amend the claim to specify what condition occurs upon when an “abnormality alarm” is generated and/or transmitted.
Applicant further argues that “the charging region (alleged to be equivalent to the restoring position by the Examiner) on the charging path is a fixed position, but is not changeable due to different current positions. In other words, there is one fixed charging region, and the charging region fails to be confirmed based on the current position.” However, the claim 1 merely requires that a remote movement command is generated “according to the current position and the restoring position”. No “confirming” of a position is required by the claims. Additionally, nowhere in the claim does it teach that these positions are “changeable”. In fact, the use of the term “preset” in the claim language, in regards to “a preset recovering point which is in a plurality of preset recovering points”, counteracts the argument by the applicant. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “preset” suggests that the recovering points are determined in advance, and not iteratively “changeable” when the operation is being performed. Additionally, although it is not read into the claim language, as part of their disclosure, applicant teaches that “the restoring position corresponds to a reset point of the material pushing robot, such as a position of a charging station of the material pushing robot… If the restoring position is the position of the charging station of the material pushing robot, the position of the charging station can be fixed” ([0026]). Therefore, even when consideration is given to applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear how the recovering points are “changeable” if a “fixed” position can be selected as a restoring position from the plurality of recovering points.
As a result of these unpersuasive arguments, the previous rejections under USC 35 § 103 remain applied in the presently filed Office Action.
Conclusion
The following art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure:
Tateno et al. (US 20200073399 A1)
Velten et al. (US 20200125109 A1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/ADAM D TISSOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663