DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/281,822, filed on September 13, 2023.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as filed on September 13, 2023 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitations “a partial discharge signal” and “an insulator” in fifth line of the claim, but the limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitations are referring to a same partial discharge signal and insulator recited in second thru third lines of the claim, or to a partial discharge signal and insulator different from the partial discharge signal and the insulator recited in the second thru third lines of the claim. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the indefiniteness issue. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 1 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitation “the φ-q-n image” in eighth line of the claim, but the limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitation is referring to a same “φ-q-n image” recited in sixth line of claim 1, or to same “φ-q-n image” recited in fifth line of claim 3. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the indefiniteness issue. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 3 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitations “an insulation degradation diagnosis apparatus”, “a partial discharge signal”, “an insulator”, “a characteristic diagram creation unit”, “a φ-q-n characteristic diagram”, “a partial discharge signal”, “an insulator”, “an image creation unit”, “a φ-q-n image”, “a diagnosis unit”, and “an insulation degradation diagnosis model” in first thru tenth lines of the claim, but the limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitation are referring to a same terms recited claim 1, or to different terms. In addition, the claim recites limitations “the φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “the φ-q-n image” in seventh thru ninth lines of the claim, but the limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitations are referring to a same “φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “φ-q-n image” recited in fourth thru sixth lines of claim 1, or to same “φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “φ-q-n image” recited in fourth thru sixth lines of claim 6. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the indefiniteness issues. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 6 are objected to based on same above reasoning.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitations “an insulation degradation diagnosis apparatus”, “a partial discharge signal”, “an insulator”, “a characteristic diagram creation unit”, “a φ-q-n characteristic diagram”, “a partial discharge signal”, “an insulator”, “an image creation unit”, “a φ-q-n image”, “a diagnosis unit”, and “an insulation degradation diagnosis model” in first thru twelfth lines of the claim, but the limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitation are referring to a same terms recited claims 1 or 3, or to different terms. In addition, the claim recites limitations “the φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “the φ-q-n image” in seventh thru eleventh lines of the claim, but the limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitations are referring to a same “φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “φ-q-n image” recited in fourth thru sixth lines of claim 1, same “φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “φ-q-n image” recited in fourth thru fifth lines of claim 3, or to same “φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “φ-q-n image” recited in fourth thru seventh lines of the claim 7. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the indefiniteness issues.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitations “an insulation degradation diagnosis apparatus”, “a partial discharge signal”, “an insulator”, “a characteristic diagram creation unit”, “a φ-q-n characteristic diagram”, “a partial discharge signal”, “an insulator”, “an image creation unit”, “a φ-q-n image”, “a diagnosis unit”, “an insulation degradation diagnosis model”, and “an insulation degradation diagnosis model” in first thru thirty-first lines of the claim, but the limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitation are referring to a same terms recited claim 1, or to different terms. In addition, the claim recites limitations “the φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “the φ-q-n image” in seventh and thirtieth lines and thirty-fourth line, respectively of the claim, but the limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitations are referring to a same “φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “φ-q-n image” recited in fourth thru-sixth lines of claim 1, or to same “φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “φ-q-n image” recited in twenty-second thru twenty-fourth lines of claim 8. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the indefiniteness issues.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitations “an insulation degradation diagnosis apparatus”, “a partial discharge signal”, “an insulator”, “a characteristic diagram creation unit”, “a φ-q-n characteristic diagram”, “a partial discharge signal”, “an insulator”, “an image creation unit”, “a φ-q-n image”, “a diagnosis unit”, and “an insulation degradation diagnosis model” in first thru twelfth lines of the claim, but the limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitation are referring to a same terms recited claim 1, or to different terms. In addition, the claim recites limitations “the φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “the φ-q-n image” in eighth thru thirteenth lines of the claim, but the limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitations are referring to a same “φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “φ-q-n image” recited in fourth thru sixth line of claim 1, or to same “φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “φ-q-n image” recited in fourth thru seventh line of claim 9. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the indefiniteness issues.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitations “a partial discharge signal” and “an insulator” in eleventh thru twelfth lines of the claim, but the limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitations are referring to a same partial discharge signal and insulator recited in first thru second lines of the claim, a same partial discharge signal and insulator recited in fourth thru fifth lines of the claim or to a partial discharge signal and insulator different from the partial discharge signal and the insulator recited in the first thru second lines and fourth thru fifth lines of the claim. In addition, the claim recites limitations “a φ-q-n characteristic diagram” and “a φ-q-n image” in seventh thru eleventh lines of the claim, but the limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitation is referring to a same partial discharge signal and insulator recited in first thru second lines of the claim, a same φ-q-n characteristic diagram and a φ-q-n image recited in fourth thru sixth lines of the claim, or to a φ-q-n characteristic diagram and a φ-q-n image different from the φ-q-n characteristic diagram and the φ-q-n image recited in the fourth thru sixth lines of the claim.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a characteristic diagram creation unit configured to” recited in fourth line of claim 1 is considered to read on φ-q-n characteristic diagram creation unit 51a (pgs. 16 and 17, Lines 20-25 and Lines 1-2, respectively; 51a FIG. 6); “an image creation unit configured to” recited in sixth line of claim 1 is considered to read on φ-q-n image creation unit 52a (pg. 20, Lines 19-21; 52a FIG. 6); “a model creation unit configured to” recited in eighth line of claim 1 is considered to read on model creation apparatus 50a (pgs. 14 and 29-31, Lines 18-20 and Lines 20-25, Lines 1-25, Line 1 respectively; 50a FIG. 6); “a training data creation unit configured to” recited in third line of claim 2 is considered to read on training data creation unit 53a (pgs. 17 and 20-21, Lines 3-11 and Lines 22-25, Lines 1-6 respectively; 53a FIG. 6); “a characteristic diagram creation unit configured to” recited in fourth line of claim 6 is considered to read on φ-q-n characteristic diagram creation unit 51a (pgs. 16 and 17, Lines 20-25 and Lines 1-2, respectively; 51a FIG. 6); “an image creation unit configured to” recited in sixth line of claim 6 is considered to read on φ-q-n image creation unit 52a (pg. 20, Lines 19-21; 52a FIG. 6); “a diagnosis unit configured to” recited in eighth line of claim 6 is considered to read on diagnosis unit 53b (pg. 22, Lines 6-12; 53b FIG. 6); “a characteristic diagram creation unit configured to” recited in fourth, line of claim 7 is considered to read on φ-q-n characteristic diagram creation unit 51a (pgs. 16 and 17, Lines 20-25 and Lines 1-2, respectively; 51a FIG. 6); “an image creation unit configured to” recited in sixth line of claim 7 is considered to read on φ-q-n image creation unit 52a (pg. 20, Lines 19-21; 52a FIG. 6); “a diagnosis unit configured to” recited in tenth line of claim 7 is considered to read on diagnosis unit 53b (pg. 22, Lines 6-12; 53b FIG. 6); “a characteristic diagram creation unit configured to” recited in fourth and twenty-second lines of claim 8 is considered to read on φ-q-n characteristic diagram creation unit 51a (pgs. 16 and 17, Lines 20-25 and Lines 1-2, respectively; 51a FIG. 6); “an image creation unit configured to” recited in sixth, twenty-fourth, and twenty-ninth lines of claim 8 is considered to read on φ-q-n image creation unit 52a (pg. 20, Lines 19-21; 52a FIG. 6); “a diagnosis unit configured to” recited in eleventh line of claim 8 is considered to read on diagnosis unit 53b (pg. 22, Lines 6-12; 53b FIG. 6); “model creation unit configured to” recited in twenty-sixth and thirty-third lines of claim 8 is considered to read on model creation apparatus 50a (pgs. 14 and 29-31, Lines 18-20 and Lines 20-25, Lines 1-25, Line 1 respectively; 50a FIG. 6); “a characteristic diagram creation unit configured to” recited in fourth, line of claim 9 is considered to read on φ-q-n characteristic diagram creation unit 51a (pgs. 16 and 17, Lines 20-25 and Lines 1-2, respectively; 51a FIG. 6); “an image creation unit configured to” recited in seventh line of claim 9 is considered to read on φ-q-n image creation unit 52a (pg. 20, Lines 19-21; 52a FIG. 6); “a diagnosis unit configured to” recited in tenth line of claim 9 is considered to read on diagnosis unit 53b (pg. 22, Lines 6-12; 53b FIG. 6).
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1 limitation(s) “a characteristic diagram creation unit configured to” recited in fourth line of the claim, “an image creation unit configured to” recited in sixth line of the claim, and “a model creation unit configured to” recited in eighth line of the claim invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, no structure or material that is capable of performing the claimed functions are present or shown in any of the figures and substantively linked to the claimed function. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In addition, claim 1 recites limitation “the device” in third line of the claim, but the limitation is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim given that the claim uses term “the device” for a first time without previously reciting the term in the claim, which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what device is being referred to. Accordingly, any claim(s) dependent on claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based at least on same above reasoning.
Claim 2 limitation(s) “a training data creation unit configured to” recited in third line of the claim invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, no structure or material that is capable of performing the claimed functions are present or shown in any of the figures and substantively linked to the claimed function. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 6 limitation(s) “a characteristic diagram creation unit configured to” recited in fourth line of the claim, “an image creation unit configured to” recited in sixth line of the claim, and “a diagnosis unit configured to” recited in eighth line of the claim invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, no structure or material that is capable of performing the claimed functions are present or shown in any of the figures and substantively linked to the claimed function. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Accordingly, any claim(s) dependent on claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based at least on same above reasoning.
Claim 7 limitation(s) “a characteristic diagram creation unit configured to” recited in fourth line of the claim, “an image creation unit configured to” recited in sixth line of the claim, and “a diagnosis unit configured to” recited in eleventh line of the claim invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, no structure or material that is capable of performing the claimed functions are present or shown in any of the figures and substantively linked to the claimed function. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 8 limitation(s) “a characteristic diagram creation unit configured to” recited in fourth and twenty-second lines of the claim, “image creation unit configured to” recited in sixth, twenty-fourth and twenty-ninth lines of the claim, “a diagnosis unit configured to” recited in eleventh line of the claim, and “model creation unit configured to” recited in twenty-sixth and thirty-third lines of the claim invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, no structure or material that is capable of performing the claimed functions are present or shown in any of the figures and substantively linked to the claimed function. Therefore, claim 8 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 9 limitation(s) “a characteristic diagram creation unit configured to” recited in fourth line of the claim, “an image creation unit configured to” recited in seventh line of the claim, and “a diagnosis unit configured to” recited in tenth line of the claim invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, no structure or material that is capable of performing the claimed functions are present or shown in any of the figures and substantively linked to the claimed function. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 6-9 recites limitation(s) “the device” in third line of the claims, but the limitation(s) is unclear at least because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation(s) in the claims given that the claims use term “the device” for a first time without previously reciting the term in the claims or in a claim from which each of the claims 6-9 respectively depends, which even further creates lack of clarity in regard to exactly what device is being referred to. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitations should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the antecedent basis issue. Accordingly, any claims dependent on claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based on same above reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Specifically, the claim recites the abstract idea of creating a φ-q-n characteristic diagram of a partial discharge signal of an insulator to be determined; creating a φ-q-n image having each pixel value based on each numerical value of a φ-q-n characteristic diagram; and making a diagnosis on a presence or occurrence state of partial discharge in the insulator to be determined, using an insulation degradation diagnosis model which is created by learning a φ-q-n image having each pixel value based on each numerical value of a p-q-n characteristic diagram of a partial discharge signal of an insulator for learning as training data associated with a presence or occurrence state of partial discharge. Thus, the abstract idea of creating a φ-q-n characteristic diagram of a partial discharge signal of an insulator to be determined; creating a φ-q-n image having each pixel value based on each numerical value of a φ-q-n characteristic diagram; and making a diagnosis on a presence or occurrence state of partial discharge in the insulator to be determined, using an insulation degradation diagnosis model which is created by learning a φ-q-n image having each pixel value based on each numerical value of a p-q-n characteristic diagram of a partial discharge signal of an insulator for learning as training data associated with a presence or occurrence state of partial discharge is merely a process that can be performed mentally and with just pencil and paper without substantive use of a computer. In addition, in this case the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 12 limitations are not even substantively tied to a particular machine or apparatus (i.e., not machine implemented), and in particular no article is being transformed into a substantively different state or thing. Thus, the claim amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of “creating a φ-q-n characteristic diagram of a partial discharge signal of an insulator to be determined; creating a φ-q-n image having each pixel value based on each numerical value of a φ-q-n characteristic diagram; and making a diagnosis on a presence or occurrence state of partial discharge in the insulator to be determined, using an insulation degradation diagnosis model which is created by learning a φ-q-n image having each pixel value based on each numerical value of a p-q-n characteristic diagram of a partial discharge signal of an insulator for learning as training data associated with a presence or occurrence state of partial discharge” without even substantively using a general purpose computer, and generally a general purpose computer is still not something “significantly more”. See CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome applicable rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph, and objection(s) indicated above, because for claim 1 the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed. In addition, claims 2-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome applicable rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) 2nd paragraph, and objection(s) indicated above because for each of claims 2-11, in light of their dependency on their respective independent claim, the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and include the following:
Shinmoto et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0085548 A1 (hereinafter Shinmoto) teaches a diagnostic device for measuring partial discharge that has occurred within a high voltage power transmission apparatus based on discharge current flowing through a grounding conductor of the high voltage power transmission apparatus.
Andle et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0161543 A1 (hereinafter Andle) teaches a partial discharge detection system for detecting partial discharge events in an electrical component
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3128. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. 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.
/ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights