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 .
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 of KR Application No. 1020210114693, filed on 08/30/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is currently 216 words which is over the range of 50 – 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
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) is/are:
Data processing unit in claim 1
Formation alignment unit in claims 1, 3, 4
Formation error determination unit in claims 1, 4, 5
Data correction unit in claim 6
The generic placeholder is “unit”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Upon review of the specification, the examiner has identified the following corresponding structures:
Data processing unit in claim 1 - none
Formation alignment unit in claims 1, 3, 4 - none
Formation error determination unit in claims 1, 4, 5 - none
Data correction unit in claim 6 - none
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.
Claim limitations “a data processing unit that receives”, “a formation alignment unit that selectively uses”, “a formation error determination unit that calculates”, and “data correction unit that calculates” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claims 1 and 3-6 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Additionally, dependent claim 2 is rejected as being dependent on the previously rejected base claims and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim as outlined in the 112(b) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 20180054009) in view of Kwak (US PGPub 20210263538).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches An unmanned aerial vehicle formation control system that performs formation control of a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, the system comprising [Cho ¶ 0005 "a system and method for drone control capable of synchronizing multiple drones"]:
a data processing unit that receives the location data and distance data of the unmanned aerial vehicles and provides the received location data and distance data to other unmanned aerial vehicles belonging to a formation of the unmanned aerial vehicles [Cho ¶ 0061 "To this end, the first to fourth drones can transmit and receive information regarding the straight-line distance, angle, and straight-line distance ratio, etc., between their own drone and other drones via wireless communication."];
a formation alignment unit that selectively uses the location data and the distance data to align the formation of the unmanned aerial vehicles [Cho ¶ 0087 "Next, the flight error is corrected by calculating the relative position with other drones in real time and controlling the flight (S650)." and ¶ 0098-0099 "The control unit (170) compares the single drone position coordinates with the actual flight coordinates and corrects the flight error by controlling the flight until the actual flight coordinates become the same as the single drone position coordinates." The system can switch to align the drones based on absolute position (location data) or relative positions (distance data).]; and
wherein when it is determined that the formation error has occurred, the formation alignment unit realigns the unmanned air vehicle based on the location data of the unmanned air vehicle, and combines location data-based formation control of the unmanned air vehicle and distance data-based formation control of the unmanned air vehicle to align the unmanned air vehicle so as to maintain a constant formation form using two of the distance data [Cho ¶ 0103 "Then, flight error is detected by comparing the actual flight coordinates in the virtual flight space with the single drone position coordinates (S730), and flight error is corrected by controlling the flight while comparing the single drone position coordinates with the actual flight coordinates (S740)."].
Cho does not teach a formation error determination unit that calculates an overall formation error value due to formation alignment mismatch based on the location data of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and compares the formation error value with a preset allowable threshold value to determine whether a formation error of the unmanned aerial vehicle has occurred.
However, in a related field of invention, Kwak does teach a formation error determination unit that calculates an overall formation error value due to formation alignment mismatch based on the location data of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and compares the formation error value with a preset allowable threshold value to determine whether a formation error of the unmanned aerial vehicle has occurred [Kwak ¶ 0392-0394 "Meanwhile, errors may be compensated for through summation and probability/statistics of sensor values of a number of unmanned aerial vehicles. Referring to FIG. 18, the collected data increases as the number of unmanned aerial vehicles 1800 increases, and the distribution of the average for each axis coordinate approaches the normal distribution, so that the true value may be derived according to the Center Limit Theorem (CLT)."],
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the system for synchronizing multiple drones where each drone detects a flight error as taught by Cho with using an overall formation error derived from all of drones’ location information as taught by Kwak in order to more accurately determine and calibrate a location error of an unmanned aerial vehicle in a swarm flight (formation) [Kwak ¶ 0499].
Regarding claim 3, Cho and Kwak teach claim 1. Cho further teaches wherein the formation alignment unit initially aligns the unmanned aerial vehicle into a formation using location data-based formation control of the unmanned aerial vehicle, and then changes a formation control method of the unmanned aerial vehicle to distance data-based formation control of the unmanned aerial vehicle to align the unmanned aerial vehicle so as to maintain the formation form [Cho ¶ 0033 "Before explaining, a drone according to one embodiment of the present invention can maintain a formation based on relative positions or absolute positions between drones."].
Regarding claim 4, Cho and Kwak teach claim 1. Cho further teaches wherein when the formation error determination unit determines that the formation error has occurred, the formation alignment unit changes the formation control method of the unmanned air vehicle from a distance data- based method to a location data-based method to realign the unmanned air vehicle [Cho ¶ 0097 "Here, the sensor unit (150) is used to detect the absolute position within the virtual flight space, rather than the relative position of the drone (100)."].
Regarding claim 5, Cho and Kwak teach claim 4. Kwak further teaches wherein the formation error determination unit calculates the overall formation error value based on a difference between location data of the unmanned aerial vehicle measured at a specific point in time and ideal location data of the unmanned aerial vehicle at the specific point in time, and determines that the formation error has occurred when the overall formation error value exceeds the allowable threshold value [Kwak ¶ 0394-0398 “Referring to FIG. 18, the collected data increases as the number of unmanned aerial vehicles 1800 increases, and the distribution of the average for each axis coordinate approaches the normal distribution, so that the true value may be derived according to the Center Limit Theorem (CLT). The unmanned aerial vehicle system according to an embodiment of the present invention determines whether or not a location error occurs based on the derived true value, and controls to perform a flight that corrects the error, thereby enabling precise control of swarm flight.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the system for synchronizing multiple drones where each drone detects a flight error as taught by Cho with using an overall formation error derived from all of drones’ location information as taught by Kwak in order to more accurately determine and calibrate a location error of an unmanned aerial vehicle in a swarm flight (formation) [Kwak ¶ 0499].
Regarding claim 7, Cho teaches A method of controlling a formation of an unmanned aerial vehicle including a plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles, the method comprising:
a) aligning the unmanned aerial vehicle formation with location data-based formation control of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on location data [Cho ¶ 0097 "Here, the sensor unit (150) is used to detect the absolute position within the virtual flight space, rather than the relative position of the drone (100)."];
b) aligning the unmanned aerial vehicle formation aligned based on location data to allow the unmanned aerial vehicle to maintain a formation form with distance data-based formation control of the unmanned aerial vehicle based on distance data between the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles [Cho ¶ 0087 "Next, the flight error is corrected by calculating the relative position with other drones in real time and controlling the flight (S650)."].
d) realigning, when it is determined that the formation error has occurred, the unmanned aerial vehicle with location data-based formation control of the unmanned aerial vehicle [Cho ¶ 0103 "Then, flight error is detected by comparing the actual flight coordinates in the virtual flight space with the single drone position coordinates (S730), and flight error is corrected by controlling the flight while comparing the single drone position coordinates with the actual flight coordinates (S740)."].
Cho does not teach c) determining whether a formation error has occurred due to formation alignment mismatch of the formation of the unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, in a related field of invention, Kwak does teach c) determining whether a formation error has occurred due to formation alignment mismatch of the formation of the unmanned aerial vehicle [Kwak ¶ 0392-0394 "Meanwhile, errors may be compensated for through summation and probability/statistics of sensor values of a number of unmanned aerial vehicles. Referring to FIG. 18, the collected data increases as the number of unmanned aerial vehicles 1800 increases, and the distribution of the average for each axis coordinate approaches the normal distribution, so that the true value may be derived according to the Center Limit Theorem (CLT)."].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the system for synchronizing multiple drones where each drone detects a flight error as taught by Cho with using an overall formation error derived from all of drones’ location information as taught by Kwak in order to more accurately determine and calibrate a location error of an unmanned aerial vehicle in a swarm flight (formation) [Kwak ¶ 0499].
Regarding claim 8, Cho and Kwak teach claim 7. Kwak further teaches wherein the step (c) comprises: calculating an overall formation error value based on a difference between location data of the unmanned aerial vehicle at a specific point in time and ideal location data of the unmanned aerial vehicle at the specific point in time; and determining, when the overall formation error value exceeds the preset allowable threshold value, that the formation error has occurred [Kwak ¶ 0394-0398 “Referring to FIG. 18, the collected data increases as the number of unmanned aerial vehicles 1800 increases, and the distribution of the average for each axis coordinate approaches the normal distribution, so that the true value may be derived according to the Center Limit Theorem (CLT). The unmanned aerial vehicle system according to an embodiment of the present invention determines whether or not a location error occurs based on the derived true value, and controls to perform a flight that corrects the error, thereby enabling precise control of swarm flight.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the system for synchronizing multiple drones where each drone detects a flight error as taught by Cho with using an overall formation error derived from all of drones’ location information as taught by Kwak in order to more accurately determine and calibrate a location error of an unmanned aerial vehicle in a swarm flight (formation) [Kwak ¶ 0499].
Regarding claim 9, Cho and Kwak teach claim 8. Cho further teaches further comprising: subsequent to the step d), changing a formation control method of the unmanned aerial vehicle from location data-based formation control of the unmanned aerial vehicle to distance data-based formation control of the unmanned aerial vehicle to control a flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle [Cho ¶ 0033 "Before explaining, a drone according to one embodiment of the present invention can maintain a formation based on relative positions or absolute positions between drones."].
Claims 2, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Kwak and in further view of Lee (KR 20190072273).
Regarding claim 2, Cho and Kwak teach claim 1. Cho does mention a leader-follower formation control [Cho ¶ 0027]. However, Cho teaches each drone sharing a swarm flight schedule so that each drone could take turns being the leader [Cho ¶ 0028]. Therefore, Cho and Kwak do not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles comprise a leader unmanned aerial vehicle having a flight path and formation type information for formation alignment; and a plurality of follower unmanned aerial vehicles that fly in formation around the leader unmanned aerial vehicle.
However, in a related field of invention, Taein does teach wherein the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles comprise a leader unmanned aerial vehicle having a flight path and formation type information for formation alignment [Taein ¶ 0027 “In this case, unlike the broadcasting method, the base station (200) transmits the coordinates of the target location only to the leader drone (101) among the drones (100) in the cluster (1000).”];
and a plurality of follower unmanned aerial vehicles that fly in formation around the leader unmanned aerial vehicle [Taein ¶ 027 “In this case, drones other than the leader drone (101) within the cluster (1000) that have received the destination location transmitted by the leader drone (101) can calculate their own destination location based on the destination location of the leader drone (101) and their own position or path on the set formation.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the system for synchronizing multiple drones using distance and location data as taught by Cho and Kwak with using a leader-follower formation as taught by Taein in order to more efficiently control a swarm of drones.
Regarding claim 6, Cho, Kwak, and Taein teach claim 2. Cho further teaches further comprising: a leader unmanned aerial vehicle location data correction unit that calculates predicted location data of the leader unmanned aerial vehicle based on location data of the follower unmanned aerial vehicle, distance data between the follower unmanned aerial vehicle and the leader unmanned aerial vehicle, and an angle between the follower unmanned aerial vehicle and the leader unmanned aerial vehicle, and corrects the location data of the leader unmanned aerial vehicle with the predicted location data [Cho ¶0061 “For example, the first drone (1) can detect its relative position based on the triangular structure on a plane formed by the remaining three drones (2, 3, 4). The second drone (2), the third drone (3), and the fourth drone (4) fly to first form the shape of a first right triangle on a plane. And, the second right-angled triangle formed by the first drone (1), the second drone (2), and the third drone (3) is implemented. Then, compare the lengths of the sides of the second right triangles corresponding to the first right triangle. To this end, the first to fourth drones can transmit and receive information regarding the straight-line distance, angle, and straight-line distance ratio, etc., between their own drone and other drones via wireless communication. When comparing the lengths of the corresponding sides of the first right triangle and the second right triangle, if it is determined that the lengths of the sides are different, it can be determined that an error has occurred in the flight of the first drone (1). Then, the first drone (1) can correct flight errors by controlling flight until the lengths of the corresponding sides of the first right triangle and the second right triangle are calculated to be the same.”].
Regarding claim 10, Cho, Kwak, and Taein teach claim 7. Cho further teaches
calculating location data of the follower unmanned aerial vehicle, distance data between the follower unmanned aerial vehicle and the leader unmanned aerial vehicle, and an angle between the follower unmanned aerial vehicle and the leader unmanned aerial vehicle, and calculating predicted location data of the leader unmanned aerial vehicle based thereon [Cho ¶0061 “To this end, the first to fourth drones can transmit and receive information regarding the straight-line distance, angle, and straight-line distance ratio, etc., between their own drone and other drones via wireless communication.”]
Cho and Kwak do not teach wherein the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles comprise a leader unmanned aerial vehicle having a flight path and formation type information for formation alignment; and a plurality of follower unmanned aerial vehicles that fly in formation around the leader unmanned aerial vehicle, the method further comprising: and correcting the location data of the leader unmanned aerial vehicle with the predicted location data.
However, in a related field of invention, Taein does teach wherein the plurality of unmanned aerial vehicles comprise a leader unmanned aerial vehicle having a flight path and formation type information for formation alignment [Taein ¶ 0027 “In this case, unlike the broadcasting method, the base station (200) transmits the coordinates of the target location only to the leader drone (101) among the drones (100) in the cluster (1000).”]; and
a plurality of follower unmanned aerial vehicles that fly in formation around the leader unmanned aerial vehicle, the method further comprising [Taein ¶ 027 “In this case, drones other than the leader drone (101) within the cluster (1000) that have received the destination location transmitted by the leader drone (101) can calculate their own destination location based on the destination location of the leader drone (101) and their own position or path on the set formation.”].: and
correcting the location data of the leader unmanned aerial vehicle with the predicted location data [Taein ¶ 0028 “However, in the round of the position correction step (S30) immediately following the round in which the last drone (103) among the drones (100) in the cluster (1000) is determined to be the one drone transmitting its own position coordinates, the leader drone (101) which is the first drone (100) among the drones (100) in the cluster (1000) is determined to be the one drone transmitting its own position coordinates. Accordingly, the remaining drone can correct its position to maintain the set formation by comparing the current position coordinates of one drone (102) with its own current position coordinates.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine the system for synchronizing multiple drones using distance and location data as taught by Cho and Kwak with using a leader-follower formation as taught by Taein in order to more efficiently control a swarm of drones.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPHINE RICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Scott Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights