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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently being examined.
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 15 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 15 recites the limitation “wherein the first inventory item is placed above the robotic apparatus”. In independent claim 13, on which claim 15 depends, a first bin of a plurality of bins is selected to store the first inventory item; it is unclear what the relationship between plurality of bins and the robotic apparatus is. It is further unclear how the recitation of a robotic apparatus and its location further limits the method of independent claim 13, making the scope of the claim unclear and rendering it indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danelski (US 2008/0183327) in view of Drago et al. (US 2021/0158319). Claim 15 has not been mapped to the prior art due to indefiniteness, as addressed in the 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding independent claim 1, Danelski discloses:
A method to facilitate item transfer in a storage facility [See at least Abstract, Par. 0012], the method comprising:
selecting, by a control server, a first bin of a plurality of bins of a storage system to store a first inventory item, wherein the storage system is located in the storage facility; [See at least Abstract, Par. 0012, 0037, 0038]
receiving, by the control server, from a sensing system, based on the selection of the first bin, a first sensor signal [See at least Par. 0011, 0012, 0014, 0015, 0039, 0045] indicating a first position of the first inventory item [See at least Par. 0012, 0015] and a second position of a hand of an operator who is assigned to execute a pick-put operation on the first inventory item; [See at least Par. 0010-0012]
detecting, by the control server, that the pick-put operation is being performed on the first inventory item based on the first sensor signal indicating that the first position and the second position are same; [See at least Abstract, Par. 0030]
receiving, by the control server from the sensing system, a second sensor signal [See at least Par. 0011, 0012, 0014, 0015, 0039, 0045]
wherein the second sensor signal further indicates a presence of the hand of the operator in vicinity of any of the plurality of bins; [See at least Fig. 6; Par. 0045-0048]
detecting, by the control server, based on the second sensor signal, whether the hand of the operator is present in the vicinity of any of the plurality of bins; [See at least Par. 0045-0048] and
determining, by the control server, whether the pick-put operation of the first inventory item is successful or unsuccessful based on the hand of the operator is present in the vicinity of any of the plurality of bins. [See at least Par. 0030, 0045-0048]
While Danelski discloses a first sensor signal and second sensor signal along with first position of an item, second position of an operator’s hand, and presence of an operator’s hand in the vicinity of the bins, Danelski does not disclose detecting the occupancy state of the bins or the second sensor signal at time intervals. With respect to these limitations, Drago et al., directed to the same technology — automated inventory management systems with sensors — teaches:
a second sensor signal at predetermined time intervals, [See at least Par. 0051]
wherein the second sensor signal further indicates an occupancy state of each of the plurality of bins [See at least Par. 0007, 0008, 0035, 0038, 0054] and
detecting, by the control server, based on the second sensor signal, whether the occupancy state of any of the plurality of bins is changed [See at least Par. 0007, 0008, 0035, 0038, 0054] and
determining, by the control server, whether the pick-put operation of the first inventory item is successful or unsuccessful based on the detection that the occupancy state of any of the plurality of bins has changed [See at least Par. 0050, 0062] and
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Danelski to incorporate the teachings of Drago et al. and combine the occupancy state of bins with the sensor signals and detection of an operator’s hand of Danelski. The occupancy state of bins of Drago et al. allows real-time updates and direct verification of items placed or picked from bins, enabling increased speed and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the occupancy state of bins of Drago et al. with the sensor signals and detection of an operator’s hand of Danelski and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the sensor signals and detection of an operator’s hand of Danelski and the features of the occupancy state of bins of Drago et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Drago et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (automated inventory management systems with sensors), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Danelski discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the operator is one of a human operator or a robotic operator. [See at least Par. 0030]
Regarding claim 4, Danelski discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating, by the control server, placement information indicating that the first inventory item is to be stored in the first bin based on the selection of the first bin; [See at least Abstract, Par. 0012, 0027, 0028, 0037, 0038] and
transmitting, by the control server to an operator device, the placement information, wherein the pick-put operation is performed on the first inventory item based on the placement information. [See at least Abstract, Par. 0012, 0014, 0015]
Regarding claim 5, Danelski discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the storage system is a pick-put to light (PPTL)-based system, and wherein a first visual indicator of the PPTL-based system is mapped to the first bin, and a second visual indicator of the PPTL-based system is mapped to a second bin. [See at least Par. 0027, 0028, 0032]
Regarding claim 6, Danelski discloses:
The method of claim 5, further comprising:
generating, by the control server, a first illumination signal, based on the selection of the first bin; [See at least Abstract, Par. 0012, 0014, 0015, 0027, 0028, 0032] and
transmitting, by the control server, the first illumination signal, to the PPTL-based system, wherein based on the first illumination signal, the first visual indicator illuminates in a first color to set the first bin as a target for the pick-put operation of the first inventory item. [See at least Par. 0028, 0030, 0033, 0034]
Regarding claim 7, Danelski discloses:
The method of claim 6, further comprising transmitting, by the control server, an activation signal to the sensing system concurrently with the first illumination signal, wherein based on the activation signal, the sensing system is activated. [See at least Par. 0030]
Regarding claim 10, Danelski discloses:
The method of claim 5, wherein the pick-put operation of the first inventory item is determined to be unsuccessful based on the detection that at least one of (ii) the hand of the operator is detected to be present in the vicinity of the second bin instead of the first bin. [See at least Danelski, Par. 0046]
And Drago et al. teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the pick-put operation of the first inventory item is determined to be unsuccessful based on the detection that at least one of (i) the occupancy state of the first bin is unchanged and the occupancy state of the second bin of the plurality of bins has changed or [See at least Drago et al., Par. 0050, 0062]
Regarding independent claim 13, Danelski discloses:
A system to facilitate item transfer in a storage facility [See at least Abstract], the system comprising:
a storage system comprising a plurality of bins, wherein the storage system is located in the storage facility; [See at least Abstract]
a sensing system, wherein the sensing system is configured to generate a first sensor signal and a second sensor signal, [See at least Par. 0010-0012, 0015, 0028, 0030, 0031, 0042, 0045-048] and wherein the first sensor signal indicates a first position of a first inventory item [See at least Par. 0012, 0015] and a second position of a hand of an operator who is assigned to execute a pick-put operation on the first inventory item, [See at least Par. 0010-0012], and
the second sensor signal indicates the hand of the operator in vicinity of the plurality of bins; [See at least Fig. 6; Par. 0045-0048] and
a control server that communicates with the sensing system and the storage system [See at least Fig. 4; Par. 0027-0038], wherein the control server is configured to:
select a first bin of the plurality of bins to store the first inventory item; [See at least Par. 0012, 0038]
receive based on the selection of the first bin, from the sensing system, the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal, [See at least Par. 0011, 0012, 0014, 0015, 0039, 0045]
detect whether the pick-put operation is being performed on the first inventory item based on the first sensor signal; [See at least Abstract, Par. 0030]
detect based on the second sensor signal, whether the hand of the operator is present in the vicinity of any of the plurality of bins; [See at least Par. 0045-0048] and
determine whether the pick-put operation of the first inventory item is successful or unsuccessful based on the hand of the operator is present in the vicinity of any of the plurality of bins. [See at least Par. 0030, 0045-0048]
While Danelski discloses a first sensor signal and second sensor signal along with first position of an item, second position of an operator’s hand, and presence of an operator’s hand in the vicinity of the bins, Danelski does not disclose detecting the occupancy state of the bins or the second sensor signal at time intervals. With respect to these limitations, Drago et al., directed to the same technology — automated inventory management systems with sensors — teaches:
the second sensor signal indicates an occupancy state of each of the plurality of bins [See at least Par. 0007, 0008, 0035, 0038, 0054] and
wherein the second sensor signal is received at predetermined time intervals; [See at least Par. 0051]
detect based on the second sensor signal, whether the occupancy state of any of the plurality of bins is changed [See at least Par. 0007, 0008, 0035, 0038, 0054] and
determine whether the pick-put operation of the first inventory item is successful or unsuccessful based on the detection that the occupancy state of any of the plurality of bins has changed [See at least Par. 0050, 0062] and
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Danelski to incorporate the teachings of Drago et al. and combine the occupancy state of bins with the sensor signals and detection of an operator’s hand of Danelski. The occupancy state of bins of Drago et al. allows real-time updates and direct verification of items placed or picked from bins, enabling increased speed and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the occupancy state of bins of Drago et al. with the sensor signals and detection of an operator’s hand of Danelski and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the sensor signals and detection of an operator’s hand of Danelski and the features of the occupancy state of bins of Drago et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Drago et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (automated inventory management systems with sensors), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Danelski discloses:
The system of claim 13, wherein the control server detects that the pick-put operation is being performed on the first inventory item based on the first sensor signal, and wherein the first sensor signal indicates that the first position and the second position are the same. [See at least Abstract, Par. 0030]
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danelski (US 2008/0183327) in view of Drago et al. (US 2021/0158319) and further in view of Bastian et al. (US 2002/0070846).
Regarding claim 3, while Danelski discloses the second sensor signal and detecting a hand in the vicinity of the bins, Danelski does not disclose the signal based on an obstruction detected. With respect to these limitations, Bastian et al., directed to the same technology — automated inventory management systems with sensors — teaches:
The method of claim 2, wherein the second sensor signal is generated by the sensing system and transmitted to the control server, and wherein the second sensor signal indicates the presence of the hand based on an obstruction detected by the sensing system in the vicinity of any of the plurality of bins. [See at least Par. 0041, 0053, 0054, 0071]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Danelski to incorporate the teachings of Bastian et al. and combine the obstruction detection with the detecting of a hand in the vicinity of the bins of Danelski. The obstruction detection of Bastian et al. allows verification of physical presence inside the range by obstruction in addition to the operator’s hand being within range of the sensor, enabling increased efficiency and effectiveness when processing multiple orders simultaneously.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the obstruction detected of Bastian et al. with the detecting of a hand in the vicinity of the bins of Danelski and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the detecting of a hand in the vicinity of the bins of Danelski and the features of the obstruction detection of Bastian et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bastian et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (automated inventory management systems with sensors), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, while Danelski discloses the second sensor signal and detecting a hand in the vicinity of the bins, Danelski does not disclose the signal based on an obstruction detected or light-based detection systems. With respect to these limitations, Bastian et al., directed to the same technology — automated inventory management systems with sensors — teaches:
The system of claim 13, wherein the sensing system is a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) system, and wherein the second sensor signal that is generated by the sensing system and transmitted to the control server indicates a presence of the hand of the operator based on an obstruction detected by the sensing system in the vicinity of any of the plurality of bins. [See at least Par. 0041, 0053, 0054, 0071]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Danelski and Drago et al. to incorporate the teachings of Bastian et al. as discussed above, see claim 3.
Claims 8, 9, 11, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danelski (US 2008/0183327) in view of Drago et al. (US 2021/0158319) and further in view of Wagner et al. (US 2017/0087731).
Regarding claim 8, while Danelski and Drago et al. disclose the pick-put operation determined to be successful vs. unsuccessful based on detection of the occupancy state of the bins and the vicinity of the operator’s hand along with a first illumination signal as mapped in at least claims 1, 5, and 6 above, Danelski and Drago et al. do not disclose second and third illumination signals to indicate successful vs. unsuccessful pick-put operations. With respect to these limitations, Wagner et al., directed to the same technology — automated inventory management systems with sensors — teaches:
The method of claim 6, further comprising:
generating, by the control server, a second illumination signal based on the determination that the pick-put operation of the first inventory item is successful, [See at least Par. 0020] wherein the pick-put operation of the first inventory item is determined to be successful based on the detection that the occupancy state of the first bin is changed and the hand of the operator is detected to be present in the vicinity of the first bin; and
transmitting, by the control server, the second illumination signal to the PPTL-based system. [See at least Par. 0020]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Danelski and Drago et al. to incorporate the teachings of Wagner et al. and combine the second and third illumination signals indicating successful vs. unsuccessful pick-put operations into the system and method of Danelski and Drago et al. The second and third illumination signals indicating successful vs. unsuccessful pick-put operations of Wagner et al. allows easily accessible and visible information for interaction with automated systems, enabling increased speed and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the second and third illumination signals indicating successful vs. unsuccessful pick-put operations of Wagner et al. into the system and method of Danelski and Drago et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the system and method of Danelski and Drago et al. and the features of the second and third illumination signals indicating successful vs. unsuccessful pick-put operations of Wagner et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Wagner et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (automated inventory management systems with sensors), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Wagner et al. teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein based on the second illumination signal, the first visual indicator illuminates in a second color as an acknowledgment for a successful completion of the pick-put operation. [See at least Par. 0020]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Danelski and Drago et al. to incorporate the teachings of Wagner et al. as discussed above, see claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, while Danelski and Drago et al. disclose the pick-put operation determined to be successful vs. unsuccessful based on detection of the occupancy state of the bins along with a first illumination signal as mapped in at least claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 above, Danelski and Drago et al. do not disclose second and third illumination signals to indicate successful vs. unsuccessful pick-put operations. With respect to these limitations, Wagner et al., directed to the same technology — automated inventory management systems with sensors — teaches:
The method of claim 10, further comprising:
generating, by the control server, a third illumination signal [See at least Par. 0020],
transmitting, by the control server, the third illumination signal, to the PPTL-based system, wherein based on the third illumination signal, the second visual indicator illuminates in a third color to indicate that the first inventory item is incorrectly stored in the second bin after the pick-put operation. [See at least Par. 0020]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Danelski and Drago et al. to incorporate the teachings of Wagner et al. as discussed above, see claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, while Danelski and Drago et al. disclose the pick-put to light system with first and second visual indicators and first visual indicator as mapped in at least claims 1, 5, 6, and 13 above, Danelski and Drago et al. do not disclose second and third illumination signals to indicate successful vs. unsuccessful pick-put operations. With respect to these limitations, Wagner et al., directed to the same technology — automated inventory management systems with sensors — teaches:
a second illumination signal, and (ii) the second visual indicator based on a third illumination signal. [See at least Par. 0020]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Danelski and Drago et al. to incorporate the teachings of Wagner et al. as discussed above, see claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, Danelski discloses:
The system of claim 17, wherein the control server is further configured to:
generate the first illumination signal based on the selection of the first bin; [See at least Abstract, Par. 0012, 0014, 0015, 0027, 0028, 0032] and
transmit to the PPTL-based system, the first illumination signal, wherein based on the first illumination signal, the first visual indicator illuminates in a first color to set the first bin as a target for the pick-put operation of the first inventory item. [See at least Par. 0028, 0030, 0033, 0034]
Regarding claim 19, while Danelski and Drago et al. disclose the pick-put operation determined to be successful vs successful based on detection of the occupancy state of the bins and the vicinity of the operator’s hand along with a first illumination signal as mapped in at least claims 1, 5, 6, and 13 above, Danelski and Drago et al. do not disclose second and third illumination signals to indicate successful vs. unsuccessful pick-put operations. With respect to these limitations, Wagner et al., directed to the same technology — automated inventory management systems with sensors — teaches:
The system of claim 17, wherein the control server is further configured to:
generate the second illumination signal based on the determination that the pick-put operation of the first inventory item is successful, [See at least Par. 0020]
transmit the second illumination signal to the PPTL-based system, wherein based on the second illumination signal, the first visual indicator illuminates in a second color as an acknowledgment for a successful completion of the pick-put operation. [See at least Par. 0020]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Danelski and Drago et al. to incorporate the teachings of Wagner et al. as discussed above, see claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, while Danelski and Drago et al. disclose the pick-put operation determined to be unsuccessful based on detection of the occupancy state of the bins and the vicinity of the operator’s hand along with a first illumination signal as mapped in at least claims 1, 5, 6, and 13 above, Danelski and Drago et al. do not disclose second and third illumination signals to indicate successful vs. unsuccessful pick-put operations. With respect to these limitations, Wagner et al., directed to the same technology — automated inventory management systems with sensors — teaches:
The system of claim 17, wherein the control server is further configured to:
generate the third illumination signal when the control server determines that the pick-put operation is unsuccessful [See at least Par. 0020]
transmit the third illumination signal to the PPTL-based system, wherein based on the third illumination signal, the second visual indicator illuminates in a third color to indicate that the first inventory item is incorrectly stored in the second bin after the pick-put operation. [See at least Par. 0020]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Danelski and Drago et al. to incorporate the teachings of Wagner et al. as discussed above, see claim 8.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danelski (US 2008/0183327) in view of Drago et al. (US 2021/0158319) and further in view of Post et al. (US 2023/0056919).
Regarding claim 12, Danelski discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the pick-put operation of the first inventory item is determined to be unsuccessful based on the detection that at least one of (ii) the hand of the operator is not detected in the vicinity of the first bin [See at least Danelski, Par. 0046]
And Drago et al. teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the pick-put operation of the first inventory item is determined to be unsuccessful based on the detection that at least one of (i) the occupancy state of the first bin remains unchanged or [See at least Drago et al., Par. 0050, 0062]
While Danelski and Drago et al. teach determining a pick-put operation unsuccessful based on occupancy state or vicinity of operator’s hand as mapped in at least claims 1 and 10, Danelski and Drago et al. do not disclose imposing a threshold time duration as a parameter to determine the operation unsuccessful. With respect to these limitations, Post et al., directed to the same technology — automated inventory management systems with sensors — teaches:
wherein the pick-put operation of the first inventory item is determined to be unsuccessful… after a threshold time duration [See at least Par. 0008]
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Danelski and Drago et al. to incorporate the teachings of Post et al. and combine the time duration into the system and method of Danelski and Drago et al. The time duration of Post et al. prevents the system from continuously waiting, enabling increased speed and effectiveness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine the time duration of Post et al. into the system and method of Danelski and Drago et al. and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Even in the combined context, the features of the system and method of Danelski and Drago et al. and the features of the time duration of Post et al. would be expected to function as intended, with each element in the combined context performing the same function as it did separately.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Post et al. because they are a known work in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (automated inventory management systems with sensors), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner's Note
Prior Art: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and figures in the references as applied to the claims set forth hereinabove for the convenience of the Applicant. While the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claims, other passages and figures in the cited references may be applicable, as well. It is respectfully requested that the Applicant, in preparing any response to the Office Action, fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, in addition to the context of the passage(s) as taught by the prior art or as disclosed by the Examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is required to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definitions that are not specifically set forth in the claims.
English Translations: If a prior art reference has been relied upon to map the claim limitations that is in a language other than English, Examiner has provided both the original reference and an English translation of the reference as attachments to the Office Action. Applicant is encouraged to refer to the provided English translation for cited pages and/or paragraphs in the mapping of prior art to claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin Morris whose telephone number is (703)756-1112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0900-1700 EST.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/EM/Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655