This Office action is in response to application filed on 6/15/2023.
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 .
Specification Objections
1. The Application's specification filed 9/23/2022 is objected to because the content of specification does not include Cross-References to related applications. See 37 CFR 1.78 MPEP § 211 et seq. Applicant is advised to correct the specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) as required.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 14 recite “each of the partial regions” should it be “each of the plurality of partial regions”? Please be consistent because “a plurality of partial regions” is more general term while “the partial regions” is more specific/known regions.
Claims 2, 5, and 7-8 recite “the partial region” should it be “a partial region”, there is no “partial region” recited prior.
Claim 6 recites “the past or a satellite image shot” should read “a past or the satellite image”.
Claim 7 recites “a satellite image” should read “the satellite image”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. 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), because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are, in:
Claim 1: “a data acquisition unit configured to acquire; a site work situation collection unit configured to collect; a planning unit configured to divide; and the planning unit acquires.”
Claim 3: “the planning unit performs; and the planning unit excludes”.
Claim 4: “the planning unit performs”
Claim 6: “a risk prediction unit configured to diagnose; and the planning unit formulates”.
Claim 7: “the planning unit,… evaluates”.
Claim 8: “the planning unit updates”.
Claims 9-11: “the planning unit formulates”.
Claim 12: “the planning unit adds”.
Claim 13: “an output unit configured to output”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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 these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 19 recites “handling a risk by trimming” lacks antecedent basis. Line 19 should read “the risk by trimming”.
Claim 7 recites “having a risk necessary to be cleared” lacks antecedent basis. It should read “having [[a]]the risk necessary to be cleared”.
Claim 8 recites “with a sufficiently low risk”, the term “sufficiently low” involves a judgement rather than a fixed rule. It is interpreted “with [[a]] the risk by not trimming".
Claim 9 recites “with a high risk is set as a next new sensing candidate”, the term “high risk” is a relative term. It is interpreted “with [[a]] the risk is set as a next new sensing candidate”.
Claim 14 line 21 recites “the planning step and the update step acquire an order of executing the trimming work” is indefinite. It is unclear how “update step acquires an order”? It is noted an update step happens during or after the work is already underway, rather than acquiring it.
For purpose of examination, it is interpreted deleting “the update step” in the above limitation.
Further, line 23 recites “handling a risk by trimming” lacks antecedent basis. It is interpreted “handling [[a]]the risk by trimming”.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason as respective parent claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,
or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claim for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims are to a system and method, which are one of the statutory categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1, continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font below) of:
“A vegetation management system for managing vegetation around a power
transmission facility, the vegetation management system comprising: a data acquisition unit configured to acquire at least a satellite image of a power transmission line arrangement region; a site work situation collection unit configured to collect a situation of a trimming work executed at a site of the power transmission line arrangement region; and a planning unit configured to divide the power transmission line arrangement region into a plurality of partial regions, manage a status relating to the trimming work and the acquisition of the satellite image in association with each of the partial regions, and formulate a trimming work plan and a satellite image sensing plan based on the status, wherein the status includes a non-shooting status in which the satellite image is not shot, a shooting status in which the satellite image is waiting to be acquired, a clear waiting status in which it is evaluated that there is a risk necessary to be cleared by executing the trimming work, and a cleared status indicating that the risk is cleared regardless of whether the satellite image is shot” falls into the grouping of mental process, i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion; and
“the planning unit acquires an order of executing the trimming work on the
plurality of partial regions by training an agent, an action of the agent being along a
direction of progress of handling a risk by trimming, with reinforcement learning based on statuses of the plurality of partial regions” falls into the grouping of organizing human activity, i.e., managing personal interactions and following rules or instructions.
Regarding claim 14, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font below) of:
“A vegetation management method for managing vegetation around a
power transmission facility, the vegetation management method comprising:
performing, by a vegetation management system an acquisition step of acquiring at least a satellite image of a power transmission line arrangement region; a site work situation collection step of collecting a situation of a trimming work executed at a site of the power transmission line arrangement region; a planning step of dividing the power transmission line arrangement region into a plurality of partial regions, managing a status relating to a trimming work and the acquisition of the satellite image in association with each of the partial regions, and formulating a trimming work plan and a satellite image sensing plan based on the status; and an update step of updating the trimming work plan and the satellite image sensing plan by reflecting the situation of the trimming work executed at the site of the power transmission line arrangement region, wherein the status includes a non-shooting status in which the satellite image is not shot, a shooting status in which the satellite image is waiting to be acquired, a clear waiting status in which it is evaluated that there is a risk necessary to be cleared by executing the trimming work, and a cleared status indicating that the risk is cleared regardless of whether the satellite image is shot” falls into the grouping of mental process, i.e., observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion; and
“the planning step and the update step acquire an order of executing the
trimming work on the plurality of partial regions by training an agent, an action of the agent being along a direction of progress of handling a risk by trimming, with
reinforcement learning based on statuses of the plurality of partial regions” falls into the groupings of mental process and organizing human activity, i.e., managing personal interactions and following rules or instructions.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claims:
Regarding claim 1 (see above limitation in non-Italic font under Prong-One is pasted here): “the vegetation management system comprising: a data acquisition unit configured to acquire at least a satellite image of a power transmission line arrangement region; a site work situation collection unit configured to collect a situation of a trimming work executed at a site of the power transmission line arrangement region.”
Regarding claim 14 (see above limitation in non-Italic font under Prong-One is pasted here): “the vegetation management method comprising: performing, by a vegetation management system an acquisition step of acquiring at least a satellite image of a power transmission line arrangement region; a site work situation collection step of collecting a situation of a trimming work executed at a site of the power transmission line arrangement region.”
The additional limitations of the claims above are mere data gathering, i.e., acquiring and collecting data using appended units/system.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in
combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claims as a whole. The claims are directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, claims 1 and 14 do not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering), i.e., adding insignificant
extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (i.e., A vegetation management system for managing vegetation) - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims, when considered as a whole, do not provide significantly more
under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims 2-13, they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claim by additional
limitations, that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered
individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities and at a high level of generality, i.e., outputting the trimming work plan (claim 13) and used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (claims 2-12), which as indicated in the Office's guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The following is a quotation under AIA of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
11. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, and 12-14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2021/0232818 of Saxena et al., hereinafter Saxena in view of US 2020/0117897 of Froloff.
As for Claim 1, Saxena teaches a vegetation management system for managing vegetation around a power transmission facility ( see [0002] ), the vegetation management system comprising:
a data acquisition unit configured to acquire at least a satellite image of a power transmission line arrangement region ( the intelligent vegetable management system “IVMS” collects image from satellite over transmission lines, see [0040], [0023], [0058] );
a site work situation collection unit configured to collect a situation of a trimming work executed at a site of the power transmission line arrangement region ( see [0045], [0151]-[0156] ); and
a planning unit configured to divide the power transmission line arrangement region into a plurality of partial regions ( bounding boxes considered “partial regions” about the poles and lines within each image, see [0097] ), manage a status relating to the trimming work and the acquisition of the satellite image in association with each of the partial regions ( identify areas of recommendations for trimming, see [0115], [0027]-[0031] ), and formulate a trimming work plan and a satellite image sensing plan based on the status ( see [0048]-[0049], [0057], [0064], [0071] ), wherein
the status includes a non-shooting status in which the satellite image is not shot (“the satellite images” considered “non-shooting status images”, see [0040], [0042] ), a shooting status in which the satellite image is waiting to be acquired ( aerial images considered “shooting status images” taken during first duration of time are satellite images taken in a particular month in a particular year, see [0009], [0062] ), a clear waiting status in which it is evaluated that there is a risk necessary to be cleared by executing the trimming work and a cleared status indicating that the risk is cleared regardless of whether the satellite image is shot ( dry vegetation in primary zone must remain clear for the risk of fire considered “a clear waiting status”, i.e., waiting to trim/cut, see [0066], [0068], [0096], [0139], reduce the risk and require trimming, see [0005], [0040], [0094] ), and
the planning unit acquires an order of executing the trimming work on the plurality of partial regions (assign a work order to trim the vegetation at particular geographic location, see [0155], [0029]).
Saxena does not teach by training an agent, an action of the agent being along a direction of progress, with reinforcement learning based on statuses of the plurality of partial regions.
Froloff teaches training an agent, an action of the agent being along a direction of progress, with reinforcement learning (machine learning experts knowledgeable or by trial and error considered reinforcement learning “RL”, trained AI “agent”, see [0093], [0092], [0099], i.e., using RL to learn plant harm object, see [0124], [0105], [0110], [0122]-[0123], [0136]) based on statuses of the plurality of partial regions (known locations [0050], [0077]-[0078], [0081]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Saxena by applying reinforcement learning as taught by Froloff that would use reinforcement learning for trained AI program, i.e., as training image data for specific labels (Froloff, [0095])
As for Claim 2, Saxena in view of Froloff teaches the vegetation management system according to claim 1, Saxena further teaches wherein the partial region is a grid partitioned by an orbital direction of a satellite to be used for shooting the satellite image and a width direction orthogonal to the orbital direction, and a size of one grid in the width direction corresponds to an observation width of the satellite (satellite map represents the location of power lines, see [0023]-[0027], [0150]-[0152]).
As for Claim 4, Saxena in view of Froloff teaches the vegetation management system according to claim 1, Saxena teaches wherein the planning unit performs by setting a reward in accordance with a risk determined by analyzing a newly shot satellite image (collect images from satellite images considered receiving a newly acquired image [0040], identify vegetation risk [0041], [0064], [0005]).
Saxena does not teach the reinforcement learning. Froloff teaches the reinforcement learning (machine learning experts knowledgeable or by trial and error considered reinforcement learning “RL”, see [0093], [0092], [0099], i.e., using RL to learn plant harm object, see [0124], [0105], [0110], [0122]-[0123], [0136]) based on statuses of the plurality of partial regions (known locations [0050], [0077]-[0078], [0081]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Saxena by applying reinforcement learning as taught by Froloff that would use reinforcement learning for trained AI program, i.e., as training image data for specific labels (Froloff, [0095]).
As for Claim 6, Saxena in view of Froloff teaches the vegetation management system according to claim 1, Saxena teaches further comprising: a risk prediction unit configured to diagnose a contact risk, the contact risk being a risk that the vegetation comes into contact with the power transmission facility (see [0007], [0040], [0047], [0066]), by at least one of the number of times of occurrence of a power outage in the past or a satellite image shot in the past (see [0005]-[0006], [0110]), and generate a prediction risk map in which growth over time is reflected in a risk evaluation result (see [0040], [0042], [0142]), wherein the planning unit formulates the trimming work plan using the prediction risk map (work order needs to be completed [0071], [0158]).
As for Claim 7, Saxena in view of Froloff teaches the vegetation management system according to claim 1, Saxena teaches wherein the planning unit, when a satellite image that is a sensing result is obtained for the partial region in the shooting status (see [0063]), evaluates a risk in a plurality of stages based on the satellite image (see [0010]-[0011], [0040]-[0041], [0094]), and updates the partial region evaluated as having a risk necessary to be cleared by the trimming work to the clear waiting status (see [0129], [0128]).
As for Claim 8, Saxena in view of Froloff teaches the vegetation management system according to claim 7, Saxena teaches wherein the planning unit updates the partial region with a sufficiently low risk to be in the cleared status (low risk [0094], in a low fire hazard area [0094]).
As for Claim 12, Saxena in view of Froloff teaches the vegetation management system according to claim 1, wherein the planning unit adds an error component of a growth prediction model of the vegetation as a risk prediction error when simulating an actual risk determined by the satellite image (model to correct distort image “error” [0063], [0042], [0142]. Saxena does not teach during the reinforcement learning.
Froloff teaches the reinforcement learning (machine learning experts knowledgeable or by trial and error considered reinforcement learning “RL”, trained AI, see [0093], [0092], [0099], i.e., using RL to learn plant harm object, see [0124], [0105], [0110], [0122]-[0123], [0136]) based on statuses of the plurality of partial regions (known locations [0050], [0077]-[0078], [0081]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Saxena by applying reinforcement learning as taught by Froloff that would use reinforcement learning for trained AI program, i.e., as training image data for specific labels (Froloff, [0095]).
As for Claim 13, Saxena in view of Froloff teaches the vegetation management system according to claim 1, Saxena teaches further comprising: an output unit configured to output the trimming work plan formulated based on the sensing plan and the sensing plan formulated based on the trimming work plan (work order plan considered a form of formulated work plan [0032], [0158]).
As per Claim 14, Saxena teaches a vegetation management method for managing vegetation around a power transmission facility (see [0002] ), the vegetation management method comprising:
performing, by a vegetation management system an acquisition step of acquiring at least a satellite image of a power transmission line arrangement region ( the intelligent vegetable management system “IVMS” collects image from satellite over transmission lines, see [0040], [0023], [0058] );
a site work situation collection step of collecting a situation of a trimming work executed at a site of the power transmission line arrangement region ( see [0045], [0151]-[0156] );
a planning step of dividing the power transmission line arrangement region into a plurality of partial regions ( bounding boxes considered “partial regions” about the poles and lines within each image, see [0097] ), managing a status relating to a trimming work and the acquisition of the satellite image in association with each of the partial regions (identify areas of recommendations for trimming, see [0115], [0027]-[0031] ), and formulating a trimming work plan and a satellite image sensing plan based on the status ( see [0048]-[0049], [0057], [0064], [0071] ); and
an update step of updating the trimming work plan (updated location information [0129], where location information is electrical assets are located having vegetation need to manage [0044]-[0045], [0057], [0150]-[0151]) and the satellite image sensing plan by reflecting the situation of the trimming work executed at the site of the power transmission line arrangement region (see [0027]-[0028], [0150]-[0156]),
wherein the status includes a non-shooting status in which the satellite image is not shot (“the satellite images” considered “non-shooting status images”, see [0040], [0042] ), a shooting status in which the satellite image is waiting to be acquired, a clear waiting status in which it is evaluated that there is a risk necessary to be cleared by executing the trimming work, and a cleared status indicating that the risk is cleared regardless of whether the satellite image is shot ( dry vegetation in primary zone must remain clear for the risk of fire considered “a clear waiting status”, i.e., waiting to trim/cut, see [0066], [0068], [0096], [0139], reduce the risk and require trimming, see [0005], [0040], [0094] ), and
the planning step and the update step acquire an order of executing the trimming work on the plurality of partial regions (assign a work order to trim the vegetation at particular geographic location, see [0155], [0029]).
Saxena does not teach by training an agent, an action of the agent being along a direction of progress, with reinforcement learning based on statuses of the plurality of partial regions.
Froloff teaches by training an agent, an action of the agent being along a direction of progress, with reinforcement learning (machine learning experts knowledgeable or by trial and error considered reinforcement learning “RL”, trained AI “agent”, see [0093], [0092], [0099], i.e., using RL to learn plant harm object, see [0124], [0105], [0110], [0122]-[0123], [0136]) based on statuses of the plurality of partial regions (known locations [0050], [0077]-[0078], [0081]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Saxena by applying reinforcement learning as taught by Froloff that would use reinforcement learning for trained AI program, i.e., as training image data for specific labels (Froloff, [0095]).
12. Claim 5 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Saxena in view of Froloff and further US2012/0106859 of Cheatle.
As for Claim 5, Saxena in view of Froloff teaches the vegetation management system according to claim 1, Saxena teaches when the partial region in the shooting status and the partial region in which the trimming work is executed when the partial region in the shooting status and the partial region in which the trimming work is executed (see [0028]-[0029]). Saxena in view of Froloff does not teach the reinforcement learning is performed by setting a penalty when the shooting status in which the work is executed duplicate each other.
Froloff teaches reinforcement learning (machine learning experts knowledgeable or by trial and error considered reinforcement learning “RL”, trained AI, see [0093], [0092], [0099], i.e., using RL to learn plant harm object, see [0124], [0105], [0110], [0122]-[0123], [0136]) based on statuses of the plurality of partial regions (known locations [0050], [0077]-[0078], [0081]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Saxena by applying reinforcement learning as taught by Froloff that would use reinforcement learning for trained AI program, i.e., as training image data for specific labels (Froloff, [0095]).
Saxena in view of Froloff does not teach by setting a penalty when shooting status in which the work is executed duplicate each other. Cheatle teaches by setting a penalty when shooting status (Abstract, Claim 1) in which the work is executed duplicate each other (see [0046]-[0047], Claim 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Saxena and Froloff by setting penalty and detect duplicate images as taught by Cheatle that would generate a penalty scores and identify duplicate image.
Examiner’s Notes
11. Claims 3 and 9-11 are considered novel and non-obvious subject matter with respect to the prior art and as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: “The prior art does not disclose the reinforcement learning by setting a reward with respect to a fact that all grids constituting a row in the orbital direction are in the cleared status before the grids are in the shooting status when the trimming work plan is formulated, and excludes the row in which all the grids are cleared by the trimming work when the sensing plan is formulated” as recited in claim 3. Claims 9-11 are also objected for the same reason as in claim 3.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0102748 of Arya et al (Efficient scheduling of maintenance for power distribution systems).
US 2020/0235559 of Neuenschwander et al (Automated vegetation management system).
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights