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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 02/24/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11, and 16 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1 of Applicant’s response filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that a human could perform each of the steps mentally using their mind, and pen and paper, and the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-3 of Applicant’s response filed 02/24/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the detection of a security breach does not teach the detection of security operations being performed in a suboptimal manner. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that a security breach in that a person evades security is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of performing security operations in a suboptimal manner, since optimal performance would not involve any such breaches, and detection of such amounts to detection of suboptimal performance. Applicant’s arguments that the specification’s exemplary language obviates this interpretation is unpersuasive, since the specification affords no special definition of this term, and since the detection of a security breach is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of this term, as outlined above. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 11, and 16 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (each is directed to a machine). The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 11, and 16 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 11, and 16, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
determine, based on the sensor data, that security check operations at the security check environment are being performed in a suboptimal manner; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine that security operations are performing sub optimally based on sensor data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial security companies would perform this step in performing security services for customers)
and in response to determining that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner. . . output an alarm signal indicative of the suboptimal manner in which the security check operations are being performed and corrective action for the security check operations to be performed in an optimal manner. (claims 1, 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate an alarm based on a determination that security operations are being performed sub optimally and output a corrective action in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial security companies would perform this step in performing security services for customers)
generate a three-dimensional digital map of a security check environment based on the first and second sensor data, wherein the security check environment comprises at least one of: a prohibited object detector operable to detect a potentially prohibited object; a human patron who intends to walk through the prohibited object detector; an object carried by the human patron; and a human security officer; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate a three dimensional map of this type based on sensor data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial security companies would perform this step in performing security services for customers)
determine that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner based on the three-dimensional digital map; (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine that security operations are performing sub optimally based on a generated 3d map; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial security companies would perform this step in performing security services for customers)
determine an actual position of a prohibited object detector operable to detect a prohibited object based on the sensor data; (claim 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a position of a device based on sensor data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial security companies would perform this step in performing security services for customers)
determine a position difference between the actual position of the prohibited object detector and an intended position of the prohibited object detector; (claim 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a difference in position of a device based on sensor data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial security companies would perform this step in performing security services for customers)
and based on the position difference being greater than a predetermined threshold, . . . output an alarm signal indicative of at least one of: the actual position of the prohibited object detector; the position difference; and existence of the position difference and instruct human security offices to check a physical setup of the prohibited object detector. (claim 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could output an alarm based on position data indicating that an item has moved and instruct human officers to check a physical setup of the device; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial security companies would perform this step in performing security services for customers)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
a sensor operable to output sensor data indicative of physical characteristics of a security check environment, (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the sensor is recited at a high level of generality, and merely acts in its ordinary capacity to bring information into the system)
wherein the security check environment comprises at least one of: a prohibited object detector operable to detect a potentially prohibited object; a human patron who intends to walk through the prohibited object detector; an object carried by the human patron; and a human security officer; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
an output device; (claims 1, 11, 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a processing device comprising a processor and a memory storing a computer program code which when executed by the processor causes the processing device to: (claims 1, 11, 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a digital video camera operable to output first sensor data; (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, this element is recited at a high level of generality, and merely acts in its ordinary capacity to bring information into the system)
a ranging device operable to output second sensor data; (claim 11; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, this element is recited at a high level of generality, and merely acts in its ordinary capacity to bring information into the system)
a sensor operable to output sensor data; (claim 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the sensor is recited at a high level of generality, and merely acts in its ordinary capacity to bring information into the system)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 11, and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein the prohibited object detector comprises at least one of: a metal detector; an X-ray machine; a millimeter wave scanner; a trace portal machine; a frequency machine; a radio wave signal machine; and a weapons detection system.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 3:
wherein the sensor comprises a ranging device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, this element is recited at a high level of generality, and merely acts in its ordinary capacity to bring information into the system.
Claim 4:
wherein the sensor comprises a digital video camera.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, this element is recited at a high level of generality, and merely acts in its ordinary capacity to bring information into the system.
Claim 5:
wherein: the sensor is a first sensor;
the sensor data is a first sensor data;
the first sensor comprises a digital video camera;
the system further comprises a second sensor comprising a ranging device operable to output second sensor data indicative of the physical characteristics of the security check environment;
and determining that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner is further based on the second sensor data.
Claim 6:
wherein: the sensor is a first sensor;
the sensor data is a first sensor data;
the first sensor comprises a digital video camera;
the system further comprises a second sensor comprising a ranging device operable to output second sensor data indicative of the physical characteristics of the security check environment;
the computer program code executed by the processor further causes the processing device to generate a three-dimensional digital map of the security check environment based on the first and second sensor data;
and determining that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner is further based on the three-dimensional digital map.
Regarding the addition of the first sensor and second sensors of this type, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, this element is recited at a high level of generality, and merely acts in its ordinary capacity to bring information into the system. Please see the above rejection of claim 11 regarding the use of a three dimensional model.
Claim 7:
wherein: the computer program code executed by the processor further causes the processing device to: generate a first digital model of the prohibited object detector based on the sensor data;
generate a second digital model of the human patron based on the sensor data;
and determine a position of the human patron with respect to the prohibited object detector based on the first and second digital models;
and determining that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner is based on the determined position of the human patron with respect to the prohibited object detector.
Regarding the addition of the first sensor and second sensors of this type, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, this element is recited at a high level of generality, and merely acts in its ordinary capacity to bring information into the system. Please see the above rejection of claim 11 regarding the use of a model to determine optimality of security check operations.
Claim 8:
wherein the suboptimal performance of the security check operations comprises at least one of: the human patron walking around and not through the prohibited object detector; the human patron carrying an object through the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while positioning at least one hand outside of the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while carrying an object outside of the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while positioning at least one hand outside of a prohibited object detection area of the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while carrying an object outside of the prohibited object detection area; the human patron failing to walk back through the prohibited object detector after the human patron walked through the prohibited object detector and the prohibited object detector detected a potentially prohibited object; the human patron failing to present to the human security officer a potentially prohibited object detected by the prohibited object detector; the human security officer failing to check the human patron for a potentially prohibited object detected by the prohibited object detector; the human security officer failing to maintain a predetermined post for a predetermined period of time; the human security officer failing to check the human patron using a predetermined check procedure; the human security officer failing to test operation of the prohibited object detector at a predetermined time; and the human security officer failing to test operation of the prohibited object detector using a predetermined test procedure.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this element merely alters the security operations detected in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 9:
wherein: the computer program code executed by the processor further causes the processing device to: determine an actual position of the prohibited object detector based on the sensor data;
and determine a position difference between the actual position of the prohibited object detector and an intended position of the prohibited object detector;
and the suboptimal manner of performance of the security check operations comprises operating the prohibited object detector to detect the potentially prohibited object when the position difference is greater than a predetermined threshold.
Please see above rejection of claim 16 regarding these steps.
Claim 10:
wherein: the computer program code executed by the processor further causes the processing device to determine a distance between portions of the prohibited object detector based on the sensor data;
and the suboptimal manner of performance of the security check operations comprises operating the prohibited object detector to detect the potentially prohibited object when the distance is: greater than a maximum predetermined distance between the portions of the prohibited object detector; or less than a minimum predetermined distance between the portions of the prohibited object detector.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could output an alarm based on position data indicating that an item has moved based on threshold distances; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial security companies would perform this step in performing security services for customers.
Claim 12:
wherein the prohibited object detector comprises at least one of: a metal detector; an X-ray machine; a millimeter wave scanner; a trace portal machine; a frequency machine; a radio wave signal machine; and a weapons detection system.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 13:
wherein: the computer program code executed by the processor further causes the processing device to: recognize the prohibited object detector in the three-dimensional digital map;
recognize the human patron in the three-dimensional digital map;
and determine a position of the human patron with respect to the prohibited object detector based on the three-dimensional digital map;
and determining that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner is further based on the determined position of the human patron with respect to the prohibited object detector.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could recognize a person and detector and determine a position difference in order to determine optimality of security operations; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial security companies would perform this step in performing security services for customers.
Claim 14:
wherein the suboptimal manner of performance of the security check operations comprises at least one of: the human patron walking around and not through the prohibited object detector; the human patron carrying an object through the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while positioning at least one hand outside of the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while carrying an object outside of the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while positioning at least one hand outside of a prohibited object detection area of the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while carrying an object outside of the prohibited object detection area; the human patron failing to walk back through the prohibited object detector after the human patron walked through the prohibited object detector and the prohibited object detector detected a potentially prohibited object; the human patron failing to present to the human security officer a potentially prohibited object detected by the prohibited object detector; the human security officer failing to check the human patron for a potentially prohibited object detected by the prohibited object detector; the human security officer failing to maintain a predetermined post for a predetermined period of time; the human security officer failing to check the human patron using a predetermined check procedure; the human security officer failing to test operation of the prohibited object detector at a predetermined time; and the human security officer failing to test operation of the prohibited object detector using a predetermined test procedure.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this element merely alters the security operations detected in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 15:
wherein: the computer program code executed by the processor further causes the processing device to: determine an actual position of the prohibited object detector based on the three- dimensional digital map;
and determine a position difference between the actual position of the prohibited object detector and an intended position of the prohibited object detector;
and the suboptimal manner of performance of the security check operations comprises operating the prohibited object detector to detect the potentially prohibited object when the position difference is greater than a predetermined threshold.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could output an alarm based on position data indicating that an item has moved based on threshold distances; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial security companies would perform this step in performing security services for customers.
Claim 17:
wherein the sensor comprises a ranging device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, this element is recited at a high level of generality, and merely acts in its ordinary capacity to bring information into the system.
Claim 18:
wherein the sensor comprises a digital video camera.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, this element is recited at a high level of generality, and merely acts in its ordinary capacity to bring information into the system.
Claim 19:
wherein: the sensor is a first sensor;
the sensor data is a first sensor data;
the first sensor comprises a digital video camera;
the system further comprises a second sensor comprising a ranging device operable to output second sensor data;
and the computer program code executed by the processor further causes the processing device to determine the actual position of the prohibited object detector based further on the second sensor data.
Regarding the addition of the first sensor and second sensors of this type, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, this element is recited at a high level of generality, and merely acts in its ordinary capacity to bring information into the system. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could output an alarm based on sensor data indicating that an item has moved based on threshold distances; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial security companies would perform this step in performing security services for customers.
Claim 20:
wherein: the actual position of the prohibited object detector comprises an actual distance between portions of the prohibited object detector;
and the intended position of the prohibited object detector comprises an intended distance between the portions of the prohibited object detector.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could output an alarm based on position data indicating that an item has moved based expected distances; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial security companies would perform this step in performing security services for customers.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orias, Geoffrey (U.S. PG Pub. NO. 20060197836; hereinafter "Orias") in view of Saito, Shin (U.S. PG Pub No. 20140077988; hereinafter "Saito").
As per claim 1, Orias teaches:
A system comprising:
Orias teaches a system and method for airport security tracking. (Orias: abstract)
a sensor operable to output sensor data indicative of physical characteristics of a security check environment,
Orias teaches one or more sensors in the form of digital recorders 16 and cameras 13 which sense physical characteristics of a security environment. (Orias: paragraphs [0016, 21], Fig. 1)
wherein the security check environment comprises at least one of: a prohibited object detector operable to detect a potentially prohibited object; a human patron who intends to walk through the prohibited object detector; an object carried by the human patron; and a human security officer;
Orias teaches that the security environment may comprise security lanes 30, 32, 34, which may comprise X-ray scanners which may detect prohibited objects. (Orias: paragraph [0017], Fig. 1)
an output device;
Orias teaches that a controller 70 may output breaches detected using recorders and cameras to security personnel using a user interface 72. (Orias: paragraphs [0024-28], Fig. 1)
Orias does not appear to explicitly teach:
and a processing device comprising a processor and a memory storing a computer program code which when executed by the processor causes the processing device to:
Saito, however, teaches processing unit and computer program product used to detect and track human beings in a security environment. (Saito: paragraphs [0006, 26, 37-39], Fig. 1) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Orias, or by Saito. Adding the elements of Saito to the teachings of Orias does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Orias. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Saito with the teachings of Orias, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Orias in view of Saito further teaches:
determine, based on the sensor data, that security check operations at the security check environment are being performed in a suboptimal manner;
Orias teaches that a security breach (a suboptimal security check operation) may be detected by the system. (Orias: paragraph [0024-30]) Saito further teaches a processing unit which may track a human and issue an alarm if a security breach is detected. (Saito: paragraphs [0038-39, 44-46], Fig. 2A) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
and in response to determining that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner, output alarm data to the output device to cause the output device to output an alarm signal indicative of the suboptimal manner in which the security check operations are being performed and corrective action for the security check operations to be performed in an optimal manner.
Orias teaches that a controller 70 may output breaches detected using recorders and cameras to security personnel using a user interface 72. (Orias: paragraphs [0024-28], Fig. 1) Orias teaches that a security breach (a suboptimal security check operation) may be detected by the system. (Orias: paragraph [0024-30]) Saito further teaches a processing unit which may track a human and issue an alarm if a security breach is detected. (Saito: paragraphs [0038-39, 44-46], Fig. 2A) The motivation to combine Saito persists. Orias further teaches a corrective action which restores optimal performance in that the individual may be identified and images of the individual as well as their whereabouts may be output to security so that the individual may be apprehended, and the individuals suspected may be asked to return to the security checkpoint. (Orias: paragraphs [0020, 24-25])
As per claim 2, Orias in view of Saito teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the prohibited object detector comprises at least one of: a metal detector; an X-ray machine; a millimeter wave scanner; a trace portal machine; a frequency machine; a radio wave signal machine; and a weapons detection system.
Orias teaches that the security environment may comprise security lanes 30, 32, 34, which may comprise X-ray scanners which may detect prohibited objects. (Orias: paragraph [0017], Fig. 1)
As per claim 3, Orias in view of Saito teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises a ranging device.
Saito further teaches that the camera used to detect the security breach may comprise a ranging device which detects second sensor data in addition to video data. (Saito: paragraphs [0059-61], Fig. 3) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
As per claim 4, Orias in view of Saito teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises a digital video camera.
Orias teaches one or more sensors in the form of digital recorders 16 and cameras 13 which sense physical characteristics of a security environment and detect first sensor data. (Orias: paragraphs [0016, 21], Fig. 1)
As per claim 5, Orias in view of Saito teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein: the sensor is a first sensor;
Orias teaches one or more sensors in the form of digital recorders 16 and cameras 13 which sense physical characteristics of a security environment and detect first sensor data. (Orias: paragraphs [0016, 21], Fig. 1)
the sensor data is a first sensor data;
Orias teaches one or more sensors in the form of digital recorders 16 and cameras 13 which sense physical characteristics of a security environment and detect first sensor data. (Orias: paragraphs [0016, 21], Fig. 1)
the first sensor comprises a digital video camera;
Orias teaches one or more sensors in the form of digital recorders 16 and cameras 13 which sense physical characteristics of a security environment and detect first sensor data. (Orias: paragraphs [0016, 21], Fig. 1)
the system further comprises a second sensor comprising a ranging device operable to output second sensor data indicative of the physical characteristics of the security check environment;
Saito further teaches that the camera used to detect the security breach may comprise a ranging device which detects second sensor data in addition to video data. (Saito: paragraphs [0059-61], Fig. 3) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
and determining that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner is further based on the second sensor data.
Saito further teaches that the camera used to detect the security breach may comprise a ranging device which detects second sensor data in addition to video data and uses the data to detect security breaches. (Saito: paragraphs [0059-61], Fig. 3) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
As per claim 6, Orias in view of Saito teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein: the sensor is a first sensor;
Orias teaches one or more sensors in the form of digital recorders 16 and cameras 13 which sense physical characteristics of a security environment and detect first sensor data. (Orias: paragraphs [0016, 21], Fig. 1)
the sensor data is a first sensor data;
Orias teaches one or more sensors in the form of digital recorders 16 and cameras 13 which sense physical characteristics of a security environment and detect first sensor data. (Orias: paragraphs [0016, 21], Fig. 1)
the first sensor comprises a digital video camera;
Orias teaches one or more sensors in the form of digital recorders 16 and cameras 13 which sense physical characteristics of a security environment and detect first sensor data. (Orias: paragraphs [0016, 21], Fig. 1)
the system further comprises a second sensor comprising a ranging device operable to output second sensor data indicative of the physical characteristics of the security check environment;
Saito further teaches that the camera used to detect the security breach may comprise a ranging device which detects second sensor data in addition to video data and uses the data to detect security breaches. (Saito: paragraphs [0059-61], Fig. 3) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
the computer program code executed by the processor further causes the processing device to generate a three-dimensional digital map of the security check environment based on the first and second sensor data;
Saito further teaches that three dimensional images may be taken of the recording area including the persons monitored and the objects in the area, and therefore teaches a three dimensional model of both the person and the recorded gate. (Saito: paragraphs [0033, 39, 56, 59-61]) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
and determining that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner is further based on the three-dimensional digital map.
Saito further teaches that three dimensional images may be taken of the recording area including the persons monitored and the objects in the area, and therefore teaches a three dimensional model of both the person and the recorded gate. (Saito: paragraphs [0033, 39, 56, 59-61]) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
As per claim 11, Orias teaches:
A system comprising:
Orias teaches a system and method for airport security tracking. (Orias: abstract)
a digital video camera operable to output first sensor data;
Orias teaches one or more sensors in the form of digital recorders 16 and cameras 13 which sense physical characteristics of a security environment. (Orias: paragraphs [0016, 21], Fig. 1)
Orias does not appear to explicitly teach:
a ranging device operable to output second sensor data;
Saito, however, teaches that the camera used to detect the security breach may comprise a ranging device which detects second sensor data in addition to video data. (Saito: paragraphs [0059-61], Fig. 3) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Orias, or by Saito. Adding the elements of Saito to the teachings of Orias does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Orias. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Saito with the teachings of Orias, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Orias in view of Saito further teaches:
an output device;
Orias teaches that a controller 70 may output breaches detected using recorders and cameras to security personnel using a user interface 72. (Orias: paragraphs [0024-28], Fig. 1)
and a processing device comprising a processor and a memory storing a computer program code which when executed by the processor causes the processing device to:
Saito teaches processing unit and computer program product used to detect and track human beings in a security environment. (Saito: paragraphs [0006, 26, 37-39], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
generate a three-dimensional digital map of a security check environment based on the first and second sensor data, wherein the security check environment comprises at least one of: a prohibited object detector operable to detect a potentially prohibited object; a human patron who intends to walk through the prohibited object detector; an object carried by the human patron; and a human security officer;
Orias teaches that the security environment may comprise security lanes 30, 32, 34, which may comprise X-ray scanners which may detect prohibited objects. (Orias: paragraph [0017], Fig. 1) Saito further teaches that three dimensional images may be taken of the recording area including the persons monitored and the objects in the area, and therefore teaches a three dimensional model of both the person and the recorded gate. (Saito: paragraphs [0033, 39, 56, 59-61]) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
determine that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner based on the three-dimensional digital map;
Saito further teaches that three dimensional images may be taken of the recording area including the persons monitored and the objects in the area, and therefore teaches a three dimensional model of both the person and the recorded gate. (Saito: paragraphs [0033, 39, 56, 59-61]) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
and in response to determining that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner, output alarm data to the output device to cause the output device to output an alarm signal indicative of the suboptimal manner in which the security check operations are being performed.
Saito further teaches that three dimensional images may be taken of the recording area including the persons monitored and the objects in the area, and a security breach may be detected based on such, and therefore teaches a three dimensional model of both the person and the recorded gate. (Saito: paragraphs [0033, 39, 56, 59-61]) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
As per claim 12, Orias in view of Saito teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the prohibited object detector comprises at least one of: a metal detector; an X-ray machine; a millimeter wave scanner; a trace portal machine; a frequency machine; a radio wave signal machine; and a weapons detection system.
Orias teaches that the security environment may comprise security lanes 30, 32, 34, which may comprise X-ray scanners which may detect prohibited objects. (Orias: paragraph [0017], Fig. 1)
Claims 7-8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orias in view of Saito further in view of Brauckmann et al. (German Patent Document No. DE19641000A1; hereinafter "Brauckmann").
As per claim 7, Orias in view of Saito teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein: the computer program code executed by the processor further causes the processing device to: generate a first digital model of the prohibited object detector based on the sensor data;
Saito further teaches that three dimensional images may be taken of the recording area including the persons monitored and the objects in the area, and therefore teaches a three dimensional model of both the person and the recorded gate. (Saito: paragraphs [0033, 39, 56, 59-61]) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
generate a second digital model of the human patron based on the sensor data;
Saito further teaches that three dimensional images may be taken of the recording area including the persons monitored and the objects in the area, and therefore teaches a three dimensional model of both the person and the recorded gate. (Saito: paragraphs [0033, 39, 56, 59-61]) The motivation to combine Saito persists.
Orias in view of Saito further in view of Brauckmann does not appear to explicitly teach:
and determine a position of the human patron with respect to the prohibited object detector based on the first and second digital models;
Brauckmann, however, teaches that images taken via one or more cameras may be used to compare a user's position as they walk through a security gate to one or more edge zones outside of the security screening gate, wherein an alert may be generated if the user enters the one or more edge zones while passing through the gage. (Brauckmann: paragraphs [0011, 21, 27, 37-38, 47, 53, 60], Fig. 1) Brauckmann teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Orias in view of Saito for the benefit of enabling a reliable distinction to be made on the basis of the recorded dynamic image scene as to whether a detected movement is attributable to one or more people and which distinction is made regardless of the type, size and shape of the people. (Brauckmann: paragraph [0009]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Brauckmann with the teachings of Orias in view of Saito to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Orias in view of Saito further in view of Brauckmann further teaches:
and determining that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner is based on the determined position of the human patron with respect to the prohibited object detector.
Brauckmann, as outlined above, teaches that images taken via one or more cameras may be used to compare a user's position as they walk through a security gate to one or more edge zones outside of the security screening gate, wherein an alert may be generated if the user enters the one or more edge zones while passing through the gage. (Brauckmann: paragraphs [0011, 21, 27, 37-38, 47, 53, 60], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Brauckmann persists.
As per claim 8, Orias in view of Saito teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the suboptimal performance of the security check operations comprises at least one of: the human patron walking around and not through the prohibited object detector; the human patron carrying an object through the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while positioning at least one hand outside of the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while carrying an object outside of the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while positioning at least one hand outside of a prohibited object detection area of the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while carrying an object outside of the prohibited object detection area; the human patron failing to walk back through the prohibited object detector after the human patron walked through the prohibited object detector and the prohibited object detector detected a potentially prohibited object; the human patron failing to present to the human security officer a potentially prohibited object detected by the prohibited object detector; the human security officer failing to check the human patron for a potentially prohibited object detected by the prohibited object detector; the human security officer failing to maintain a predetermined post for a predetermined period of time; the human security officer failing to check the human patron using a predetermined check procedure; the human security officer failing to test operation of the prohibited object detector at a predetermined time; and the human security officer failing to test operation of the prohibited object detector using a predetermined test procedure.
Brauckmann, however, teaches that images taken via one or more cameras may be used to compare a user's position as they walk through a security gate to one or more edge zones outside of the security screening gate, wherein an alert may be generated if the user enters the one or more edge zones while passing through the gage. (Brauckmann: paragraphs [0011, 21, 27, 37-38, 47, 53, 60], Fig. 1) Brauckmann teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Orias in view of Saito for the benefit of enabling a reliable distinction to be made on the basis of the recorded dynamic image scene as to whether a detected movement is attributable to one or more people and which distinction is made regardless of the type, size and shape of the people. (Brauckmann: paragraph [0009]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Brauckmann with the teachings of Orias in view of Saito to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 13, Orias in view of Saito teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein: the computer program code executed by the processor further causes the processing device to: recognize the prohibited object detector in the three-dimensional digital map;
Brauckmann, however, teaches that images taken via one or more cameras may be used to compare a user's position as they walk through a security gate to one or more edge zones outside of the security screening gate, wherein an alert may be generated if the user enters the one or more edge zones while passing through the gage. (Brauckmann: paragraphs [0011, 21, 27, 37-38, 47, 53, 60], Fig. 1) Brauckmann teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Orias in view of Saito for the benefit of enabling a reliable distinction to be made on the basis of the recorded dynamic image scene as to whether a detected movement is attributable to one or more people and which distinction is made regardless of the type, size and shape of the people. (Brauckmann: paragraph [0009]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Brauckmann with the teachings of Orias in view of Saito to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Orias in view of Saito further in view of Brauckmann further teaches:
recognize the human patron in the three-dimensional digital map;
Brauckmann, as outlined above, teaches that images taken via one or more cameras may be used to compare a user's position as they walk through a security gate to one or more edge zones outside of the security screening gate, wherein an alert may be generated if the user enters the one or more edge zones while passing through the gage. (Brauckmann: paragraphs [0011, 21, 27, 37-38, 47, 53, 60], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Brauckmann persists.
and determine a position of the human patron with respect to the prohibited object detector based on the three-dimensional digital map;
Brauckmann, as outlined above, teaches that images taken via one or more cameras may be used to compare a user's position as they walk through a security gate to one or more edge zones outside of the security screening gate, wherein an alert may be generated if the user enters the one or more edge zones while passing through the gage. (Brauckmann: paragraphs [0011, 21, 27, 37-38, 47, 53, 60], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Brauckmann persists.
and determining that the security check operations are being performed in a suboptimal manner is further based on the determined position of the human patron with respect to the prohibited object detector.
Brauckmann, as outlined above, teaches that images taken via one or more cameras may be used to compare a user's position as they walk through a security gate to one or more edge zones outside of the security screening gate, wherein an alert may be generated if the user enters the one or more edge zones while passing through the gage. (Brauckmann: paragraphs [0011, 21, 27, 37-38, 47, 53, 60], Fig. 1) The motivation to combine Brauckmann persists.
As per claim 14, Orias in view of Saito teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as outlined above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the suboptimal manner of performance of the security check operations comprises at least one of: the human patron walking around and not through the prohibited object detector; the human patron carrying an object through the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while positioning at least one hand outside of the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while carrying an object outside of the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while positioning at least one hand outside of a prohibited object detection area of the prohibited object detector; the human patron walking through the prohibited object detector while carrying an object outside of the prohibited object detection area; the human patron failing to walk back through the prohibited object detector after the human patron walked through the prohibited object detector and the prohibited object detector detected a potentially prohibited object; the human patron failing to present to the human security officer a potentially prohibited object detected by the prohibited object detector; the human security officer failing to check the human patron for a potentially prohibited object detected by the prohibited object detector; the human security officer failing to maintain a predetermined post for a predetermined period of time; the human security officer failing to check the human patron using a predetermined check procedure; the human security officer failing to test operation of the prohibited object detector at a predetermined time; and the human security officer failing to test operation of the prohibited object detector using a predetermined test procedure.
Brauckmann, however, teaches that images taken via one or more cameras may be used to compare a user's position as they walk through a security gate to one or more edge zones outside of the security screening gate, wherein an alert may be generated if the user enters the one or more edge zones while passing through the gage. (Brauckmann: paragraphs [0011, 21, 27, 37-38, 47, 53, 60], Fig. 1) Brauckmann teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Orias in view of Saito for the benefit of enabling a reliable distinction to be made on the basis of the recorded dynamic image scene as to whether a detected movement is attributable to one or more people and which distinction is made regardless of the type, size and shape of the people. (Brauckmann: paragraph [0009]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Brauckmann with the teachings of Orias in view of Saito to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628