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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 12-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-10, 12, 14-17, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al (US Patent No. 11,164,226) in view of Horesh (US PG. Pub. 2020/0400818). Relative to claims 1-2, 9-10, 12, and 14-15, Gu discloses:
Claim 1) A system (100)(Fig. 1), comprising:
a picking device (400)(Fig. 4A)(see mechanical device, such as storage unit, 452, or mechanical device with mechanical arm 466, Col. 11, lines 5-20) comprising:
a movement space (movement space includes shelving areas 454 and rails 451 along shelf 450; see also mechanical unit moves to and from shelving areas or storage units 468 to pick or retrieve items; Col. 12, lines 60-67; Col. 13, lines 50-53)(Fig. 4B-4C);
an optical detection device (440, including image sensors on shelves and mechanical device; Col. 12, lines 3-8; Col. 19, lines 63-65)(Fig. 4A); and
a control device (“computer system”; Col. 10, lines 63-67);
a memory storing instructions (included in computer system; Col. 3, lines 20-25); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Col. 22, lines 10-15):
create an image of the movement space (Col. 13, lines 21-23; Col. 19, lines 63-67; Col. 20, lines 18-24);
determine that an obstacle is present in a detected portion of the movement space (Col. 19, lines 63-67; Col. 20, lines 1-20);
provide corresponding signals for responding to the obstacle (mechanical device may adjust its moves, Col. 19, lines 66-67; Col. 20, lines 18-20); and
identify packaging within the picking device (Col. 13, lines 22-25; Col. 15, lines 26-30, visual data of product items is collected);
Claim 2) executing the instructions to determine a position of the obstacle (Col. 21, lines 28-35; Col. 19, lines 63-65);
Claim 12) executing the instructions to move an operating device horizontally in an X-direction and vertically in a Z-direction in the movement space (operating device may include the part of storage unit 452, not shown, connected to and travelling along horizontal and vertical rails, Fig. 4B, Col. 13, lines 4-8; operating device may also mechanical arms, 466, or robot cart, arms move along horizontal and vertical directions of shelving unit 461, Fig. 4C);
Claim 14) executing the instructions to move, by a storage device (see conveyor 453)(Fig. 4B-4C), a packaging into the picking device (450); and take, by an operating device (452), the packaging from the storage device (conveyor 453 deliver items into and out shelf space; Col. 12, lines 62-67; Col. 13, lines 51-55); and
Claim 15) executing the instructions to transfer, by an operating device (453)(Fig. 4B), a packaging (product item) to an unloading device (452)(Fig. 4B) for removal from the picking device (object conveyor 453 transfers an item from the shelf to the storage unit 452, the storage unit 452 removes item from the shelving unit 450 to transfer the item to a carrier; Col. 12, lines 63-67; Col. 13, lines 1-13).
Gu does not expressly disclose:
Claim 1) comparing predefined areas of the image of the movement space with corresponding areas of a reference image;
determining that an obstacle is present in a detected portion of the movement space based on the image comparison;
Claim 2) the instructions determine a size of the obstacle;
Claim 9) composing the image of the movement space and the reference image from a plurality of individual images; or
Claim 10) comparing the image of the movement space and the reference image based on partial images.
Horesh teaches:
Claim 1) comparing predefined areas of the image of the movement space with corresponding areas of a reference image (as robot travels, successive or a sequence of images are taken of a scene in a small time period, the later images are compared to first images of the same scene to notice differences such as changes in pixels, geometric parameters, etc.; Para. 0034; 0041-0042);
determining that an obstacle is present in a detected portion of the movement space based on the image comparison (the movement space is the path of the robot, the detected portion includes the portion of the image that detects an obstacle based on the successive images; Para. 0035; 0041-0042; 0044);
Claim 2) determining a size of the obstacle (see obstacle’s dimensions, or height, Para. 0044; 0030);
Claim 9) composing the image of the movement space and the reference image from a plurality of individual images (Para. 0034; 0041-0042); and
Claim 10) comparing the image of the movement space and the reference image based on partial images (Para. 0041-0043).
Horesh teaches the: comparing areas of the image of the movement space with corresponding areas of a reference image, determining that an obstacle is present based on the image comparison; determining a size of the obstacle; composing the image of the movement space and the reference image from a plurality of individual images or partial images as described above for the purpose of providing an obstacle detection system, such as for wheeled robotic apparatuses that is less costly and more efficient (Para. 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Gu with the: comparing areas of the image of the movement space with corresponding areas of a reference image, determining that an obstacle is present, determining a size of the obstacle, and composing the image of the movement space and the reference image as taught in Horesh, for the purpose of providing an obstacle detection system, such as for wheeled robotic apparatuses that is less costly and more efficient.
Relative to claims 14-15, the disclosure of Gu in view of Horesh does not expressly disclose: the item or packaging being identified within the picking device is a medicament packaging; the packaging being moved by the storage device and taken by the operating device is a medicament packaging; or the packaging being transferred by the operating device to the unloading device for removal from the picking device is a medicament packaging.
Gu in view of Horesh may be modified to include the item or packaging being identified within the picking device is a medicament packaging; the packaging being moved by the storage device and taken by the operating device is a medicament packaging; and the packaging being transferred by the operating device to the unloading device for removal from the picking device is a medicament packaging described above as an obvious matter of design choice based on the user’s preference.
The system of Gu is an autonomous store 100 with shelves 120 for storing various products for purchase by customers (Col. 5, lines 44-50)(Fig. 1-2). The disclosure of the autonomous store implies that the products stored on shelves may also include medications for purchase, since the autonomous store 100 is capable of storing various types of items. The image sensors capture information of the products on the shelves, including visual data (Col. 13, lines 23-25). Therefore, it is obvious that the product packaging sensed on the shelves for storage and/or retrieval by the mechanical device 400 is a medicament packaging. See MPEP §2144.01
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gu in view of Horesh so that the item or packaging being identified, moved, or transferred within the picking device is a medicament packaging as an obvious matter of design choice is the autonomous store is capable or storing difference types of items for customers, including medications.
Relative to claims 16-17, the disclosure of Gu includes:
Claim 16) a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions thereon that (included in computer system), when executed by a machine, causes the machine to perform operations comprising (Col. 3, lines 20-25):
creating an image of a movement space within a picking device (Col. 12, lines 4-8; Col. 19, lines 60-68);
determining that an obstacle is present in a detected portion of the movement space (Col. 19, lines 60-68; Col. 20, lines 18-20; Col. 21, lines 28-35);
providing corresponding signals for responding to the obstacle (Col. 19, lines 66-67; Col. 20, lines 18-20); and one of:
identifying packaging within the picking device (Col. 13, lines 22-25; Col. 15, lines 26-30, visual data of product items is collected);
move, by a storage device (453, 467), a packaging into the picking device (450) and take, by an operating device (452), the packaging from the storage device (452) (conveyor 453 delivers items into or out of shelf space 454, the conveyor 453 transfers items to the storage unit 452, the storage unit 452 removes the item from the shelf unit 450, Col. 12, lines 60-67; Col. 13, lines 7-10; Col. 13, lines 51-55); and
transfer, by an operating device, packaging to an unloading device for removal from the picking device; and
claim 17) determining a position of the obstacle (Col. 21, lines 28-35; Col. 19, lines 63-65).
Gu does not expressly disclose:
Claim 16) comparing predefined areas of the image of the movement space with corresponding areas of a reference image;
determining that an obstacle is present in a detected portion of the movement space based on the image comparison;
the packaging being identified within the picking device, moved by the storage device into the picking device, and/or transferred by the operating device to an unloading device for removal from the picking device is a medicament packaging; or
claim 17) determining a size of the obstacle.
Horesh teaches:
Claim 16) comparing predefined areas of the image of the movement space with corresponding areas of a reference image (Para. 0034; 0041-0042);
determining that an obstacle is present in a detected portion of the movement space based on the image comparison (Para. 0035; 0041-0042; 0044); and
claim 17) determining a size of the obstacle (Para. 0044; 0030), for the purpose of providing an obstacle detection system, such as for wheeled robotic apparatuses that is less costly and more efficient (Para. 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the device of Gu with the: comparing predefined areas of the image of the movement space with corresponding areas of a reference image, determining that an obstacle is present based on the image comparison, and determining a size of the obstacle as taught in Horesh, for the purpose of providing an obstacle detection system, such as for wheeled robotic apparatuses that is less costly and more efficient.
Relative to claims 16-17, the disclosure of Gu in view of Horesh does not expressly disclose: the packaging being identified within the picking device, moved by the storage device into the picking device, and/or transferred by the operating device to an unloading device for removal from the picking device is a medicament packaging.
Gu in view of Horesh can be modified to include: the packaging being identified within the picking device, moved by the storage device into the picking device, and/or transferred by the operating device to an unloading device for removal from the picking device is a medicament packaging described above, as an obvious matter of design choice based on the user’s preference.
The system of Gu is an autonomous store 100 with shelves 120 for storing various products for purchase by customers (Col. 5, lines 44-50)(Fig. 1-2). The disclosure of the autonomous store 100 implies that the products stored on shelves may also include medications for purchase, since the autonomous store 100 is capable of storing various types of items. The image sensors capture information of the products on the shelves, including visual data (Col. 13, lines 23-25). It is obvious that the product packaging identified on the shelves is a medicament packaging. It is also obvious that the packages be moved and/or transferred for storage and/or retrieval by the mechanical device 400 is a medicament packaging. See MPEP §2144.01
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gu in view of Horesh so that the item or packaging being identified, moved, or transferred within the picking device as described above, is a medicament packaging as an obvious matter of design choice is the autonomous store is capable of storing difference types of items, including medications.
Relative to claim 21, the disclosure of Gu includes:
A system (100)(Fig. 1-2), comprising:
a picking device (400)(Fig. 4A)(see mechanical device, such as storage unit, 452, or mechanical device with mechanical arm 466, Col. 11, lines 5-20) comprising:
a movement space (see shelving areas 454 and rails 451 along shelf 450, the mechanical unit 400 moves to and from shelving areas or storage units 468 to pick or retrieve items; Col. 12, lines 60-67; Col. 13, lines 50-53)(Fig. 4B-4C);
an optical detection device (440, including image sensors on shelves and mechanical device; Col. 12, lines 3-8; Col. 19, lines 63-65)(Fig. 4A); and
a control device (“computer system”; Col. 10, lines 63-67);
a memory storing instructions (Col. 3, lines 20-25); and
at least one processor (included in computer system, Col. 3, lines 20-25) configured to execute the instructions to:
create an image of the movement space (Col. 13, lines 21-23; Col. 19, lines 63-67; Col. 20, lines 18-24);
determine that an obstacle is present in a detected portion of the movement space (Col. 19, lines 63-67; Col. 20, lines 1-20);
provide corresponding signals for responding to the obstacle (Col. 19, lines 66-67; Col. 20, lines 18-20); and one of:
move, by a storage device (453), a packaging (product item) into the picking device (450) and take, by an operating device (452), the packaging from the storage device (conveyor 453 deliver items into and out shelf space; Col. 12, lines 62-67; Col. 13, lines 51-55); and
transfer, by an operating device, packaging to an unloading device for removal from the picking device.
Gu does not expressly disclose:
comparing predefined areas of the image of the movement space with corresponding areas of a reference image; or
determining that an obstacle is present in a detected portion of the movement space based on the image comparison.
Horesh teaches:
comparing predefined areas of the image of the movement space with corresponding areas of a reference image (Para. 0034; 0041-0042); and
determining that an obstacle is present in a detected portion of the movement space based on the image comparison (Para. 0030; 0041-0043), for the purpose of providing an obstacle detection system, such as for wheeled robotic apparatuses that is less costly and more efficient (Para. 0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Gu with the comparing predefined areas of the image of the movement space with a reference image, and determining that an obstacle is present based on the image comparison, as taught in Horesh for the purpose of providing an obstacle detection system, such as for wheeled robotic apparatuses that is less costly and more efficient.
Relative to claim 21, the disclosure of Gu in view of Horesh does not expressly disclose: the packaging being moved by the storage device into the picking device, and/or transferred by the operating device to an unloading device for removal from the picking device includes a medicament packaging.
Gu in view of Horesh can be modified to include: the packaging being moved by the storage device into the picking device, and/or transferred by the operating device to an unloading device for removal from the picking device is a medicament packaging as an obvious matter of design choice based on the user’s preference.
The system of Gu is an autonomous store 100 with shelves 120 for storing various products for purchase by customers (Col. 5, lines 44-50)(Fig. 1-2). The disclosure of the autonomous store 100 implies that the products stored on shelves may also include medications for purchase, since the autonomous store 100 is capable of storing various types of items. The image sensors capture information of the products on the shelves, including visual data (Col. 13, lines 23-25). It is obvious that the product packaging identified on the shelves is a medicament packaging. It is also obvious that the packages be moved and/or transferred for storage and/or retrieval by the mechanical device 400 is a medicament packaging. See MPEP §2144.01
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gu in view of Horesh so that the item or packaging being identified, moved, or transferred within the picking device as described above, is a medicament packaging as an obvious matter of design choice is the autonomous store is capable of storing difference types of items, including medications.
Claim(s) 3, 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu and Horesh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jaquez et al (US PG. Pub. 2019/0243358). Relative to claims 3, 5-6, and 8, Gu in view of Horesh discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
Claim 3) executing instructions to determine a storage area within the picking device is blocked by the obstacle based on the determined position and size of the obstacle;
Claim 5) executing instructions to mark one or more storage spaces of the picking device that are blocked by the obstacle as unreachable;
Claim 6) executing instructions to: mark one or more storage spaces of the picking device that are blocked by the obstacle as not accessible; or
Claim 8) executing instructions to: prevent movement of an operating device of the picking device based on the provided corresponding signals.
Jaquez teaches:
Claim 3) executing the instructions to: determine a storage area within the picking device is blocked by the obstacle based on the determined position and size of the obstacle (Para. 0055, robot determines a location near the shelf unit that is blocking the shelf; Para. 0010);
Claim 5) executing the instructions to: mark one or more storage spaces of the picking device that are blocked by the obstacle as unreachable (Para. 0057, robot indicates to operator and system that the shelf is blocked);
Claim 6) executing the instructions to mark one or more storage spaces of the picking device that are blocked by the obstacle as not accessible (Para. 0057); and
Claim 8) executing instructions to prevent movement of an operating device of the picking device (18) based on the provided corresponding signals (Para. 0055, robot remains in a holding state).
Jaquez teaches: determining a storage area within the picking device is blocked by the obstacle based on the position and size of the obstacle; the marking the storage spaces that are blocked as unreachable or not accessible, and preventing movement of the operating device of the picking robot described above, for the purpose of providing a method for performing warehouse related tasks using an autonomous mobile robot that can fulfill inventory requests more efficiently, while minimizing manual labor (Para. 0001; 0003-0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Gu in view of Horesh with the: determining a storage area within the picking device is blocked by the obstacle; marking the storage spaces that are blocked as unreachable or not accessible, and preventing movement of the operating device of the picking robot described above as taught in Jaquez, for the purpose of providing a method for performing warehouse related tasks using an autonomous mobile robot that can fulfill inventory requests more efficiently, while minimizing manual labor.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu and Horesh as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Jaquez et al (US PG. Pub. 2019/0243358). Relative to claims 19-20, Gu in view of Horesh discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose:
Claim 19) determining that one or more storage spaces of the picking device are blocked by the obstacle; and indicating that the blocked one or more storage spaces are one of unreachable and not accessible; or
Claim 20) preventing movement of an operating device of the picking device based on the provided corresponding signals.
Jaquez teaches:
Claim 19) determining that one or more storage spaces of the picking device (storage spaces include see bins in shelves)(Fig. 3) are blocked by the obstacle (system determines if destination location or storage bin is blocked (Para. 0055); and indicating that the blocked one or more storage spaces (bins) are one of unreachable and not accessible (Para. 0055; 0057); and
Claim 20) preventing movement of an operating device of the picking device based on the provided corresponding signals (Para. 0055, robot remains in a holding state), for the purpose of providing a method for performing warehouse related tasks using an autonomous mobile robot that can fulfill inventory requests more efficiently, while minimizing manual labor (Para. 0001; 0003-0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Gu in view of Horesh with the determining that one or more storage spaces of the picking device are blocked, and indicating that the blocked one or more storage spaces are one of unreachable and not accessible; and preventing movement of an operating device of the picking device described above, as taught in Jaquez for the purpose of providing a method for performing warehouse related tasks using an autonomous mobile robot that can fulfill inventory requests more efficiently, while minimizing manual labor.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu and Horesh as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wang et al (US PG. Pub. 2020/0228744). Relative to claims 4 and 18, Gu in view of Horesh discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: determining whether the obstacle can be bypassed by an operating device of the picking device based on the determined position and size of the obstacle; or
Claim 18) determining whether the obstacle can be one of bypassed and moved by an operating device of the picking device based on the determined position and size of the obstacle.
Wang teaches: determining whether the obstacle can be bypassed by an operating device of the picking device (100) based on the determined type of obstacle (Para. 0055; 0080); and
determining whether the obstacle can be one of bypassed and moved by an operating device of the picking device based on the type of obstacle (Para. 0055, 0080 certain objects can be ignored or bypassed), for the purpose of providing a mobile robot that performs obstacle avoidance, positioning, and object recognition according to image frames captured by a single sensor corresponding to lighting of different light sources, thereby minimizing costs (Para. 0002; 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Gu in view of Horesh with the determining whether the obstacle can be bypassed or moved based on the type obstacle described above, as taught in Wang for the purpose of providing a mobile robot that performs obstacle avoidance, positioning, and object recognition according to image frames captured by a single sensor corresponding to lighting of different light sources, thereby minimizing costs.
Relative to claims 4 and 18, the disclosure of Gu in view of Horesh and Wang does not expressly disclose: determining whether the obstacle can bypassed based on a determined position and size of the obstacle.
Gu in view of Horesh and Wang can be modified so that the system can determine whether the obstacle can bypassed based on a determined position and size of the obstacle as an obvious matter of design choice.
Wang discloses determining whether the obstacle can be bypassed based on the determined type of obstacle, such as a wire or sock, according to previously determined rules (Para. 0055; 0080). The rules may include bypassing articles that are in a certain position along the path of the robot, or are under a certain height, to allow continued movement of the robot if there is no risk of damage to the robot traveling, or if potential damage to the obstacle poses no hazard, or is insignificant. MPEP §2144.01, §2144.03
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gu in view of Horesh and Wang with the determining whether the obstacle can bypassed based on a determined position and size of the obstacle as an obvious matter of design choice, if bypassing the obstacle poses no substantial risk of damage to the robot or the obstacle thereby allowing continued movement of the robot.
Claim(s) 7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu and Horesh as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Voorhies et al (US PG. Pub. 2021/0008721). Relative to claim 7, Gu in view of Horesh discloses all claim limitations mentioned above, but does not expressly disclose: instructions to determine whether the obstacle can be moved by an operating device of the picking device based on the determined position and size of the obstacle; or instructions to create the image of the movement space after a predetermined event.
Voorhies teaches:
instructions to determine whether the obstacle can be moved by an operating device (110) of the picking device based on the determined position and size of the obstacle (Para. 0080-0081, robot 110 may correct the obstruction before performing the task if boundaries of objects overlap or conflict)(Fig. 7), and
instructions to create the image of the movement space after a predetermined event (Para. 0067, robot captures images of the location once is arrives at a task destination), for the purpose of providing a method for controlling autonomous robots to perform inventory related tasks with high precision, is flexible in design, and reduces damage to objects (Para. 0001; 0003-0004; 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on or before the time of the filing to modify the system of Gu in view of Horesh with the: instructions to determine whether the obstacle can be moved by an operating device of the picking device based on the determined position and size of the obstacle, instructions to create the image of the movement space after a predetermined event as taught in Voorhies, for the purpose of providing a method for controlling autonomous robots to perform inventory related tasks with high precision, is flexible in design, and reduces damage to objects.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hellenbrand Christoph (KR 2018-0050674 A1): includes instructions to create the image of the movement space after a predetermined event (as soon as the article is fed into or protrudes into a detection range 22, 32, the sensors capture images of the storage area, See Page 3, Para. 5; and Page 4, Para. 2 of English translation of specification), for the purpose of providing a method for storing and sorting a plurality of individual pharmaceutical packages, that is less time consuming, minimizes errors, and is more efficient (See English translation of the Specification, Page 1, “Technical Field”, Page 2, Para. 3, see sentence beginning with “it is customary”).
Zanger et al (US PG. Pub. 2019/0033837): includes a picking device with a robot for picking items, includes a sensor that detects an obstacle in the way of movement of the robot (Para. 0031).
Chang et al (US. PG. Pub. 2021/0138648): includes a camera that takes images and detects an obstacle that is present in the working range of the robot (100)(Para. 0029).
Pie (CN 110609546 A): stops movement of a picking device if the obstacle is within a preset distance.
Li (US PG. Pub. 2023/0106134): gets image data of a target storage location, including obstacles on a carrying path of a storage location (Para. 0015; 0125), and executes task if there is no obstacle on the storage path.
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 YOLANDA RENEE CUMBESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5527. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
/YOLANDA R CUMBESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655