DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Specification Objections
The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) because of the following informalities:
In ¶97, line 6, "Fur" should be replaced with --For--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Here, the language added to claim 1 in claim 16 already appears in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/2nd ¶ as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regard as the invention.
(a) Claim 8 recites "generate, based on the number of satellites tracked being less than four, a list of satellites by performing a time transfer from at least one satellite in the number of satellites to the list of satellites".
It is unclear how to construe this language. The generating of a list of satellites is "by performing" the subsequent steps, so presumably that which follows "by performing" happens first, but this portion of the claim includes a time transfer "to the list of satellites" that has not been generated yet. In other words, the claim can be paraphrased as "performing a time transfer from at least one satellite in the number of satellites to the list of satellites in order to generate, based on the number of satellites tracked being less than four, a list of satellites". So the list of satellites is being used to generate the list of satellites? It is unclear that "to the list of satellites" isn't an incorrect term where it is located in the claim, since the claim recites a structure, a satellite, transferring time to "the list of satellites", which is not a structure.
Claim 9 depends upon claim 8.
(b) Claim 9 recites "to identify whether the number of satellites tracked is less than four, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to: identify whether the number of satellites tracked with millisecond decode is less than four". However, "the number of satellites tracked with millisecond decode" recites two conditions (i) the satellite signal is tracked, and (ii) the code integer is determined (millisecond decode). The preamble says the satellites that meet condition (i) are less than four. The further limitation says this is set equal to the satellites that meet both condition (i) and (ii) being less than four. However, a satellite can meet condition (i) without meeting condition (ii). It is unclear how equating meeting condition (i) with meeting conditions (i) and (ii) makes sense. In other words, if (i) the number of satellites tracked is 5 and (ii) the number of satellites with millisecond decode is 2, the number of satellites tracked with millisecond decode is less than four but the number of satellites tracked is not less than four.
In order to further examine the claim, the claim will be interpreted as stating that identifying the number of satellites usable for positioning is less than four is done by identifying whether the number of satellites tracked with millisecond decode is less than four.
“We note that the patent drafter is in the best position to resolve the ambiguity in the patent claims, and it is highly desirable that patent examiners demand that applicants do so in appropriate circumstances so that the patent can be amended during prosecution rather than attempting to resolve the ambiguity in litigation.”, Halliburton Energy Services Inc. v. M-I LLC., 85 USPQ2d 1654 at 1663.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d)/ 4th ¶:
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 recites identical subject matter already recited in claim 1 and does not further limit claim 1, from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 USC 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 45 USPQ2d 1498. See http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/notices/101_crm_20100127.pdf.
Here, ¶29 only provides examples of a computer readable medium, and thus other forms of computer readable media can be used.
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, 4, 10-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2008/0091350 A1) in view of Soloviev (Inertial Error Propagation: Understanding Inertial Behavior).
In regard to claims 1 and 16, Smith discloses:
at least one memory (1915, Fig. 19) [also Central Processor, Fig. 6; ¶63, where a processor inherently includes associated memory]; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (Central Processor, Fig. 6; ¶63), the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to:
detect that the UE is operating in a specified global navigation satellite system (GNSS) environment (NO output of 1906, Fig. 19; ¶126, lines 8-9) [a GPS-denied or degraded environment]; and
estimate a current position of the UE based on prior position fix information from the prior GNSS session (1911, Fig. 19; ¶118, lines 43-48; claim 15) [where inertial navigation propagates the previous position based on a change in position determined from the inertial measurements].
Smith fails to disclose verifying, in response to the detection that the UE is operating in the specified GNSS environment, that a duration between a prior GNSS positioning session and a current GNSS positioning session is less than a time threshold; and the estimating being based on the duration is less than the time threshold.
Soloviev teaches inertial navigation propagating a previous GNSS position where a duration between a prior GNSS positioning session and a current GNSS positioning session is less than a time threshold is verified (p. 2, final ¶ to p. 3, ¶1) [where inertial propagation is only used for a limited time because over time the position error becomes unacceptable].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure that an inaccurate position is not determined and output.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that only accurate position determinations are used.
In the combination, the estimating being will be based on the duration being less than the time threshold.
In regard to claim 17, Smith discloses:
detecting that the UE is operating in a specified global navigation satellite system (GNSS) environment (NO output of 1906, Fig. 19; ¶126, lines 8-9) [a GPS-denied or degraded environment]; and
preserving, based on the duration is less than the time threshold, prior position fix information from the prior GNSS session; and estimating a current position of the UE based on the prior position fix information (1911, Fig. 19; ¶118, lines 43-48; claim 15) [where inertial navigation propagates the previous position based on a change in position determined from the inertial measurements].
Soloviev teaches inertial navigation propagating a previous GNSS position where a duration between a prior GNSS positioning session and a current GNSS positioning session is less than a time threshold is verified (p. 2, final ¶ to p. 3, ¶1) [where inertial propagation is only used for a limited time because over time the position error becomes unacceptable].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure that an inaccurate position is not determined and output.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that only accurate position determinations are used.
In regard to claim 20, Smith discloses:
detecting that a user equipment (UE) is operating in a specified global navigation satellite system (GNSS) environment (NO output of 1906, Fig. 19; ¶126, lines 8-9) [a GPS-denied or degraded environment];
estimating a current position of the UE based on prior position fix information from the prior GNSS session (1911, Fig. 19; ¶118, lines 43-48; claim 15) [where inertial navigation propagates the previous position based on a change in position determined from the inertial measurements].
Smith fails to disclose verifying, in response to the detection that the UE is operating in the specified GNSS environment, that a duration between a prior GNSS positioning session and a current GNSS positioning session is less than a time threshold; and the estimating being based on the duration is less than the time threshold.
Soloviev teaches inertial navigation propagating a previous GNSS position where a duration between a prior GNSS positioning session and a current GNSS positioning session is less than a time threshold is verified (p. 2, final ¶ to p. 3, ¶1) [where inertial propagation is only used for a limited time because over time the position error becomes unacceptable].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to ensure that an inaccurate position is not determined and output.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that only accurate position determinations are used.
In the combination, the estimating being will be based on the duration being less than the time threshold.
In regard to claims 2 and 18, Smith further discloses the prior position fix information includes at least one of:
a previous location of the UE (claim 15),
a previous velocity of the UE, a time in which the prior position fix information is obtained,
elevation of a set of satellites associated with the prior GNSS positioning session, or
azimuth of the set of satellites associated with the prior GNSS positioning session.
In regard to claim 4, Smith further discloses identifying whether there is an external position injection (EPI) (1907, Fig. 19), wherein the estimation of the current position of the UE is further based on there being no EPI (NO output of 1907, Fig. 19).
In regard to claim 10, Smith further discloses receiving an indication to initiate the current GNSS positioning session; and initiating, based on the indication, the current GNSS positioning session prior to the detection that the UE is operating in the specified GNSS environment (1903 prior to the NO output from 1906, Fig. 19).
In regard to claim 11, Smith further discloses computing the current position of the UE based on a set of available satellites and without using the prior position fix information if there is at least one of:
a horizontal speed of the UE is above a speed threshold,
at least one external position injection (EPI) is available (YES output of 1907, Fig. 19 resulting in 1911 not occurring).,
a previous location and time of the UE is available, or
at least four satellites are available for GNSS-based positioning (YES output of 1906, Fig. 19 resulting in 1911 not occurring).
In regard to claim 12, Smith further discloses detecting at least one of:
receptions of GNSS signals from a set of satellites being below a reception threshold, or
a number of satellites available for GNSS-based positioning being less than four (¶69; ¶78; ¶118, lines 23-28).
In regard to claim 13, Smith further discloses outputting an indication of the estimated current position of the UE (1914, Fig. 19).
In regard to claim 14, Smith further discloses:
transmitting the indication of the estimated current position of the UE; or
storing the indication of the estimated current position of the UE (1914, 1915, Fig. 19).
In regard to claim 15, the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention for a UE to comprise a transceiver to transmit an indication of the estimated current position of the UE.
Claim(s) 3 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Soloviev, as applied to claims 1 and 17, above, and further in view of Ono (US 2004/0267840 A1) and Matsushita (JP 2014167460 A).
In regard to claim 3, Smith and Soloviev fail to disclose identifying whether a horizontal speed of the UE is within a defined range, wherein the estimation of the current position of the UE is further based on the horizontal speed of the UE being within the defined range.
Ono teaches performing positioning differently based on the application/state, including a walking state (Fig. 7), in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position (¶45; ¶85-86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the accuracy of the determined position is improved
Matsushita teaches identifying whether a horizontal speed of the UE is within a defined range [in order to determine a walking state] (abstract, lines 7-8; p. 17, ¶3, lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine when the apparatus is in a walking state in order to determine whether to implement the walking state positioning method of Matsushita.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the state of the apparatus (e.g. a walking state) is determined.
In the combination, the estimation of the current position of the UE is based on the apparatus being in a walking state which is based on the horizontal speed of the UE being within the defined range.
In regard to claim 19, Smith further discloses identifying whether there is an external position injection (EPI) (1907, Fig. 19), wherein the estimation of the current position of the UE is further based on there being no EPI (NO output of 1907, Fig. 19).
Smith fails to disclose identifying whether a horizontal speed of the UE is within a defined range, wherein the estimation of the current position of the UE is further based on the horizontal speed of the UE being within the defined range.
Ono teaches performing positioning differently based on the application/state, including a walking state (Fig. 7), in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position (¶45; ¶85-86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase the accuracy of the determined position.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the accuracy of the determined position is improved
Matsushita teaches identifying whether a horizontal speed of the UE is within a defined range [in order to determine a walking state] (abstract, lines 7-8; p. 17, ¶3, lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine when the apparatus is in a walking state in order to determine whether to implement the walking state positioning method of Matsushita.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the state of the apparatus (e.g. a walking state) is determined.
In the combination, the estimation of the current position of the UE is based on the apparatus being in a walking state which is based on the horizontal speed of the UE being within the defined range.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Soloviev, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Fraker (US 5,919,239 A).
Smith further teaches using the apparatus for military training and testing (¶56).
Smith and Soloviev fail to disclose identifying whether the prior position fix information includes a previous location and time of the UE, wherein the estimation of the current position of the UE is further based on the previous location and time of the UE being deleted.
Fraker teaches a UE that logs a location and time of the UE (Fig. 3; col. 2, lines 19-37), including initializing the logging by the previous location and time of the UE being deleted (236, Fig. 3; 520 to 522, Fig. 7A; col. 15, lines 38-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to record position and time information for training purposes. In the combination, the particular position and time logging being used includes deleting old position and time data when a new mission is initiated.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that position and corresponding time are logged, and that old position and corresponding time data are deleted when a new logging session is initiated.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Soloviev, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Bhatta (Global Navigation Satellite Systems: New Technologies and Applications) and Sun (US 2015/0142309 A1).
Smith further teaches, if determining a position based on inertial measurements fails, and error message is sent (1911 to 1912, Fig. 19).
Smith and Soloviev fail to teach multiplying a previous velocity of the UE with the duration to obtain an estimated distance, wherein the previous velocity of the UE is from the prior position fix information; computing a horizontal error position estimate (HEPE) based on the estimated distance; and computing the current position of the UE based on the computed HEPE.
Bhatta teaches multiplying a previous velocity of the UE with the duration to obtain an estimated distance, wherein the previous velocity of the UE is from the prior position fix information (p. 325, ¶1) [where the speed is the magnitude of the velocity, which in the discussed example is the previous velocity].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to be able to determine the position of the apparatus when determining the position based on inertial measurements fails.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a position can be calculated even when positioning based on inertial measurements fails.
Sun teaches computing a horizontal error position estimate (HEPE) based on an estimated distance corresponding to a duration (230, Fig. 2; ¶5-6; ¶43-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine the error of the dead reckoning position in order to determine when the error is small enough for the position to be used and when the position becomes too inaccurate to use.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the error of the dead reckoning propagated position is known.
In the combination the HEPE estimate is determined from the dead-reckoning distance, and the current position of the UE is based on the computed HEPE in that the position calculated by propagating the previous position and time based on dead reckoning combined with the HEPE gives the area in which the position of the UE is expected to be.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Soloviev, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Flawn (US 5,572,217 A).
Smith further discloses the desirability to cross-check measurements to maintain high accuracy, reliable navigation (¶126, lines 13-15).
Smith and Soloviev fail to teach estimating a steering of the UE based on at least one of elevation of a set of satellites associated with the prior GNSS positioning session or azimuth of the set of satellites associated with the prior GNSS positioning session from the prior position fix information, wherein the estimation of the current position of the UE is further based on the estimated steering of the UE.
Flawn teaches estimating a steering of a UE based on at least one of elevation of a set of satellites or azimuth of the set of satellites from the prior position fix information (col. 4, line 1 to col. 5, line 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to cross-check the steering/heading determined from the GNSS velocity direction to determine whether it is consistent or inconsistent with the heading determined based on the azimuth and elevation of the set of satellites.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that steering/heading measurements are cross-checked to see if there is any indication that the determined measurements are suspect.
In the combination the fact that the previous GNSS velocity direction associated with the prior GNSS positioning session was consistent with the steering/heading based on the azimuth and elevation of the set of satellites allowed the previous GNSS position to be accepted and thus available to be used to propagate to form a current position of the UE.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Soloviev, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Peeters (US 2011/0032148 A1) and Ishii (US 2005/0135194 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Smith further discloses identifying whether a number of satellites tracked is less than four (¶69; ¶78; ¶118, lines 23-28).
Smith and Soloviev fail to teach generating, based on the number of satellites tracked being less than four, a list of satellites by performing a time transfer from at least one satellite in the number of satellites to the list of satellites, wherein the estimation of the current position of the UE is further based on the list of satellites.
Peeters teaches generating a list of satellites, wherein the estimation of the current position of the UE is further based on the list of satellites (¶5) [where almanac is used to determine which satellites are present at a particular time so that those satellites can be searched for and, if possible, acquired and used in positioning].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow subsequent satellites to be acquired after a first satellite has been received by use of the almanac data from the first satellite, such that a sufficient number of satellites for positioning can be received.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that a GNSS position is helped to be determined/helped to be determined faster using almanac data.
Ishii teaches performing a time transfer from at least one satellite in the number of satellites (¶22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the UE a more accurate time measurement
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the time used by the UE is more accurate.
In in the combination, the UE has a more accurate time to use with the almanac data (i.e. time is an input into the almanac model, which outputs satellites positions corresponding to that time) to determine more accurate positions of GNSS satellites to allow acquisition of the GNSS satellites and thus GNSS positioning to occur.
In regard to claim 9, the Office takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it well known before the effective filing date of the invention that both (i) the code offset and the Doppler offset must have been acquired (tracking) and (ii) the code integer must have been determined (millisecond decode) for a satellite for that satellite to be usable for positioning. Thus, if the number of satellites that meet both (i) and (ii) is less than four, the number of usable satellites is less than four.
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Parkinson (Global Positioning System: Theory and Applications, Volume I), which teaches using four satellites for determining a GPS fix in order to solve for four unknowns, the latitude, longitude, attitude, and a correction to the user's clock (p. 10).
Steed (Network Graphics), which teaches the Basic Dead Reckoning equation (p. 371, section 11.7.1).
Yoo (US 2018/0073892 A1), which teaches estimating a steering of a UE based on at least one of elevation of a set of satellites or azimuth of the set of satellites from the prior position fix information (¶46-53).
Jarvis (US 2013/0002478 A1) teaches several methods of determining a code integer/millisecond decode (¶13-17) and determining a code integer/millisecond decode when no approximate position is available (¶110).
Bacelon (US 5,923,294 A), which teaches a UE transmitting the UE's current position using a transceiver (5A, Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 41-43 and 51-54; col. 3, lines 43-50).
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648