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 .
Response to Remarks
Claim Objections
Applicant addressed some of the objections to the claims via their amendments. However, some objected items remain unchanged, and Applicant has not provided any argument, reasoning, or explanation for the unaddressed objections, therefore said objections are maintained. See the updated section below.
Double Patenting
Statutory
The rejections of Claims 6 – 7 are withdrawn in light of Applicant cancelling these claims.
Non-Statutory; Anticipation-Type
The rejection type of Claims 1 – 5 and 8 – 13 is changed in light of Applicant’s amendment which introduces new matter rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) to the Non-Statutory; Obviousness-Type.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner furthermore notes that if originally filed Claim 6 were instead found to provide sufficient support for the amended subject matter of Claim 1 such that the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112(a) were not given, the rejection type of one or more of these claims would remain unchanged.
Non-Statutory; Obviousness-Type
Applicant’s amendments as demonstrated in the updated rejections below have not sufficiently distinguished the claimed inventions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
In light of the cancellation of Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 7 is withdrawn.
In light of Applicant’s clear statement that “checking” refers to the “checking” of Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 10 is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The particular nature of “how access to the control commands is restricted” remains generally vague within the amended limitations of the claims. For example, merely reciting “blocking … from being activated” is only slightly more specific than “restricting access”. The nature of the blocking is not claimed with any particularity. Additionally, Applicant does not describe or define most the terms of the claims such that the scope thereof is narrower than their plain meaning, which is often rather broad. For example, Applicant does not narrow the scope of “robot system”, “mobile operating device”, “presence device”, “configuration signal”, “user interface”, control command”, “safety-relevant”, etc.
Applicant’s particular argument with respect to [0110] of Matergia does not appear to align with the limitations of the claims. First, Applicant indicates that all the claim limitations are with respect to “functions on a portable interface” when Claim 14 is not so specific. Furthermore, it is unclear the point being made by stating that “all the functions for controlling an associated station ST are available to a user”. As indicated by even Applicant’s statement and as is made very clear by [0110] and the related context, the functions of non-associated stations are unavailable, not activated, etc. Applicant does not address this feature in their arguments and instead refers to restricting access to these activated features, which is vastly narrower than the claim limitations.
With respect to Claim 19, the claim terms and phrases are again particularly broad. With respect to [0110] of Matergia, if the portable interface unit is not connected to any stations, then consequently there would be no activated “functions of command and control” for any station. However, [0110] does not indicate that any other functions of the disclosed system are not activated, all of which may be considered “non-safety-relevant” as Applicant does not describe or define the term. Likewise, as indicated above, the “robot system” is not described or defined in any manner such that any particular component of Matergia is excluded. See for example [0089] “monitoring and/or control instructions” (emphasis added) and/or [0079] discussing various screen configurations.
Furthermore, Applicant is incorrect in stating that the disclosure of Matergia with respect to activated functions are limited to a connected device. Other variations are clearly disclosed (e.g. variously disclosed “global monitoring”).
Additionally, [0110] Matergia clearly discloses that only those stations that the portable interface unit is connected to, wherein “connected to” refers to preceding paragraphs such as [0105] – [0109] of a proximity/presence check may be activated in the interface. Therefore, all stations not “connected to”, in particular those “those functions of command and control” are not activated. This clearly reads on “restricting access” etc. of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection presented below does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The “control command” of the newly amended limitation is not necessarily ever used again (note the change to “a safety-relevant control command” in the final clause), nor do the activities of “subjecting …” or “determining …” appear to be integrated into the claim or dependent claims in any manner (the “releasing …” final clause appears entirely independent). It therefore is a trivial matter to modify Matergia or another reference to incorporate these features as they are not integrated into a greater solution, feature, etc. as similar features in original Claim 6 were.
Furthermore, it is believed that the limitations relied upon are new matter and have been rejected additionally under 35 USC § 112(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 – 10, 14, 16, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the term “the control command”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term and it should read “a control command”.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 14, 16, and 19 recite the term “the operating device”. For consistency and clear antecedent basis, it should read “the mobile operating device”.
Claim 9 recites the term “the control command contained in the received operating signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term and it should read “a control command contained in the received operating signal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
General Note 1:
Examiner notes that Applicant has made frequent use of phrases such as “for”, “designed”, “configured”, and “in particular”. In some cases, these terms may not amount to an actual positive recitation of a claim limitation and appear to only be provided for context of the actual limitations within the claim or otherwise indicate an intended result, use, or purpose of a preceding limitation. While Examiner has provided prior art which Examiner believes teaches these recitations, whether positively recited or not, Applicant is advised to review their claims and validate all claim limitations which Applicant desires to be clearly and positively recited. This may require amendment to more clear and precise phrasing or construction.
General Note 2:
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below in view of the prior art, as best understood by the Examiner, in light of any objections and 35 USC 112 rejections provided herein.
112(f):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Claim 9 recites the term “the control command contained in the received operating signal”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term and it should read “a control command contained in the received operating signal”.
A device first recited in Claim 11
A mobile operating device first recited in Claim 19
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
Non-Statutory; Obviousness-Type
Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 13, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 12 of U.S. Patent No. US 11926059 B2 in view of Matergia et al. (US 20170308050 A1) and/or alternatively, Sjoberg et al. (US 20070297890 A1), and/or alternatively Papp et al. (US 20180375199 A1). Many of the limitations are identical or broader, and as demonstrated in the prior art rejections below the above references alone or collectively disclose any of the missing limitations of the claims. Furthermore, there is no expectation that one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize these as obvious combinations and would have a reasonable expectation of success with these combinations. For example, and with respect to Claim 1 of the instant application, Papp discloses a means for independently and distinctly from a proximity/presence check performing a safety check of control commands according to a given safety criterion.
Claims 14 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 7 – 9, 12 of U.S. Patent No. US 11926059 B2 in view of Matergia et al. (US 20170308050 A1) and, or alternatively, Sjoberg et al. (US 20070297890 A1). Claims 14 – 20 are directed to the other half of the networked system claimed in Claims 1 – 13, namely that of the “mobile operating device” or “method for operating a robot system” with said device. These claims recite the other half of the system, but do so through limitations directed towards both halves and therefore claim and disclose many of the same functions, activities, etc. and the minor distinctions and gaps can readily be filled by Matergia or Sjoberg which as demonstrated below in the prior art rejections disclose all of these limitations even without the disclosure of the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 11926059 B2. For example, a claim of U.S. Patent No. US 11926059 B2 will have a limitation directed towards “transmitting” from one device to another whereas an instant claim will have a limitation directed towards “receiving” the same from another device, wherein the distinction between “transmitting” and “receiving” is simply a matter of perspective and inherently includes receiving or transmitting from another device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “subjecting each operating signal to a safety check that is independent and distinct from the presence check”. The recited support for this amendment is originally filed Claim 6 of the Claims and [0020] of the Specification.
However, the apparent potential support of Claim 6 recites “releasing the respective control command for execution by the robot system without, or independently of, a previous performance of the presence check or the result thereof only when …” and of [0020] recites “Only if this is not the case according to the result of this check, this control command is then released for the execution thereof on the robot system without or independently of a previous performance of the presence check or the result thereof”.
Original Claim 6 and [0020] thus make it clear that what is disclosed is a dependent condition under which a control command may be released without previously preforming a presence check or otherwise releasing a control command regardless of the results thereof (independently). In other words, a first “safety” check may be performed, and based on the results a second “presence” check or execution is performed. While it may appear a subtle distinction, this is still clearly distinct from a disclosure that the presence check and the safety check are independent, and especially that they are independent as well as distinct. Examiner additionally notes that the word “distinct” is not used at all in originally filed Claim 6, [0020], or [0021]. There is no disclosure that the checks cannot be the same
The only other location of potential support was found in [0021] which appears to merely provide a particular example of [0020]. Additionally, that the word “distinct” is not used at all in originally filed Claim 6, [0020], or [0021].
Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “determining whether the control command is safety-relevant according to a specified safety criterion for the robot system based on results of the safety check”. However, originally filed Claim 6 recites “the safety check determines whether the control command is safety-relevant to a specified safety criterion” and [0020] recites “each operating signal received via the second signal connection and containing a control command is subjected to a safety check prior to any release of this control command for the execution thereof on the robot system to determine whether this control command is safety-relevant according to a specified safety criterion”.
Therefore, only “determining whether the control command is safety-relevant according to a specified safety criterion for the robot system” appears disclosed, as what is disclosed is that the “safety check” is performed by “determining whether the control command is safety-relevant according to a specified safety criterion for the robot system”. There is no disclosure of making a determination according to a safety criterion based on another safety check or similar.
Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 2 – 5, 8 – 13, and 21, the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 2 – 5, 8 – 13, and 21 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Matergia et al. (US 20170308050 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Matergia teaches:
A method for operating a robot system (Examiner notes that “robot system” is broadly described in Applicant’s specification filed 01/30/2024, see at least [0003] “A robot system within the context of the invention is a system that has at least one robot. In addition, the system can optionally also have peripheral components for the robot(s), such as protective devices, workpiece or tool holders or trays, or exchangeable tools for the robot(s). In addition, a robot system has at least one control device for controlling the robot(s), in particular the drives thereof”. Under Applicant’s provided broad interpretation, essentially everything outside of the portable computer(s) TAB could be considered one or more “robot system”) with a mobile operating device that is provided for operating the robot system (See at least TAB variously called portable computer, portable human-machine-interface unit, portable interface unit, etc.), the method comprising:
periodically transmitting from the operating device a presence signal directed to the robot system via a short-range first signal connection (See at least [0084] “In particular, each identification element DK is set in a substantially predefined position and/or a position close to the respective subset of stations ST and enables detection of the presence of the portable human-machine-interface unit TAB in an area A”, [0094] and [0095] which discuss pairing, range, and bidirectionality of signals as well as [0097] “For instance, one of the devices 10 or 20 may be obtained via an RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification) tag, on which some data are stored, and the other device, 20 or 10 respectively, may be an RFID reader. In this case, when the portable interface unit TAB is brought into the range of action of the device DK, the RFID tag responds to the remote query from the RFID reader”, [0102] “For instance, in a first embodiment, the identification device DK periodically monitors the presence of portable computers TAB in its vicinity and, when the presence of a portable device TAB is detected, the device DK reads the code that is associated to the portable device TAB and that uniquely identifies a given portable device TAB, referred to hereinafter as TAB_ID”, and Figures 4A, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7);
after transmitting the presence signal, receiving a configuration signal from the robot system (See pairing process found in at least [0034], [0086] – [0087], and [0094] – [0095]), wherein the configuration signal includes information associated with a configuration request for the configuration of a user interface of the operating device (See at least [0107] “Instead, in the case where the portable computer TAB is configured for detecting the devices DK in its vicinity, the portable computer TAB reads the code DK_ID associated to the device DK, which in turn identifies a given area”);
configuring the user interface on the basis of the configuration request (See at least [0110] “In general, the pairing operation could also directly affect functioning of the applications installed on the portable device TAB or managed via the server SRV; for example, it could activate, on the portable interface unit TAB, the functions of command and control only for the stations ST that are associated to the control area A to which the portable interface unit TAB is connected up”, [0079], [0111] – [0114], and Figures 11A – 11E which discuss examples of how the configuration may vary); and
transmitting an operating signal directed to the robot system via a second signal connection formed independently of the first signal connection, in response to an associated input at the user interface configured in accordance with the configuration signal (See at least [0029] “In particular, the electronic control and processing unit associated to a given processing or assembly station authorizes and executes a control command generated by a portable human-machine-interface unit only if the electronic control and processing unit detects the presence of the portable human-machine-interface unit in the area close to the station”, [0115] “In the embodiments described previously two distinct communication channels are provided: a first communication channel (for example, the RFID communication channel in FIG. 5A) for detection of the position of the portable computer TAB; and a second communication channel (for example, the WiFi communication channel in FIG. 5A) for sending monitoring and control commands”, and Figures 4A, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7);
wherein the operating signal includes at least one control command selected from a plurality of control commands that operate the robot system (See at least [0087] “authorize and execute the control commands generated by the portable human-machine-interface unit TAB” and [0078] “For instance, not all the operators OP can have access to the function of global control and/or monitoring. Furthermore, certain operators OP may have access only to the functions of control and monitoring of a given control area A”); and
wherein configuring the user interface comprises restricting access to at least one of the plurality of control commands for transmission to the robot system via the operating signal by blocking at least one safety-relevant control command from being activated by a user (See again at least above and [0078] “Next, through an operation of authentication with the central computer SRV, the portable interface TAB sets, on the basis of the user profile returned by the central computer SRV, a predefined configuration in terms of functions and level of accessibility associated to the user profile recognized” wherein restriction might occur simply through restricting access via user profiles.
Furthermore, Matergia discloses blocking access when “the portable device TAB is not located in the same area A” or similar in [0105], and blocking based on MAC address and IP address in [0120] and [0121]).
Regarding Claim 15, Matergia teaches:
The method of claim 14, further comprising:
providing the presence signal, the operating signal, or both with a reference coding associated with the robot system, wherein the reference coding identifies that the corresponding signal is directed to the robot system (See at least [0107] “Instead, in the case where the portable computer TAB is configured for detecting the devices DK in its vicinity, the portable computer TAB reads the code DK_ID associated to the device DK, which in turn identifies a given area. In particular, preferably a short-range communication (i.e., of just a few metres) is used for pairing the portable device TAB with the identification device DK, and consequently the portable device TAB can detect only one device DK at a time” and [0108] “In this case, the portable computer TAB can include in a control command, not only the identifier of the station ST to be controlled, but also the identifier DK_ID of the identification device to which the portable computer TAB is paired”).
Regarding Claim 16, Matergia teaches:
The method of claim 15, wherein, in a pairing process, the method further comprises:
receiving at the operating device the reference coding associated with the robot system from the robot system (See at least [0107] “Instead, in the case where the portable computer TAB is configured for detecting the devices DK in its vicinity, the portable computer TAB reads the code DK_ID associated to the device DK, which in turn identifies a given area. In particular, preferably a short-range communication (i.e., of just a few metres) is used for pairing the portable device TAB with the identification device DK, and consequently the portable device TAB can detect only one device DK at a time”); or
generating and transmitting, by the operating device, the reference coding associated with the robot system prior to transmitting the presence signal (See at least [0108] “In this case, the portable computer TAB can include in a control command, not only the identifier of the station ST to be controlled, but also the identifier DK_ID of the identification device to which the portable computer TAB is paired”).
Regarding Claim 17, Matergia teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein configuring the user interface comprises:
configuring the user interface such that the operating options available for a user on the user interface are restricted so that the transmission of safety-relevant control commands to the robot system cannot be triggered by the user interface (See at least [0010] “Each station ST is typically equipped with at least one actuator means and/or one sensor means for carrying out and/or monitoring the operations performed in that station. For instance, the operations that are carried out in each station may be: assembly of some additional parts, welding, control of the quality of the welds, etc.” and [0110] “In general, the pairing operation could also directly affect functioning of the applications installed on the portable device TAB or managed via the server SRV; for example, it could activate, on the portable interface unit TAB, the functions of command and control only for the stations ST that are associated to the control area A to which the portable interface unit TAB is connected up”.
Examiner notes that Applicant, in [0012] of Applicant’s specification filed 01/30/2024, states “A "safety-relevant" control command within the context of the invention is to be understood as a control command for controlling the robot system which, when executed on the robot system, causes the robot system to execute one or more safety relevant actions, in particular actions that are potentially dangerous for objects or people in the vicinity of a robot of the robot system. In particular, movement commands, i.e. control commands which, when executed on the robot system, cause the robot system to execute one or more movements by a robot of the robot system, are each safety-relevant control commands within the context of the invention”. The operations described by Matergia clearly meet this description and would additionally be recognized as one of ordinary skill in the art as being of safety concern. Furthermore, the claim language is not particular to the number or type of safety-relevant control commands to be prevented and as discussed in the independent claim, “robot system” can be interpreted broadly in light of Applicant’s specification, for example as extending to multiple areas A1 – A4, etc.).
Regarding Claim 18, Matergia teaches:
The method of claim 14, wherein the first signal connection is designed as a short-range radio connection, in particular based on WPAN radio technology (See at least [0097] “For instance, one of the devices 10 or 20 may be obtained via an RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification) tag, on which some data are stored, and the other device, 20 or 10 respectively, may be an RFID reader”).
Regarding Claim 19, Matergia teaches:
A mobile operating device (See at least TAB variously called portable computer, portable human-machine-interface unit, portable interface unit, etc.), wherein the mobile operating device is designed to:
periodically transmit from the operating device a presence signal directed to a robot system via a short-range first signal connection (See at least [0084] “In particular, each identification element DK is set in a substantially predefined position and/or a position close to the respective subset of stations ST and enables detection of the presence of the portable human-machine-interface unit TAB in an area A”, [0094] and [0095] which discuss pairing, range, and bidirectionality of signals as well as [0097] “For instance, one of the devices 10 or 20 may be obtained via an RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification) tag, on which some data are stored, and the other device, 20 or 10 respectively, may be an RFID reader. In this case, when the portable interface unit TAB is brought into the range of action of the device DK, the RFID tag responds to the remote query from the RFID reader”, [0102] “For instance, in a first embodiment, the identification device DK periodically monitors the presence of portable computers TAB in its vicinity and, when the presence of a portable device TAB is detected, the device DK reads the code that is associated to the portable device TAB and that uniquely identifies a given portable device TAB, referred to hereinafter as TAB_ID”, and Figures 4A, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7.
Examiner notes that “robot system” is broadly described in Applicant’s specification filed 01/30/2024, see same discussion in Claim 14. Identification device DK is clearly a part of a robot system as described in Applicant’s specification. See at least Figure 1A, 4A and [0011] of Matergia for particular citations);
after transmitting the presence signal, receive a configuration signal from the robot system (See pairing process found in at least [0034], [0086] – [0087], and [0094] – [0095]), wherein the configuration signal includes information associated with a configuration request for the configuration of a user interface of the operating device (See at least [0107] “Instead, in the case where the portable computer TAB is configured for detecting the devices DK in its vicinity, the portable computer TAB reads the code DK_ID associated to the device DK, which in turn identifies a given area”);
configure the user interface on the basis of the configuration request (See at least [0110] “In general, the pairing operation could also directly affect functioning of the applications installed on the portable device TAB or managed via the server SRV; for example, it could activate, on the portable interface unit TAB, the functions of command and control only for the stations ST that are associated to the control area A to which the portable interface unit TAB is connected up”, [0079], [0111] – [0114], and Figures 11A – 11E which discuss examples of how the configuration may vary); and
transmit an operating signal directed to the robot system via a second signal connection formed independently of the first signal connection, in response to an associated input at the user interface configured in accordance with the configuration signal (See at least [0029] “In particular, the electronic control and processing unit associated to a given processing or assembly station authorizes and executes a control command generated by a portable human-machine-interface unit only if the electronic control and processing unit detects the presence of the portable human-machine-interface unit in the area close to the station”, [0115] “In the embodiments described previously two distinct communication channels are provided: a first communication channel (for example, the RFID communication channel in FIG. 5A) for detection of the position of the portable computer TAB; and a second communication channel (for example, the WiFi communication channel in FIG. 5A) for sending monitoring and control commands”, and Figures 4A, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7);
wherein, in response to the presence signal resulting in a determination that a presence criterion is not met, the user interface is configured such that operating options available for a user on the user interface are restricted so that only non-safety-relevant control commands to the robot system can be triggered by the user interface (See at least [0105] “the server SRV may not send the control command to the electronic control and processing unit PLC associated to the station ST if the portable device TAB is not located in the same area A, and/or the electronic control and processing unit PLC associated to the station ST may not execute the command if an instruction is received from a portable computer TAB that is not located in the same area” and [0109] “Consequently, also in this case the electronic control and processing unit PLC associated to the aforesaid station ST and/or the server SRV can enable or inhibit control of the station ST according to the position detected, and the portable device TAB can control only stations ST that are associated to the same area A. For instance, the server SRV may not send a control command to the electronic control and processing unit PLC associated to the station ST (or the electronic control and processing unit PLC associated to the station ST may not execute the command) if the station ST to be controlled is not located in the associated area A identified via the code DK_ID”. Examiner notes that under BRI, this disclosure alone discloses the limitations. However, in the interest of compact prosecution see also [0110] which is more particular to display functionality of a GUI, “In general, the pairing operation could also directly affect functioning of the applications installed on the portable device TAB or managed via the server SRV; for example, it could activate, on the portable interface unit TAB, the functions of command and control only for the stations ST that are associated to the control area A to which the portable interface unit TAB is connected up”).
Regarding Claim 20, Matergia teaches:
The mobile operating device of claim 19, wherein the mobile operating device is configured as a hand-held mobile multipurpose computer (See at least portable computer TAB and [0028] “In various embodiments, the human-machine interfaces described previously can be replaced by a portable computer, such as, for example, a mobile device, for example a computer of the tablet type, programmed for executing a plurality of functions, comprising global monitoring of the plant, local monitoring of each individual station, and local control of one of the stations”).
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.
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 – 5 and 8 – 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matergia et al. in view of Papp et al. (US 20180375199 A1) and Sjoberg et al. (US 20070297890 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Matergia teaches:
A method for automatically securing an operation (See at least [0010] “Each station ST is typically equipped with at least one actuator means and/or one sensor means for carrying out and/or monitoring the operations performed in that station. For instance, the operations that are carried out in each station may be: assembly of some additional parts, welding, control of the quality of the welds, etc.”) of a robot system (Examiner notes that “robot system” is broadly described in Applicant’s specification filed 01/30/2024, see same discussion in Claim 14. Under Applicant’s provided broad interpretation, essentially everything outside of the portable computer(s) TAB could be considered one or more “robot system”), wherein the operation is controlled by a mobile operating device (See at least TAB variously called portable computer, portable human-machine-interface unit, portable interface unit, etc.), the method comprising:
periodically receiving presence signals by the robot system via a short-range first signal connection, the signals being transmitted to the robot system by the mobile operating device configured for operation of the robot system (See at least [0084] “In particular, each identification element DK is set in a substantially predefined position and/or a position close to the respective subset of stations ST and enables detection of the presence of the portable human-machine-interface unit TAB in an area A”, [0094] and [0095] which discuss pairing, range, and bidirectionality of signals as well as [0097] “For instance, one of the devices 10 or 20 may be obtained via an RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification) tag, on which some data are stored, and the other device, 20 or 10 respectively, may be an RFID reader. In this case, when the portable interface unit TAB is brought into the range of action of the device DK, the RFID tag responds to the remote query from the RFID reader”, [0102] “For instance, in a first embodiment, the identification device DK periodically monitors the presence of portable computers TAB in its vicinity and, when the presence of a portable device TAB is detected, the device DK reads the code that is associated to the portable device TAB and that uniquely identifies a given portable device TAB, referred to hereinafter as TAB_ID”, and Figures 4A, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7);
transmitting a configuration signal derived from the result of a presence check to the operating device for requesting a configuration of a user interface of the operating device (See pairing process found in at least [0034], [0086] – [0087], and [0094] – [0095] as well as configuration related paragraphs [0107] “Instead, in the case where the portable computer TAB is configured for detecting the devices DK in its vicinity, the portable computer TAB reads the code DK_ID associated to the device DK, which in turn identifies a given area”, [0110] “In general, the pairing operation could also directly affect functioning of the applications installed on the portable device TAB or managed via the server SRV; for example, it could activate, on the portable interface unit TAB, the functions of command and control only for the stations ST that are associated to the control area A to which the portable interface unit TAB is connected up”, [0079], [0111] – [0114], and Figures 11A – 11E which discuss examples of how the configuration may vary), the user interface being provided for operating the robot system on the basis of the result of the presence check;
receiving an operating signal transmitted to the robot system by the operating device via a second signal connection designed to be independent of the first signal connection (See at least [0029] “In particular, the electronic control and processing unit associated to a given processing or assembly station authorizes and executes a control command generated by a portable human-machine-interface unit only if the electronic control and processing unit detects the presence of the portable human-machine-interface unit in the area close to the station”, [0115] “In the embodiments described previously two distinct communication channels are provided: a first communication channel (for example, the RFID communication channel in FIG. 5A) for detection of the position of the portable computer TAB; and a second communication channel (for example, the WiFi communication channel in FIG. 5A) for sending monitoring and control commands”, and Figures 4A, 5A, 5B, 6, and 7);
subjecting each operating signal to a safety check that is independent and distinct from the presence check, and determining whether the control command is safety-relevant according to a specified safety criterion for the robot system based on results of the safety check (See at least [0045] “By means of the filter device 50, only such control instructions 46′ and preferably also other communication messages 46 are forwarded to the communication bus 15, which are classified as safe, for which purpose a corresponding security criterion 51 for the filter device 50 is stored or provided”.
Examiner notes that Applicant, on Pages 3 – 4 of Applicant’s specification filed 12/6/2021, provides a statement as to an interpretation of a “a "safety-relevant" control command within the context of the invention”. Examiner furthermore notes that this interpretation is not clearly provided as a special definition, nor does it appear to diverge from potential interpretations under the ordinary and customary meaning. Finally, Examiner notes that the claim itself does not limit “safety-relevant” to any of the particular meanings disclosed in the specification, nor is the related “safety criterion for the robot system” specified with any particularity. Thus, the terms are open to particularly broad interpretation given that what is “safe” or “safety-relevant” is highly dependent on a particular context. See also that Matergia explicitly discusses instructions for actuators which inherently involves some form of motion, e.g. [0105])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the security/safety feature of Papp to ensure the safe remote operation of a robotic device in the system of Matergia with a reasonable expectation of success. Incorporation of this feature would increase the security and safety of the system of Matergia. Matergia also already discloses a sort of filtering, etc. though not necessarily with the context of safe or with as much specificity. See for example [0120] and [0121] discussing limiting executed commands to those originating from particular IP or MAC addresses or a firewall blocking commands in [0123].
Examiner notes that the following limitations may be considered taught by Matergia depending on the interpretation of particular terms and phrases. See [0102] through [0105] of Matergia. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, see Sjoberg which more explicitly teaches the following:
and
releasing a safety-relevant control command for execution by the robot system only when the presence check has ascertained that the last received presence signal satisfies a presence criterion which is specified with respect to the determination of a spatial proximity of the operating device to the robot system (See at least [0032] “According to the invention, the position of the TPU is determined continuously on the basis of a signal sent to the TPU from at least one reference station comprised in the position determining means. The signal is retransmitted from the TPU in the form of a reply signal, which is received by at least one receiving means comprised in the position determining means”, [0068] “The processor is provided to compare the position of the TPU with the position of a work area A. The processor 37 is further provided to break the data link 5 when the TPU 4 is positioned outside the work area A. Further, the processor 37 is provided to continue communication of the data link when the TPU is positioned within the work area A” and [0040] “In one embodiment of the invention, the data link is operable due to both a steady stream of command messages from the control unit to the TPU and messages in response from the TPU back to the control unit. The control unit is operable to break the data link through breaking the stream of command messages”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the more distance particular monitoring and command control link maintenance of Sjoberg in the system of Matergia or Matergian in combination with Papp with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more precisely control command flow. It may be desirable to have finer control of positioning affects than Matergia provides to create a more robust and accurate system.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Matergia, Papp, and Sjoberg teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Matergia further teaches:
wherein the safety-relevant control command is a movement command for the robot system (See at least [0010] “Each station ST is typically equipped with at least one actuator means and/or one sensor means for carrying out and/or monitoring the operations performed in that station. For instance, the operations that are carried out in each station may be: assembly of some additional parts, welding, control of the quality of the welds, etc.”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Matergia, Papp, and Sjoberg teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Matergia further teaches:
wherein the first signal connection is designed as a short-range radio connection, in particular based on WPAN radio technology (See at least [0097] “For instance, one of the devices 10 or 20 may be obtained via an RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification) tag, on which some data are stored, and the other device, 20 or 10 respectively, may be an RFID reader”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Matergia, Papp, and Sjoberg teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Matergia further teaches:
wherein the configuration signal is designed to request a configuration of the user interface (See pairing process found in at least [0034], [0086] – [0087], and [0094] – [0095] as well as at least [0107] “Instead, in the case where the portable computer TAB is configured for detecting the devices DK in its vicinity, the portable computer TAB reads the code DK_ID associated to the device DK, which in turn identifies a given area”) such that the operating options available for a user are defined on the user interface for the robot system on the basis of the result of the presence check (See at least [0110] “In general, the pairing operation could also directly affect functioning of the applications installed on the portable device TAB or managed via the server SRV; for example, it could activate, on the portable interface unit TAB, the functions of command and control only for the stations ST that are associated to the control area A to which the portable interface unit TAB is connected up”, [0079], [0111] – [0114], and Figures 11A – 11E which discuss examples of how the configuration may vary).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Matergia, Papp, and Sjoberg teaches:
The method of claim 4,
Matergia further teaches:
wherein, in response to the presence criterion not being satisfied according to the result of the presence check, the configuration signal is configured to request a configuration of the user interface such that the operating options available for a user on the user interface for the robot system are restricted so that no transmission of safety-relevant control commands to the robot system can be triggered by the user interface (See at least [0010] “Each station ST is typically equipped with at least one actuator means and/or one sensor means for carrying out and/or monitoring the operations performed in that station. For instance, the operations that are carried out in each station may be: assembly of some additional parts, welding, control of the quality of the welds, etc.” [0073] “For instance, operation of the portable device TAB may be managed via the central server computer SRV. For this reason, the application installed on the portable computer TAB could even be just a display, and the commands addressed to the electronic control/processing unit PLC could be generated directly by the server SRV, i.e., the server SRV could be a so-called “terminal server”, installed on which are all the control and monitoring applications, and the portable computer may have installed thereon a so-called “terminal client” that is connected to the aforesaid terminal server SRV”, [0109] “Consequently, also in this case the electronic control and processing unit PLC associated to the aforesaid station ST and/or the server SRV can enable or inhibit control of the station ST according to the position detected, and the portable device TAB can control only stations ST that are associated to the same area A”, and [0110] “In general, the pairing operation could also directly affect functioning of the applications installed on the portable device TAB or managed via the server SRV; for example, it could activate, on the portable interface unit TAB, the functions of command and control only for the stations ST that are associated to the control area A to which the portable interface unit TAB is connected up”. Examiner notes that in summary Matergia teaches monitoring the position of TAB, activating and deactivating interface functions which include display based on the positioning, and TAB potentially operating more simply as just an interface configured based on transmitted configuration information from a server based on the above. Furthermore,
“robot system” can be interpreted broadly in light of Applicant’s specification, for example as extending to multiple areas A1 – A4, etc. such that the system of Matergia may considered a robot system containing sub-robot systems within among other variable interpretations).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Matergia, Papp, and Sjoberg teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Matergia does not explicitly teach, but Sjoberg further teaches:
wherein the presence criterion is defined on the basis of at least one of:
a signal strength of a presence signal received at the robot system;
a measure for the possible occurrence of transmission errors in the presence signal received at the robot system;
an elapsed period of time since a last reception of a presence signal;
any change in an identification code of a radio access point or a routing for a radio connection of the operating device via the first signal connection, via the second signal connection, or via both signal connections, which change has taken place since the last reception of a presence signal, according to the corresponding information contained in the received operating signal; or
a distance value determined by a radio-based triangulation (See at least [0024] “In another embodiment of the invention, the position determining means is arranged to measure angle/direction. Two reference stations, provided with receiving means, are sending signals to the TPU and receive the retransmitted reply signal from the TPU. The position of the TPU is then obtained by triangulation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the more distance particular monitoring and command control link maintenance of Sjoberg in the system of Matergia or Matergia in combination with Papp including triangulation with a reasonable expectation of success in order to more precisely control command flow. It may be desirable to have finer control of positioning affects than Matergia provides to create a more robust and flexible system.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Matergia, Papp, and Sjoberg teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Matergia further teaches:
further comprising:
detecting a coding contained in a received presence signal, operating signal, or both;
checking whether the detected coding matches a reference coding associated with the robot system, and whether the received presence signal, operating signal, or both is directed to the robot system (See at least [0102] “For instance, in a first embodiment, the identification device DK periodically monitors the presence of portable computers TAB in its vicinity and, when the presence of a portable device TAB is detected, the device DK reads the code that is associated to the portable device TAB and that uniquely identifies a given portable device TAB, referred to hereinafter as TAB_ID” and [0107] “Instead, in the case where the portable computer TAB is configured for detecting the devices DK in its vicinity, the portable computer TAB reads the code DK_ID associated to the device DK, which in turn identifies a given area. In particular, preferably a short-range communication (i.e., of just a few metres) is used for pairing the portable device TAB with the identification device DK, and consequently the portable device TAB can detect only one device DK at a time”); and
blocking a release of the control command contained in the received operating signal, according to the detected coding, in response to the received presence signal, operating signal, or both not being directed to the robot system (See at least [0108] “In this case, the portable computer TAB can include in a control command, not only the identifier of the station ST to be controlled, but also the identifier DK_ID of the identification device to which the portable computer TAB is paired”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Matergia, Papp, and Sjoberg teaches:
The method of claim 9,
Matergia further teaches:
wherein, in a pairing process, the method further comprises:
defining the reference coding associated with the robot system prior to detecting, and transmitting the reference coding to the operating device (See at least [0102] “For instance, in a first embodiment, the identification device DK periodically monitors the presence of portable computers TAB in its vicinity and, when the presence of a portable device TAB is detected, the device DK reads the code that is associated to the portable device TAB and that uniquely identifies a given portable device TAB, referred to hereinafter as TAB_ID” and [0103] “Next, the identification device DK sends the aforesaid code TAB_ID with its own identifier, referred to hereinafter as DK_ID, to the respective electronic control and processing unit PLC and/or to the server SRV, signalling in this way the position of the portable device TAB, i.e., the control area A where the portable device TAB is located. In fact, the identifier DK_ID identifies not only a given device DK but also a given control area A”); or
receiving at the robot system the reference coding associated with the robot system from the operating device prior to checking (See at least [0102] “For instance, in a first embodiment, the identification device DK periodically monitors the presence of portable computers TAB in its vicinity and, when the presence of a portable device TAB is detected, the device DK reads the code that is associated to the portable device TAB and that uniquely identifies a given portable device TAB, referred to hereinafter as TAB_ID” and [0103] “Next, the identification device DK sends the aforesaid code TAB_ID with its own identifier, referred to hereinafter as DK_ID, to the respective electronic control and processing unit PLC and/or to the server SRV, signalling in this way the position of the portable device TAB, i.e., the control area A where the portable device TAB is located. In fact, the identifier DK_ID identifies not only a given device DK but also a given control area A”).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Matergia, Papp, and Sjoberg teaches:
… the method according to claim 1.
Matergia further teaches:
A device for securing the operation of a robot system, wherein operation of the robot system is controlled by a mobile operating device (See at least TAB variously called portable computer, portable human-machine-interface unit, portable interface unit, etc.), the device designed to execute …
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Matergia, Papp, and Sjoberg teaches:
The device of claim 11,
Matergia further teaches:
wherein the device is configured as a robot controller (See at least [0034] “Pairing between the portable interface unit and the identification device can also activate the functions of command and control of the assembly and/or processing stations associated to the identification device with which the tablet portable interface unit has carried out pairing”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Matergia, Papp, and Sjoberg teaches:
The device of claim 11,
Matergia further teaches:
wherein the first signal connection is designed as a short-range radio connection, in particular based on WPAN radio technology (See at least [0097] “For instance, one of the devices 10 or 20 may be obtained via an RFID (Radio Frequency IDentification) tag, on which some data are stored, and the other device, 20 or 10 respectively, may be an RFID reader”).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Matergia, Papp, and Sjoberg teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Matergia further teaches:
wherein, in response to the presence criterion not being satisfied according to the result of the presence check, the configuration signal is configured to request a configuration of the user interface such that the operating options available for a user on the user interface for the robot system are restricted so that only non-safety-relevant control commands to the robot system can be triggered by the user interface (See at least [0110] “In general, the pairing operation could also directly affect functioning of the applications installed on the portable device TAB or managed via the server SRV; for example, it could activate, on the portable interface unit TAB, the functions of command and control only for the stations ST that are associated to the control area A to which the portable interface unit TAB is connected up”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guerin et al. (US 10657802 B2) which discloses differing GUIs for robotic control and monitoring based on proximity to one or more robots. See for example different GUIs and related displayed control options, displayed information, etc. between Figures 1, 2, and 6.
Lee et al. (US 20210258382 A1) which discloses different data classification based on its essentiality to safe operation of a robot, in specific an autonomous vehicle. See for example [0040] “plurality of types of data may be classified into a low level to a high level based on whether it is data essential for the autonomous driving, and may be classified into a low priority order to a high priority order based on whether it is data essential for the safe autonomous driving”.
Kogan et al. (DE 102016211243 A1) which discloses concepts of “safety-critical commands” and limiting their execution thereof to dependent on proximity of a commanding device.
See for example “It can also be provided to permit safety-critical instructions on the input device only if a local proximity to the robot controller and / or to the robot has been established, in particular by the coupling to the safety basic control device, which then uses the robot controller, for example via a cable or a range-limited W-LAN, is connected” and later “However, the invention is intended to ensure that only that mobile terminal which is mechanically coupled to the safety basic control device can cause safety-critical commands, in particular movement commands, such as "robotic procedure", "start program", "open gripper". An inhibition of the execution of safety-critical commands does not necessarily have to be done by interrupting a communication between the mobile terminal and the robot controller. It is also possible that the safety-critical commands are transmitted via the communication link, but are not executed if a mechanical coupling of the mobile terminal and the security basic control device is missing”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657