fDETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 20, it describes first and second types of lidar sensors. However, the specification only describes LIDAR sensors as being ToF type sensors. [0022] provides a distinction between multiple types of optical sensors but fails to distinguish multiple types of LIDAR sensors. Since the intended scope of first and second types of LIDAR sensors is unknown, the Examiner has rejected claim 20 using a combination of visible light cameras and ToF sensors corresponding to what is described in the specification.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 20, it describes use of multiple types of LIDAR sensors but the only type of LIDAR sensor provides is a ToF sensor. Applicant suggests changing the dependency of claim 20 to one of the claims describe optical sensors rather than LIDAR sensors particularly and then use the support in [0022] to address the lack of written support issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1, 5, 7-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102014012203 (hereinafter Steinbichler).
Regarding Claim 1, Steinbichler discloses a metrology system, comprising:
a structure (combination of measuring table 1 and camera beam 3, see FIG. 1) that defines a bay (optical measurement volume 10) in which an object (object 11) for three-dimensional (3D) measurement is to be positioned;
a plurality of reference objects attached to the structure (reference marks 2 are shown attached to measuring table 1);
a plurality of optical sensors attached to the structure (cameras 4 are shown attached to camera bar 4),
wherein the plurality of reference objects are in fields of view of the plurality of optical sensors ([0031] describes how reference marks 2 face camera bar 3 allowing cameras 4 to be calibrated with respect to measuring table 1); and
a processing system, communicatively connected to the plurality of optical sensors, configured to:
cause the plurality of optical sensors (4) to measure ([0031] describes it being necessary for cameras 4 to measure the relative positions of measuring table 1 and camera bar 3 based on the detected positions of reference marks 2) the plurality of reference objects (2);
receive, from the plurality of optical sensors, data indicating distances between the plurality of optical sensors and the plurality of reference objects ([0031] describes the collected data from cameras 4 being used to calibrate the system by ascertaining the relative distance between measuring table 1 and camera bar 3, which would involve a determination of a distance between cameras 4 and reference marks 2);
compare the data to baseline data indicating baseline distances, between the plurality of optical sensors and the plurality of reference objects, measured by the plurality of optical sensors ([0031] describes the measuring system as being configured to operate based on a predetermined defined position of measuring table 1 relative to camera bar 3 and any variations from this distance would be part of the calibration applied to cameras 4 on camera beam 3); and
generate, based on differences between the data and the baseline data, a set of offsets to apply to one or more optical sensors of the plurality of optical sensors ([0031] describes applying a calibration to camera beam 3, which would be based on deviations of the distance between camera beam 3 and measuring table 1 varying from the predetermined defined position).
Regarding Claim 5, Steinbichler discloses the metrology system of claim 1, wherein the structure is on a surface ([0029] describes how the measuring table 1 is shown disposed on a container in an open state, which would have a surface upon which measuring table 1 rests), and
wherein one or more additional reference objects are attached to the surface (claim 1 requires two reference objects and the additional two reference objects 2 are also attached to the container by way of measuring table 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Steinbichler discloses the metrology system of claim 1, wherein one reference object, of the plurality of reference objects, is in fields of view of multiple optical sensors of the plurality of optical sensors ([0031] describes how reference marks 2 face camera bar 3 allowing cameras 4 to be calibrated with respect to measuring table 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Steinbichler discloses the metrology system of claim 1, wherein multiple reference objects, of the plurality of reference objects, are in a field of view of one optical sensor of the plurality of optical sensors (FIG. 1 shows camera 4 on the right side of camera bar 3, which would have visibility of the right two reference marks 2 and camera 4 on the left side of camera bar 3 would have visibility of the left two reference marks 2 since cameras 4 are responsible for monitoring measuring table 1 and optical measurement volume 10 directly above measuring table 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Steinbichler discloses a method, comprising:
causing, by a processing system, a plurality of optical sensors (cameras 4) to measure a plurality of reference objects (reference marks 2);
receiving, by the processing system from the plurality of optical sensors, data indicating distances between the plurality of optical sensors and the plurality of reference objects ([0031] describes it being necessary for cameras 4 to measure the relative positions of measuring table 1 and camera bar 3 based on the detected positions of reference marks 2);
comparing, by the processing system, the data to baseline data indicating baseline distances, between the plurality of optical sensors and the plurality of reference objects, measured by the plurality of optical sensors ([0031] describes the measuring system as being configured to operate based on a predetermined defined position of measuring table 1 relative to camera bar 3 and any variations from this distance would be part of the calibration applied to cameras 4 on camera beam 3); and
performing, by the processing system, one or more corrective actions for the plurality of optical sensors based on differences between the data and the baseline data ([0031] describes applying a calibration, i.e. corrective action, to camera beam 3, which would be based on deviations of the distance between camera beam 3 and measuring table 1 varying from the predetermined defined position).
Regarding Claim 10, Steinbichler discloses the method of claim 9, wherein performing the one or more corrective actions comprises:
generating, based on the differences between the data and the baseline data, a set of offsets to apply to one or more optical sensors of the plurality of optical sensors ([0031] of Steinbichler describes applying a calibration to camera beam 3, which would be based on deviations of the distance between camera beam 3 and measuring table 1 varying from the predetermined defined position).
Regarding Claim 12, Steinbichler discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of optical sensors and the plurality of reference objects are attached to a structure (see FIG. 1 showing cameras 4 attached to camera bar 3 and reference marks 2 attached to measurement table 1, where the combination of measuring table 1 and camera bar 3 anticipate the structure), and
wherein the plurality of reference objects are in fields of view of the plurality of optical sensors ([0031] describes how reference marks 2 face camera bar 3 allowing cameras 4 to be calibrated with respect to measuring table 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbichler in view of US PG PUB 20240241507 (hereinafter Witherspoon).
Regarding Claim 2, Steinbichler teaches the metrology system of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to:
identify that the data and the baseline data, with respect to an optical sensor, of the plurality of optical sensors, and a reference object, of the plurality of reference objects, differ by a threshold amount ([0031] of Steinbichler describes initiating a calibration operation in cases where a predetermined defined position differs by a threshold of a slight deviation),
wherein the data and the baseline data differing by the threshold amount indicates impairment of at least one of the optical sensor or the reference object; and
transmit a notification indicating that the at least one of the optical sensor or the reference object is impaired ([0031] describes initiating a calibration operation in cases where a slight deviation in the predetermined position varies by a slight deviation. However, Steinbichler is silent as to the issuing of notifications to a user. Examiner notes that the [0034] of the instant application gives an impairment example being for the sensor being out of specification and a sensor being an incorrect distance from the reference object would qualify as being impaired under the given definition).
However, Witherspoon describes issuing a notification to a user in response to the occurrence of a sensor driven event occurring (see [0021] describing generating an event related to a proximity sensor & [0052] describes that the controller uses an I/O device for interacting with and transmitting notifications to a user interacting with the controller’s user interface).
Steinbichler and Witherspoon both describe systems that involve the output of sensor data. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized the advantages of providing a notification to a user operating the system descried in Steinbichler and so it would have been obvious to modify the system of Steinbichler to notify the user when the sensors need to be calibrated due to a mispositioning of the sensors.
Regarding Claim 11, Steinbichler teaches the method of claim 9, wherein performing the one or more corrective actions comprises:
transmitting a notification indicating that the at least one of an optical sensor, of the plurality of optical sensors, or a reference object, of the plurality of reference objects, is impaired responsive to the data and the baseline data, with respect to the optical sensor and the reference object, differing by a threshold amount ([0031] describes initiating a calibration operation in cases where a slight deviation in the predetermined position varies by a slight deviation. However, Steinbichler is silent as to the issuing of notifications to a user. Examiner notes that the [0034] of the instant application gives an impairment example being for the sensor being out of specification and a sensor being an incorrect distance from the reference object would qualify as being impaired under the given definition).
However, Witherspoon describes issuing a notification to a user in response to the occurrence of a sensor driven event occurring (see [0021] describing generating an event related to a proximity sensor & [0052] describes that the controller uses an I/O device for interacting with and transmitting notifications to a user interacting with the controller’s user interface).
Steinbichler and Witherspoon both describe systems that involve the output of sensor data. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized the advantages of providing a notification to a user operating the system descried in Steinbichler and so it would have been obvious to modify the system of Steinbichler to notify the user when the sensors need to be calibrated due to a mispositioning of the sensors.
Claims 6, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinbichler in view of US PG PUB 20250093514 (hereinafter Ruhnau).
Regarding Claim 6, Steinbichler teaches the metrology system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the plurality of optical sensors are indirect time of flight (iToF) sensors.
However, Ruhnau teaches the use of a 3D sensor taking the form of an FMCW LIDAR, which is a type of iTOF sensor, to a caged support structure (see FIG. 3 and [0074]-[0076] of Ruhnau).
Ruhnau and Steinbichler both describe support structures for supporting optical sensors in precise positions to allow for accurate three dimensional analysis of objects. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the system described in Steinbichler to replace cameras 4 with lidar sensors (similar to FMCW LIDAR from Ruhnau). The person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (11/22/2023) would have been motivated to do so as attaching LIDAR devices to camera beam 3 would allow for scans of objects to be performed without the need for a user to laboriously touch each desired measurement point on object 11 and instead allow for LIDAR point clouds generated from multiple locations on camera bar 3 to provide a more thorough scan of object 11. Doing so would allow for a direct measurement of object 11 without relying upon cameras 4 to measure the pen 7, which could add additional errors in the surface measurement/characterization.
Regarding Claim 14, Steinbichler teaches the method of claim 9, but doesn’t teach the use of ToF sensors.
However, Ruhnau teaches wherein the plurality of optical sensors are time of flight (ToF) sensors. ([0074] – [0076] of Ruhnau teaches the use of FMCW lidar sensors for 3D measurements of objects).
Ruhnau and Steinbichler both describe support structures for supporting optical sensors in precise positions to allow for accurate three dimensional analysis of objects. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the system described in Steinbichler to replace cameras 4 with lidar sensors (similar to FMCW LIDAR from Ruhnau). The person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (11/22/2023) would have been motivated to do so as attaching LIDAR devices to camera beam 3 would allow for scans of objects to be performed without the need for a user to laboriously touch each desired measurement point on object 11 and instead allow for LIDAR point clouds generated from multiple locations on camera bar 3 to provide a more thorough scan of object 11. Doing so would allow for a direct measurement of object 11 without relying upon cameras 4 to measure the pen 7, which could add additional errors in the surface measurement/characterization.
Regarding Claim 15, Steinbichler teaches a metrology system, comprising:
a structure (combination of measuring table 1 and camera beam 3, see FIG. 1) that defines a bay (optical measurement volume 10) in which an object (object 11) for three-dimensional (3D) measurement is to be positioned;
a plurality of reference objects attached to the structure (reference marks 2 are shown attached to measuring table 1); and
a plurality of lidar sensors attached to the structure (cameras 4 are shown attached to camera bar 4, however while Steinbichler describes the use of a 3D sensor in [0038]-[0039] taking the form of a LiDAR sensor it does not specifically describe attachment of the lidar sensors to the structure),
wherein the plurality of reference objects are in fields of view of the plurality of lidar sensors ([0031] describes how reference marks 2 face camera bar 3 allowing cameras 4 to be calibrated with respect to measuring table 1),
wherein one reference object, of the plurality of reference objects, is in fields of view of multiple lidar sensors of the plurality of lidar sensors (Steinbichler is silent as to a specific field of view of each camera 4 but since it describes three linearly aligned cameras being capable of monitoring optical measurement volume 10 the cameras field of view would need to span at least a width of measuring table 1. [0031] describes the tracking system being calibrated by reference to the reference marks 2, the center positioned camera 4 is the farthest from any of reference marks 2 but would still have to be able to see at least one of reference marks 2 to meet Steinbichler’s calibration assertion. The result is that at least one of the reference marks 2 visible from the center camera 4 would be visible from the center camera sensor and a laterally positioned camera 4), and
wherein multiple reference objects, of the plurality of reference objects, are in a field of view of one lidar sensor of the plurality of lidar sensors (for the reasons cited in the earlier portion of claim 15, camera 4 on the right side of camera bar 3 would have visibility of the right two reference marks 2 and camera 4 on the left side of camera bar 3 would have visibility of the left two reference marks 2).
As referenced above, Steinbichler fails to teach the attachment of multiple LIDAR devices to the support structure.
However, Ruhnau teaches the use of a LIDAR sensor on a support structure ([0074]-[0076] of Ruhnau).
Ruhnau and Steinbichler both describe support structures for supporting optical measurement sensors in precise positions to allow for accurate three dimensional analysis of objects. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the system described in Steinbichler to replace cameras 4 with lidar sensors as taught by Ruhnau. The person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (11/22/2023) would have been motivated to do so as attaching LIDAR devices to camera beam 3 would allow for scans of objects to be performed without the need for a user to laboriously touch each desired measurement point on object 11 and instead allow for LIDAR point clouds generated from multiple locations on camera bar 3 to provide a more thorough scan of object 11. Doing so would allow for a direct measurement of object 11 without relying upon cameras 4 to measure a user manipulated pen’s position, which could add additional errors in the surface measurement/characterization.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Steinbichler and Ruhnau teaches the metrology system of claim 15,
wherein the plurality of reference objects are uniformly sized and shaped (FIG. 1 of Steinbichler shows circular reference marks 2 having uniform size and shape).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Steinbichler and Ruhnau as applied to claim 15 teaches the metrology system of claim 15, wherein a first set of the plurality of lidar sensors are a first type of lidar sensor (cameras 4 from Steinbichler) and a second set of the plurality of lidar sensors are a second type of lidar sensor (FMCW lidar sensors from Ruhnau).
As described above Steinbichler and Ruhnau are both directed to optical measurement systems and attaching the LIDAR sensors described by Ruhnau to the camera bar 3 taught by Steinbichler would allow for removal of the measurement pen from measurements. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would also find it obvious to add multiple lidar device to the camera bar 3 to allow the existing cameras 4 to confirm a distance of the camera bar 3 to measurement table 1 and then still allow for handsfree operation of the measurement system. Doing so would be obvious since Steinbichler already teaches a combination of CCD and 3D measurement sensors (see [0038] – [0039] of Steinbichler, Examiner notes that the instant application does not teach two different types of LIDAR sensors but only two types of optical sensors in [0022] where it gives example of the first type being a ToF sensor and the second type being a visible light camera. A reference showing two types of LIDAR sensors is not provided since it is unclear as to the desired meaning of multiple types of LIDAR sensors).
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Steinbichler and Ruhnau as applied to Claim 15 and further in view of US PG PUB 20190004177 (hereinafter Shand).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Steinbichler and Ruhnau teaches the metrology system of claim 15, but fails to teach the rest of Claim 16.
However Shand teaches wherein a distance between a lidar sensor, of the plurality of lidar sensors, and a reference object, of the plurality of reference objects, in a field of view of the lidar sensor, is greater than an unambiguous range of the lidar sensor ([0065]-[0068] of Shand discusses the problem of detecting an object beyond it’s nominal, i.e. unambiguous range and suggests applying a time-varying dither to the signal to produce multiple range solutions and then identify the highest confidence range data).
Shand and the combination of Steinbichler and Ruhnau both relate to LIDAR systems for making precise optical measurements. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the system of the combination of Steinbichler and Ruhnau by incorporating the time-varying dither to accurately detect objects outside their unambiguous or nominal range. In particular, Steinbichler shows the reference marks 2 farther from the centrally positioned camera 4 than the other two cameras. Applying dithering would help prevent instances where, e.g. when as described in [0126] of Shand reference marks are formed from retroreflective material and detected by the central camera 4 its range can still be identified and the sensors correctly calibrated.
Claims 3-4, 13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Steinbichler and Ruhnau as applied to Claim 15 and further in view of US PG PUB 20160320169 (hereinafter Becker).
Regarding Claim 3, Steinbichler teaches the metrology system of claim 1, but fails to teach the remainder of Claim 3.
However, Becker teaches further comprising one or more additional sensors communicatively connected to the processing system ([0003] describes how a sensor can be communicatively coupled to the processing system wirelessly),
wherein the one or more additional sensors comprise one or more of a temperature sensor or an accelerometer (See FIGS. 18 and 19 showing output of temperature sensors and accelerometers for identifying problematic environmentals likely to affect a sensor support structure, [0029] describes how thermal expansion causes changes in sensor readings and [0003] describes movement sensors being used to identify a physical bump applied to an object of interest that could impact sensor measurements).
Steinbichler and Becker both describe structurally supported sensors for measuring coordinates. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to add the accelerometer and/or temperature sensors taught by Becker since changes in temperature or abrupt impacts to the measuring equipment can cause defects in the measurement data, as described in [0003] and [0029] of Becker.
Regarding Claim 4. the combination of Steinbichler, Ruhnau and Becker as applied to claim 3 teaches the metrology system of claim 3, wherein the processing system is further configured to:
monitor sensor data from the one or more additional sensors ([0003] of Becker); and
identify an occurrence of an event based on the sensor data ([0042] of Becker describes generating an alert when the movement or large temperature swings are detected),
wherein the processing system is configured to cause the plurality of optical sensors to measure the plurality of reference objects responsive to the occurrence of the event ([0042] of Becker describes scaling measurements taken in accordance the detected shift in the support structure).
Regarding Claim 13, Steinbichler teaches the method of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the differences between the data and the baseline data are due to a temperature fluctuation that causes expansion or contraction of the structure.
However, Becher teaches wherein the differences between the data and the baseline data are due to a temperature fluctuation that causes expansion or contraction of the structure ([0029] describes how thermal expansion causes changes in sensor readings).
Steinbichler and Becker are both directed to optical sensor configurations. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have looked to Becker to understand how variations in temperature cause errors in measurements performed by optical systems attached to a support structure.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Steinbichler and Ruhnau teaches the metrology system of claim 15, but fails to teach the remainder of Claim 17.
However, Becker teaches further comprising one or more additional sensors attached to the structure ([0003] describes how a sensor can be attached to the part of interest, which would be the reference marks, smart stand or object being measured to detect movement),
wherein the one or more additional sensors comprise one or more of a temperature sensor or an accelerometer (See FIGS. 18 and 19 showing output of temperature sensors and accelerometers for identifying problematic environmentals likely to affect a sensor support structure, [0029] describes how thermal expansion causes changes in sensor readings and [0003] describes movement sensors being used to identify a physical bump applied to an object of interest that could impact sensor measurements).
Becker and the combination of Steinbichler and Ruhnau both describe structurally supported sensors for measuring coordinates. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to add the accelerometer and/or temperature sensors taught by Becker since changes in temperature or abrupt impacts to the measuring equipment can cause defects in the measurement data, as described in [0003] and [0029] of Becker.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Steinbichler and Ruhnau teaches the metrology system of claim 15, but fails to specifically teach a material for the support structure.
However, Becker teaches wherein the structure is composed of a material having a coefficient of thermal expansion of at least 8 parts per million per degree Kelvin (Becker teaches the use of a support structure made of Aluminum which has a thermal expansion of 24 parts per million per degree Kelvin. Examiner notes that while Steinbichler is silent as to choice of materials for the camera bar, however it would alternatively be obvious to use a material having a coefficient of thermal expansion of at least 8 parts per million per degree Kelvin since almost all structural materials have a coefficient of thermal expansion greater than 8 parts per million per degree Kelvin including plastics, aluminum, copper, steel, concrete and porcelain).
Becker and the combination of Steinbichler and Ruhnau both describe structurally supported sensors for measuring coordinates. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to form the support structure taught by the combination of Steinbichler and Ruhnau from Aluminum as taught by Becker since aluminum is compatible with the portable nature of the support structure described in Steinbichler.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights