DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the communication filed 2/24/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s arguments on pages 8-12 directed towards the previous 101 rejections,
Section A:
In this section, applicant argues that the instant claims are equivalent to those in Thales Visionix, and thus not abstract. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The primary issue raised in Thales was that features that would otherwise be identify as abstract, such as mathematical calculations, are not abstract when the mathematical concept is only based on or involves a mathematical concept, but instead is more or recites more than such a concept. As thus, the threshold issue here is whether the claim features at issue “are” themselves mathematical concepts, or if they only “involved” mathematical concepts but recite more than these concepts. The instant claims are distinguished from Thales because they are expressly directed towards mathematical concepts (e.g. calculations), and thus “are” a mathematical concept. The mere fact that sensor data is obtained and used does not preclude claimed mathematical relationships/calculations from no longer being abstract. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(c), “ A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation” (emphasis added).
In the instant case, all of the features of Claim 6, for example, beginning on line 13, are actually performed by a computer and are all mathematical calculations or relationships. Anything a computer does is math, as this is how computers operate. The steps identified by applicant, such as the determination of a property, is math, as any determination is performed by the computer. As such, whether under a broadest reasonable interpretation, or actually interpreting the feature as disclosed, it is a computation that is being performed when applicant recites the claim features beginning on line 13 of Claim 6.
While applicant cites Thales, applicant does not reasonably identify why the claim features are more than just mathematical relationships/calculations, in that applicant does not reasonably identify why these claim features involve anything more than an abstract idea.
Also, while applicant does recite additional elements in the claims, the Examiner respectfully notes that the data relied upon by any computer must come from somewhere, and the mere fact that this data comes from sensors or from any other source does not prevent the identified claim features from being deemed abstract. Otherwise, the Examiner respectfully notes that no abstract idea would ever exist. Instead, the addition elements are conventional as demonstrated by the noted prior art below, and further, the additional elements are field of use and necessary data gathering features, as the computer would not be able to perform the abstract idea without these features, thus preempting the abstract idea. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(g), insufficient extra-solution activity includes those features that are well-known and those that amount to necessary data gathering. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Section B:
Applicant then argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the additional elements of the claim are a significant part of the claim and integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant further argues that “These steps can only be completed with an aerial detector.”
The Examiner first notes that if the steps can only be completed with the additional elements, then the claim must preempt the abstract idea. This is because this argument means that the only way the abstract idea can be implemented is with those features recited, and thus any person of ordinary skill in the art, attempting to implement the abstract idea, must use the structural features as recited. Because no other way would exist to exercise the abstract idea, the structural features argued by applicant cannot amount to a practical application, because no other way to implement the abstract idea would exist, and thus the claim limitation at issue would preempt all uses of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
That stated, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the structural features (additional elements) integrate the claim feature into a practical application. The structural features of the claim merely provide the required data necessary for the implementation of the abstract idea, and thus amount to mere field of use and mere data gathering features necessary, per applicant’s above noted admission, for the implementation of the abstract idea.
These additional elements do not reasonably use or otherwise implement an end result of the abstract idea into any practical manner that would reasonably be significantly more than the abstract idea. In fact, the claim itself ends with just the abstract idea’s determination step, with no further recitation in Claim 6, for example. While claims must considered in their entirety, the features are argued by applicant as practical applications are instead merely conventional features used by applicant, as evidenced by the references below, to obtain the necessary data to be able to practice the abstract idea. Such additional elements, are conventional, field of use, and mere data gathering features, and thus cannot amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) explains that “A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional element(s) demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the additional elements apply or use the recited judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.”
Here, the MPEP is explaining that a practical application is, in general, a use or application of the abstract idea in some meaningful manner. A practical application is therefore not those additional elements that come before the abstract idea, especially those that are conventional, field of use, or mere necessary data gathering features. Instead, a practical application is one that uses or applies the very abstract idea in some meaningful manner. No claim feature reasonably implements or otherwise applies the abstract idea, as the claims, such as Claim 6, end with the abstract idea itself, with no application of it claimed.
Next, applicant argues that both Claims 6 and 10 require the use of a sensor module, and that the integration of features, such as the smartphone, play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed. The Examiner respectfully notes that any feature necessary to obtain the data needed to implement the method plays a significant role, but such features are still necessary data gathering, as essentially admitted by applicant. Even here, applicant is arguing the importance of the claimed structure as it is “required to conduct the additional step of obtaining relevant magnetic field and location data.” However, when a feature is “required,” or synonymously, “necessary,” to obtain the data for the abstract idea, it is by definition a feature that is “necessary data gathering,” which has been expressly held to not be significantly more than the abstract idea, because it is insufficient extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). This is because necessary data gathering must preempt the abstract idea, as it covers what is necessary to perform the abstract idea, and thus covers all uses of such data gathering.
That stated, the features argued by applicant are conventional, regardless of their level of importance to the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the aerial detector is a particular machine because the steps can only be performed by the aerial detector device. However, this admission is evidence that the aerial detector device is necessary, and thus necessary data gathering as no other way could be used to implement the claim features. As such, the claim preempts the abstract idea as those features currently claimed are necessary, and the method could not be reasonably practiced using any other device. That stated, the aerial detector device, respectfully, is not the type of particular machine referred to in the MPEP. Merely because structural features are claimed does not make them a particular machine. As best understood, applicant is using a commercially available UAV, commercially available smartphone including a magnetometer and GPS, and is merely using them to obtain the same types of data and fly in similar manner as would be done in any other application. While the manner in which the data from the sensors are processed may be different than is commonly and conventionally performed using these devices, nothing about these devices themselves are more than the generic devices commercially available and used in a similar manner on a day to day basis.
As explained in MPEP 2106.05(b), “It is noted that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility.” MPEP 2106.05(b)(I) “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.”
The Examiner further respectfully notes that nothing about the claimed machine “implements” the abstract idea in any manner. While the argued machine is initially recited to obtain the necessary data to perform the method, the method is not claimed to be performed by any of the structural features of the claim. None of the claimed structural components are claimed to implement any aspect of the claimed method. The data processing steps of this method could, for example, be processed using ground based equipment. The claimed structural features are therefore not a particular machine. That stated, even if such features were a particular machine, as explained above, such a feature does not by itself necessarily overcome a 101 rejection, especially when such features are conventional features and those necessary to implement the abstract idea (necessary data gathering).
Applicant then argues that in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the smartphone does not function as a mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, and that the use of the smartphone does not provide a speed mechanism that allows various data to be obtained more quickly as using discrete components could have been used to perform this feature in the same amount of time. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant early expressly states that a smartphone is “required” to conduct the steps of obtaining magnetic field data and location data. Per this admission, discrete components, as now argued, could not have been used because applicant expressly states that the smartphone is required to implement the type of data gathering being argued.
Second, there is no evidence on the record to support applicant’s arguing that discrete components would perform the data gathering at a different speed the a smartphone. A smartphone is nothing more than a computer, which is reasonably capable of processing data from multiple sources simultaneously, through, for example, parallel processing. The smartphone has the same “discrete” components noted by applicant, in that a discrete GPS sensor and magnetometer must exist inside the smartphone, which are subsequently connected to a microprocessor (computer). Whether these features are connected in an overall integrated device like a smartphone, or are separate components connected via wires, they will process the data at substantially the same speed and have substantially the same capabilities. In fact, computers routinely process data simultaneously or at near simultaneous speeds, and there would no appreciable difference between discrete elements, such as a GPS and magnetic sensor attached to a computer, or having such features integrated into a smartphone, with regard to data collection and processing. Applicant, respectfully, has not submitted any evidence to support this position, but where evidence is necessary (see MPEP 2145(I)).
That stated, regardless of whether a smartphone is or is not required does not have any impact of Step 2A, Prong Two, As explained above, this prong is directed towards a practical application, which, in general, is one in which the uses or otherwise applies the abstract idea in some meaningful manner. Here, neither the smartphone or any other argued feature reasonably perform such a function, as these argued features are at most those conventional and necessary to obtain the data needed for the abstract idea, but do not do anything practical with the data once obtained. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As to the arguments on pages 13-19 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
These rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments and amendments.
As to the arguments on pages 19-25 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
These rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments and amendments, except for the rejection of Claim 20.
In applicant’s response to this rejection, applicant arguing that reciting “further comprising” means that applicant is adding an additional step. The Examiner acknowledges that the phrase “further comprising” does reasonably mean that an additional feature is being added, but referring to a previous step not already claims raises a reasonably question as to whether applicant is intending all features following the phrase “further comprising” to be new, or if applicant intends some of the phrase to refer back to features already recited. None of the cited examples by applicant show the same situation at issue, and in general, the terms “the” or “said” are used for antecedent basis and refer back to some previously recited feature. The examples cited by applicant, respectfully, pertain to abstract ideas, and not 112(b) issues and whether such claim language would or would not be proper under 112(b). As such, reciting “the step of generating” is reasonably referring back to a previous step of generating. When no prior art of generating is recited, it is unclear what step applicant is referencing, especially when more than one step of generating can exist in the disclosure. Placing such a feature after the phrase “further comprising” further renders this feature as indefinite because it raises the question of whether the feature is being added as argued. The Examiner respectfully notes that applicant can easily remedy the situation by replacing the term “the” with “a,” thus overcoming the noted issue. That stated, applicant continues to use the antecedent term “the,” and the previous issue is therefore repeated.
With regard to the arguments on pages 26-29 directed towards the previous 102 rejection in view of Kim et al. (Kim) (Feasibility of employing a smartphone as the payload in a photogrammetric UAV system),
These arguments are respectfully moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
With regard to the arguments on pages 29-33 directed towards the previous 103 rejections of Nikulin et al. (Nikulin) (US 2021/0372793) in view of Barnes et al. (Barnes) (US 2017/0336203),
As to Claim 1,
Applicant initially argues that the above combination fails to disclose the use of a magnetometer and GPS unit within a smartphone for the cost-effective identification of orphaned oil and gas wells. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claims do not recite a cost-effective identification. Second, Nikulin is expressly directed towards a similar concept as applicant, in that it uses a magnetometer/GPS system attached to a UAV to conduct surveys to identify abandoned wells. Barnes is solely relied upon to teach in the idea that a smartphone, which already includes similar types of devices used in Nikulin could be used, and the combination reasonably discloses the claim features.
Applicant then argues that Nikulin uses and is equipped with various types of sensors, but the Examiner respectfully notes that 1) such a disclosure does not prevent Nikulin from disclosing the claim features, and 2) it is the combination of Nikulin in view of Barnes, and not Nikulin individually that discloses the claim features. Note that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant then acknowledges that smartphone used in Barnes, but then argues that nothing in Barnes suggests the use of a magnetometer within the smartphone for detecting specific metal objects in the ground. The Examiner respectfully notes that Barnes is not required to disclose such a feature, as it is the combination that discloses the claim features. Barnes expressly discloses the use of smartphone to be attached to a UAV and operate obtain various measurements during a survey (Paragraphs [0043],[0059],[0072]). The device used in Barnes is the same type of device implemented by applicant, and thus such a device inherently must be able to be used for the same purpose as applicant. In short, the combination is merely substituting or at least augmenting the sensors already disclosed in Nikulin to allow for the use of a smartphone. Because a smartphone must capable of the type of sensing performed in Nikulin, as even evidenced by Kim et al. (Kim) (Feasibility of employing a smartphone as the payload in a photogrammetric UAV system), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the combination could be used to practice the claim features.
Applicant argues that Nikulin does not disclose the step of automatically identifying one or more target-specific magnetic anomaly signatures by comparing the geolocated magnetic field data against a computer database of magnetic anomaly signatures that include the one or more target-specific well magnetic anomaly signatures, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0105][0151],[0189] reasonably disclose such a feature, because Nikulin expressly discloses that the UAV and sensor systems autonomously perform this feature, which is reasonably therefore automatic, and where training data is labeled abandoned wells (one or more target-specific magnetic anomaly signatures), and the model is reasonably comparing against this data to identify a match or target well so similar to the stored data that it is identified as a target-specific magnetic anomaly signature.
Applicant then argues that Barnes discloses the use of a smartphone for taking pictures, and nothing in Barnes suggests the use of magnetometers or the identification of target-specific well magnetic anomaly signatures. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner again notes that it is the combination that discloses the claim features, and not any reference individually. There is no requirement that either reference disclose all of the claim features argued by applicant, and instead it is the combination that discloses these features. Second, Barnes expressly discloses that the smartphone use goes well beyond “taking pictures” as argued, as Barnes expressly discloses the use of “one or more sensors 326 including, but not limited to, accelerometers, gyroscopes, compasses, magnetometer, light sensors, near field communication transceivers, barometers, humidity sensors, temperature sensors, proximity sensors, lasers, range finders (e.g., laser-based), and/or other sensors/devices for sensing and measuring various environmental conditions” (Paragraph [0043]). As such, Barnes is expressly disclosing the use of various sensors, including a magnetometer, for measuring aspects of the local environment. Such a measurement is the same use of a magnetometer as applicant, and in the combination, the prior art discloses the claim features.
As to Claim 10,
Applicant then argues that Nikulin does not disclose 1) identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data by removing from geolocated magnetic field data the baseline magnetic field information for the survey area, and 2) automatically identifying one or more target-specific magnetic anomaly signatures by comparing the geolocated magnetic field data against a computer database of magnetic anomaly signatures that include the one or more target-specific well magnetic anomaly signatures. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
No specific arguments are presented as to why the prior art fails to disclose the above argued claim features, but the Examiner respectfully notes that Mikulin expressly discloses that the manner in which the raw data from the sensors attached to the UAV is corrected is by way of removing sensor errors. The final data, after this removal, is identified geolocated magnetic anomaly data.
As to the automatically identifying feature argued, the Examiner has already provided a response above to this feature, and applicant’s attention is directed to the above response.
Applicant then argues that Barnes does not disclose obtaining magnetic field measurements, but the Examiner has already explained above that Barnes expressly discloses such a feature, and is not merely directed towards capturing images as argued. The prior art combination reasonably discloses the claim features for the reasons noted above and in the rejections found below, and the Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
As to Claim 13,
Neither Nikulin nor Barnes are relied upon for the now claimed sensor housing, and applicant’s attention is directed to the response found below.
As to Claim 14,
Applicant then argues that the prior art combination, including Connor (US 2022/0005191), do not disclose the now claimed separation of the sensor housing from the UAV by 1.5 meters. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Connor discloses the use of straps to attach a smartphone, in a housing, to a UAV, it is the combination of the prior art references that discloses the argued claim feature. Nikulin expressly discloses the importance of separating the magnetometer from the UAV by at least 1.7 meters using a tether, and in the combination, the prior art would therefore disclose the claim feature. A person of ordinary skill in the art, starting with Nikulin, would understand the importance of maintaining an approximately 1.5m distance between the UAV and magnetometer, and would further understand that straps/tethers must used of that length, especially as disclosed in Nikulin. As such, in the combination, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that any combination teaching in a smartphone as the device that uses the magnetometer must likewise maintain such a spacing, thus disclosing the claim feature. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (judicial exception) without significantly more.
As to Claim 6,
Step 1: This Claim is a process claim as it is directed towards a method of locating a ferromagnetic target, and therefore directed towards one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One: This claim recites “associating the magnetic field measurements with corresponding location information to produce geolocated magnetic field data; identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data based on increases in the intensity of the magnetic field measurements within the survey area; automatically identifying one or more target-specific well magnetic anomaly signatures by comparing the geolocated magnetic field data against a computer database of magnetic anomaly signatures that include the one or more target-specific well magnetic anomaly signatures; and determining the location of the ferromagnetic target from the location information associated with the target-specific well magnetic anomaly signature” on lines 13 to the end. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, these features are directed towards mathematical concepts, for example mathematical relationships and calculations. All of the above steps recited, as best understood, are being performed by a computer (see paragraph [0044]), and thus all steps are relying upon mathematical calculations by the computer to perform the claimed associating, identifying, automatically identifying, and determining claim steps. This is further evidenced by the claim expressly reciting that the automatically identifying step is performed by way of a comparing step against a computer database. These features are all therefore directed towards an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because nothing in the claim utilizes or implements the above abstract idea into any practical application. Nothing in the claim, for example, uses the determined location of the target in any meaningful manner or practical application.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the remaining features of the claim are conventional, and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The remaining claim features are “providing an aerial detector device that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit, wherein the sensor module is a smartphone; launching the aerial detector device into the survey area; activating the magnetometer and GPS unit, flying the aerial detector device over the survey area, making magnetic field measurements with the magnetometer while the aerial detector device is flying over the survey area, making location information measurements with the GPS unit while the aerial detector device is flying over the survey area” as recited on lines 3-12, and these features are identified as additional elements.
US 2017/0336203 to Barnes et al. (Barnes) discloses providing an aerial detector device that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Figure 1),(Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note a smartphone which includes a magnetometer and GPS is mounted to a flying drone), wherein the sensor module is a smartphone (Paragraph [0004]); launching the aerial detector device into the survey area (Figures 1,4); activating the magnetometer and GPS unit (Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note this is a property of the system because merely turning these devices on meets this limitation) flying the aerial detector device over the survey area (Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note this is a property of the system because merely turning these devices on meets this limitation), making magnetic field measurements with the magnetometer while the aerial detector device is flying over the survey area (Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note this is a property of the system because merely turning these devices on meets this limitation), making location information measurements with the GPS unit while the aerial detector device is flying over the survey area (Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note this is a property of the system because merely turning these devices on meets this limitation).
Kim et al. (Kim) (Feasibility of employing a smartphone as the payload in a photogrammetric UAV system) discloses providing an aerial detector device that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Figure 3B),(Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column), wherein the sensor module is a smartphone (Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column); launching the aerial detector device into the survey area (Figures 3B), (Abstract); activating the magnetometer and GPS unit (Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column / note this is a property of the system by merely during the device on), flying the aerial detector device over the survey area (Page 3), making magnetic field measurements with the magnetometer while the aerial detector device is flying over the survey area (Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column / note this is a property of the system by merely during the device on),, making location information measurements with the GPS unit while the aerial detector device is flying over the survey area (Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column / note this is a property of the system by merely during the device on),
The additional elements therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they have been demonstrated to be conventional. Additionally, as explained in Step 2A, Prong Two, no element of the claim reasonably integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, while the above features have been demonstrated to be conventional, they are also field of use limitations necessary for the implementation of the abstract idea. Without these limitations, location information and magnetic field measurements cannot be correlated or associated, and then used in the claimed manner. Thus, these limitations are field of use and necessary data gathering limitations that are necessary to implement the abstract idea, and thus preempt the abstract idea. As such, the above claim stands rejected for being directed to an abstract idea without claiming significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 7,
This claim only further defines the determination step of Claim 6, and is therefore also directed towards an abstract idea for the same reasons as noted in the above rejection of Claim 6.
As to Claim 8,
This claim recites “obtaining baseline magnetic field information for the survey area.” This phrase is reasonably directed to mere data gathering as the it merely recites the gathering of baseline information without reciting any additional features. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Only to the extent that it is held that the above phrase is not mere data gathering, then this phrase can also reasonably be considered a mathematical concept. Applicant does not reasonably define what the “obtaining” is in the claim, and under a broadest reasonably interpretation, such a phrase can reasonably be interpreted as a mathematical calculation. Such a phrase is a mathematical calculation because the obtaining is reasonably a device, such as a processing, that determines the above data from some other device.
Only to the extent that it is held that the above phrase is not mere data gathering or a mathematical concept, this phrase would therefore be an additional element. However, all of the above references cited as evidence with Claim 6 must perform this step. Any initial data obtained by the smart phone can be considered baseline magnetic field information. Furthermore, the only reasonably way that a smartphone can compute its orientation upon being turned on is to establish a baseline from which to reasonably identify what magnetic direction the phone is oriented with respect to. As such, the above references also reasonably establish that this claim feature is conventional, and thus not significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 9,
This claim only further defines one of the identifying steps of Claim 6, and is therefore also directed towards an abstract idea for the same reasons as noted in the above rejection of Claim 6.
As to Claim 10,
Step 1: This Claim is a process claim as it is directed towards a method of locating an orphaned well, and therefore directed towards one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One: This claim recites “coupling the magnetic field measurements with corresponding location information to produce geolocated magnetic field data; identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data by removing from the geolocated magnetic field data the baseline magnetic field information for the survey area; automatically identifying one or more target-specific magnetic anomaly signatures by comparing the geolocated magnetic field data against a computer database of magnetic anomaly signatures that include the one or more target-specific well magnetic anomaly signatures, and determining the location of the orphaned well from the location information associated with the well magnetic anomaly signature” on lines 13 to the end, which are directed towards mathematical concepts, for example mathematical relationships and calculations, under a broadest reasonable interpretation. All of the above steps recited, as best understood, are being performed by a computer (see paragraph [0044]), and thus all steps are relying upon mathematical calculations by the computer to perform the claimed coupling, identifying, automatically identifying, and determining claim steps. This is further evidenced by the claim expressly reciting that the automatically identifying step is performed by way of a comparing step against a computer database. These features are all therefore directed towards an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because nothing in the claim utilizes or implements the above abstract idea into any practical application. Nothing in the claim, for example, uses the determined location of the orphaned well in any meaningful manner or practical application.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the remaining features of the claim are conventional, and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The remaining claim features are “providing an aerial detector device that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit, wherein the sensor module is a smartphone; launching the aerial detector device into the survey area; activating the magnetometer and GPS unit; flying the aerial detector device through the survey area, using the aerial detector to obtain baseline magnetic field information for the survey area; using the aerial detector device to take magnetic field measurements and location information within the survey area” as recited on lines 4-12, and these features are identified as additional elements, mere data gathering, and field of use limitations.
US 2017/0336203 to Barnes et al. (Barnes) discloses providing an aerial detector device that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Figure 1),(Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043]), wherein the sensor module is a smartphone (Figure 1),(Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043]); launching the aerial detector device into the survey area (Figures 1,4); activating the magnetometer and GPS unit (Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note this is a property of the system because merely turning these devices on meets this limitation); flying the aerial detector device through the survey area (Figures 1,4); using the aerial detector to obtain baseline magnetic field information for the survey area (this can be the data obtained when first turning the device on or the first survey data obtained, and that the only reasonably way that a smartphone can compute its orientation upon being turned on is to establish a baseline from which to reasonably identify what magnetic direction the phone is oriented with respect to) (Figure 1),(Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043]), using the aerial detector to obtain magnetic field measurements and location information within the survey area (Figures 1,4), (Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note this is a property of the system because merely turning these devices on meets this limitation),
Kim et al. (Kim) (Feasibility of employing a smartphone as the payload in a photogrammetric UAV system) discloses providing an aerial detector device that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Figure 3B),(Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column), wherein the sensor module is a smartphone (Figure 3B),(Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column), launching the aerial detector device into the survey area (Figures 1,4); activating the magnetometer and GPS unit (Paragraphs [0004],[0041],[0043] / note this is a property of the system because merely turning these devices on meets this limitation); flying the aerial detector device through the survey area (Figure 3B, (Abstract)); using the aerial detector to obtain baseline magnetic field information for the survey area (this can be the data obtained when first turning the device on or the first survey data obtained, and that the only reasonably way that a smartphone can compute its orientation upon being turned on is to establish a baseline from which to reasonably identify what magnetic direction the phone is oriented with respect to) (Figure 3B),(Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column), using the aerial detector device to obtain magnetic field measurements and location information within the survey area (Figure 3B),(Page 3, Last full paragraph in right column),(Abstract),
The additional elements therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they have been demonstrated to be conventional. Additionally, as explained in Step 2A, Prong Two, no element of the claim reasonably integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the above claim stands rejected for being directed to an abstract idea without claiming significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, the limitations, such as the use of the aerial detector to obtain the baseline and magnetic field measurements and location information are reasonably directed to mere data gathering and field of use, because they are solely directed to obtaining data that is later used and necessary for any of the correlating, identify, and determination steps. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This is further evidenced by applicant’s admissions that the aerial detector device and smartphone plays a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, that the claimed steps can “only” be completed with the aerial detector device, and that smartphone is required to conduct certain claim features as recited on pages 11 and 12.
As to Claim 12,
This claim further defines one of the identifying steps of Claim 10, and is therefore also directed towards an abstract idea for the same reasons as noted in the above rejection of Claim 10.
As to Claim 13,
This claim recites an additional element of the step of providing the aerial detector device that includes the sensor housing with the magnetometer and the global positioning system (GPS) unit, further comprises the steps of: placing the smartphone into a sensor housing; connecting one or more straps to the sensor housing; and connecting the one or more straps to a UAV.
Connor (US 2022/0005191) discloses providing the aerial detector device that includes the sensor housing with the magnetometer and the global positioning system (GPS) unit, further comprises the steps of: placing the smartphone into a sensor housing; connecting one or more straps to the sensor housing; and connecting the one or more straps to a UAV (Paragraph [0294]),(Figure 41 / note the mobile phone is attached to the drone by way of a strap).
Liu (CN 107505954 A) discloses providing the aerial detector device that includes the sensor housing with the magnetometer and the global positioning system (GPS) unit, further comprises the steps of: placing the smartphone into a sensor housing; connecting one or more straps to the sensor housing; and connecting the one or more straps to a UAV. (Paragraph [0014] / this comes from the provided English machine translation).
As such, the above features have been demonstrated to be conventional, and these additional elements therefore do not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These features are also necessary data gathering features, as applicant has explained that the aerial detector device is necessary for the implementation of the method steps (see page 12 of the instant amendment), and additionally are field of use limitations.
As to Claim 14,
This claim recites the additional element of “the step of connecting the one or more straps to the UAV further comprises connecting the one or more straps to the UAV that the sensor housing is suspended above 1.5 meters below the UAV.” However, Nikulin discloses this feature (Paragraph [0196]), and Somerset already reasonably discloses such a feature in the Figure on page 8.
As such, the above features have been demonstrated to be conventional, and these additional elements therefore do not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claims 15-17,
These claims does not reasonably recite any additional elements, as all of these features inside only recite the heights that the drone is flown. All disclosed drones from the above references are reasonably capable of being flown at these heights, and no new structural features are being recited. As such, these features do not reasonably recite any feature that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, even to the extent that the features recite were treated as additional elements, these elements would be conventional as the above drones from the above noted prior art can be flown at these heights, rendering these features as conventional. Additionally, see Claim 1 of Nikulin et al. (Nikulin) (US 2021/0372793). As such, the above features have been demonstrated to be conventional, and these additional elements therefore do not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claims 18 and 19,
These claims do not recite any additional elements, as all feature are directed towards whether the drone is controlled manually or automatically. All disclosed drones from the above references are reasonably capable of being controlled manually or automatically, and no new structural features are being recited. As such, these features do not reasonably recite any feature that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally, see paragraphs [0118] and [0120] of Nikulin et al. (Nikulin) (US 2021/0372793). Furthermore, as explained in MPEP 2144.04(III), “The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art,” and thus such a feature has been held to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.. As such, the above features have been demonstrated to be conventional, and these additional elements therefore do not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to Claim 20,
This claim recites “the step of generating an aggregated magnetic field intensity map before the step of identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data,” but such a feature is an abstract idea. The generation of a map is implemented, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, by calculations to determine various digital data for the purpose of being displayed. As such, this feature is directed towards mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships or calculations, and is therefore abstract.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claim 20,
The phrase “the step of generating an aggregated magnetic field intensity map before the step of identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data” on lines 1-3 is indefinite. No step of generating was previously recited, but the above phrase refers to one, rendering this claim indefinite because it is unclear what step of generating this phrase is referencing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim) (Feasibility of employing a smartphone as the payload in a photogrammetric UAV system).in view of Somerset Magnetometer Survey (Somerset).
As to Claim 1,
Kim discloses An aerial detector device configured to locate ferromagnetic objects in a survey area, the aerial detector device comprising: an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (Abstract); a sensor housing (balsa framework) attached to the unmanned aerial vehicle (Figure 5c,d), (Page 6, last three lines of left column and lines 1-4 of right column); and a sensor module (smartphone) inside the sensor housing (Figure 5c,d), (Abstract), (Page 3, Full paragraph in right column), the sensor housing comprises a transparent window (Figures 5a-d / note the opening in the framework for the smartphone that allows it to take pictures, which is a transparent window), wherein the sensor module comprises: a magnetometer, a camera adjacent to the transparent window, and a GPS unit (Page 3, Full paragraph in right column / note the smartphone has a camera, magnetometer, and GPS unit), (Figures 5a-d).
Kim does not disclose a sensor housing suspended from the unmanned aerial vehicle, where the sensor housing comprises strap mounts, and suspension straps connected between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the strap mounts.
Somerset discloses a sensor housing (housing for MagArrow) suspended from the unmanned aerial vehicle (Page 8), where the sensor housing comprises strap mounts, and suspension straps connected between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the strap mounts (Pages 6 and 8 / note the housing for the sensor, including the sensor itself, are suspended from the UAV, and the suspension wires are clearly visible in Exhibit A on page 8 and the housing must have strap mounts for the straps to attach to).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kim to include a sensor housing suspended from the unmanned aerial vehicle, where the sensor housing comprises strap mounts, and suspension straps connected between the unmanned aerial vehicle and the strap mounts as taught by Somerset in order to advantageously allow the UAV to carry the sensor module closer to an area of interest without requiring the UAV to get as close to the ground and risk damage to the UAV from near ground objects, and to advantageously be able to more easily attach and remove different sized objects, platforms, and/or sensors from the UAV as the straps can attach to a different range of sized objects as opposed to a fixed mount on the UAV that cannot reasonably accommodate as many object sizes, and to advantageously minimize the impact of electromagnetic noise generated from the UAV on the magnetometer being used by maintaining them at a distance from each other.
As to Claim 3,
Kim discloses the unmanned aerial vehicle is a drone (Abstract), (Figure 5c).
Claims 6-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikulin et al. (Nikulin) (US 2021/0372793) in view of Barnes et al. (Barnes) (US 2017/0336203)
As to Claim 6,
Nikulin discloses A method for locating a ferromagnetic target within a survey area, the method comprising the steps of: providing an aerial detector device (UAV) that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer (MFAM) and a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Paragraphs [0118],[0182],[0186]), launching the aerial detector device into the survey area (Paragraphs [0182]-[0183]); activating the magnetometer and GPS unit (Paragraphs [0182],[0186] / note these components must be activated in order to operate, and must obtain the information as claimed during the survey); flying the aerial detector device over the survey area (Paragraph [0126]), making magnetic field measurements with the magnetometer while the aerial detector device is flying over the survey area (Paragraphs [0126],[0182],[0186]), making location information measurements with the GPS unit while the aerial detector device is flying over the survey area (Paragraphs [0126],[0182],[0186]), associating the magnetic field measurements with corresponding location information to produce geolocated magnetic field data (Paragraphs [0183],[0189] / note the data is reasonably geolocated), identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data based on increases in the intensity of the magnetic field measurements within the survey area (Paragraph [0189] / note the data was used to identify peak amplitudes that correlate to potential wells, which is considered an anomaly, and a peak amplitude must include an increase in intensity); automatically identifying one or more target-specific magnetic anomaly signatures by comparing the geolocated magnetic field data against a computer database of magnetic anomaly signatures that include the one or more target-specific well magnetic anomaly signatures (Paragraphs [0105][0151],[0189] / note the training data is labeled abandoned wells (one or more target-specific magnetic anomaly signatures), and the model is reasonably comparing against this data to identify a match or target well so similar to the stored data that it is identified as a target-specific magnetic anomaly signature); and determining the location of the ferromagnetic target from the location information associated with the target-specific well magnetic anomaly signature (Paragraphs [0189],[0195] / note the data is geolocated, and thus the identification of the well also reasonably includes the location of the well).
Nikulin does not disclose wherein the sensor module is a smartphone.
Barnes discloses wherein the sensor module is a smartphone (Paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nikulin to include wherein the sensor module is a smartphone as taught by Barnes in order to reduce the cost of the device by allowing for the use of non-specialized devices to be used that are of low cost, and to advantageously allow for device to be used that can be programmed to obtain large amounts of data from various integrated sensors and cameras and be able to wirelessly provide this data over a cellphone network in real-time, thus allowing for quick and real-time identification of ferromagnetic objects.
As to Claim 7,
Nikulin discloses the ferromagnetic target is an orphaned well (Paragraph [0095]).
As to Claim 8,
Nikulin discloses a step of obtaining baseline magnetic field information for the survey area (Paragraph [0189] / note the data from base station is considered the baseline as this data was used to correct the raw data).
As to Claim 9,
Nikulin discloses the step of identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data comprises removing from the geolocated magnetic field data the baseline magnetic field information for the survey area (Paragraph [0189] / note the data from base station is considered the baseline as this data was used to correct the raw data).
As to Claim 10,
Nikulin discloses A method for locating an orphaned well within a survey area, the method comprising the steps of: providing an aerial detector device (UAV) that includes a sensor module with a magnetometer and a global positioning system (GPS) unit (Paragraphs [0118],[0182],[0186]), launching the aerial detector device into the survey area (Paragraphs [0182]-[0183]); activating the magnetometer and GPS unit (Paragraphs [0182],[0186] / note these components must be activated in order to operate, and must obtain the information as claimed during the survey); flying the aerial detector device through the survey area (Paragraphs [0182],[0186] / note the UAV must be flown through the survey area in order to survey the area as disclosed); using the aerial detector device to obtain baseline magnetic field information for the survey area (Paragraph [0189] / note the data from base station is considered the baseline as this data was used to correct the raw data), using the aerial detector to take magnetic field measurements and location information within the survey area (Paragraphs [0182],[0186] / note collected magnetic datasets); coupling the magnetic field measurements with corresponding location information to produce geolocated magnetic field data (Paragraphs [0183],[0189] / note the data is reasonably geolocated), identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data from the geolocated magnetic field data by removing from the geolocated magnetic field data the baseline magnetic field information for the survey area (Paragraph [0189] / note the data was used to identify peak amplitudes that correlate to potential wells, which is considered an anomaly, and the data is corrected by removal of sensor errors); automatically identifying one or more target-specific magnetic anomaly signatures by comparing the geolocated magnetic field data against a computer database of magnetic anomaly signatures that include the one or more target-specific well magnetic anomaly signatures (Paragraphs [0105][0151],[0189] / note the training data is labeled abandoned wells (one or more target-specific magnetic anomaly signatures), and the model is reasonably comparing against this data to identify a match or target well so similar to the stored data that it is identified as a target-specific magnetic anomaly signature); and determining the location of the orphaned well from the location information associated with the well magnetic anomaly signature (Paragraphs [0189],[0195] / note the data is geolocated, and thus the identification of the well also reasonably includes the location of the well).
Nikulin does not disclose wherein the sensor module is a smartphone.
Barnes discloses wherein the sensor module is a smartphone (Paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nikulin to include wherein the sensor module is a smartphone as taught by Barnes in order to reduce the cost of the device by allowing for the use of non-specialized devices to be used that are of low cost, and to advantageously allow for device to be used that can be programmed to obtain large amounts of data from various integrated sensors and cameras and be able to wirelessly provide this data over a cellphone network in real-time, thus allowing for quick and real-time identification of ferromagnetic objects.
automatically identifying one or more target-specific magnetic anomaly signatures by comparing the geolocated magnetic field data against a computer database of magnetic anomaly signatures that include the one or more target-specific well magnetic anomaly signatures (Paragraphs [0105][0151],[0189] / note the training data is labeled abandoned wells (one or more target-specific magnetic anomaly signatures), and the model is reasonably comparing against this data to identify a match or target well so similar to the stored data that it is identified as a target-specific magnetic anomaly signature); and determining the location of the ferromagnetic target from the location information associated with the target-specific well magnetic anomaly signature (Paragraphs [0189],[0195] / note the data is geolocated, and thus the identification of the well also reasonably includes the location of the well).
As to Claim 12,
Nikulin discloses the step of identifying geolocated magnetic anomaly data comprises discarding magnetic field measurements that fall below a threshold intensity (Paragraph [0182],[0189] / note this is a property of the system as Nikulin recognizes that values must exceed background levels in order to identify a well, and thus any values not reasonably exceeding the background levels will be ignored/discarded).
As to Claim 18,
Nikulin discloses the step of flying the aerial detector device through the survey area comprises manually controlling the aerial detector device as it flies through the survey area (Paragraph [0118] / note remote pilot-in command).
As to Claim 19,
Nikulin discloses the step of flying the aerial detector device through the survey area comprises programming the aerial detector device to follow a predetermined flight path through the survey area (Paragraph [0120] / note automated flight control signal).
As to Claim 20,
Nikulin discloses the step of generating an aggregated magnetic field intensity map before the step of identifying one or more magnetic anomaly signatures from the geolocated magnetic field data (Paragraph [0150] / note the map must be generated first because it is used to show the locations of the abandoned wells).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikulin et al. (Nikulin) (US 2021/0372793) in view of Barnes et al. (Barnes) (US 2017/0336203) as applied to Claim 10 and in further view of Connor (US 2022/0005191).
As to Claim 13,
Nikulin in view of Barnes discloses the step of providing the aerial detector device that includes the sensor module with the magnetometer and the global positioning system (GPS) unit, (see the above rejection of Claim 10).
Nikulin in view of Barnes does not disclose the step of providing the aerial detector device that includes the sensor module with the magnetometer and the global positioning system (GPS) unit, further comprises the steps of: placing the smartphone into a sensor housing connecting one or more straps to the sensor housing; and connecting the one or more straps to a UAV.
Connor discloses placing the smartphone into a sensor housing (4101) (Figures 1,41), (Paragraph [0294]), connecting one or more straps to the sensor housing; and connecting the one or more straps to a UAV (Paragraph [0294]),(Figure 41 / note the mobile phone is attached to the drone by way of a strap).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nikulin in view of Barnes to include the step of providing the aerial detector device that includes the sensor module with the magnetometer and the global positioning system (GPS) unit, further comprises the steps of: placing the smartphone into a sensor housing connecting one or more straps to the sensor housing; and connecting the one or more straps to a UAV given the above disclosure and teaching of Connor in order to advantageously provide an additional securing mechanism to ensure that the smartphone does not detach from the UAV during flight.
As to Claim 14,
Nikulin in view of Barnes and Connor disclose the step of connecting the one or more straps to the UAV further comprises connecting the one or more straps to a consumer-grade drone (Paragraph [0182] / note the UAV is commercially-available).
As to Claims 15-17,
Nikulin discloses connecting the step of flying the aerial detector device through the survey area comprises flying the aerial detector device through the survey area at a height of between about 5 meters and 30 meters above ground level (Claim 1), connecting the step of flying the aerial detector device through the survey area comprises flying the aerial detector device through the survey area at a height of between about 10 meters and 20 meters above ground level (Claim 1), connecting the step of flying the aerial detector device through the survey area comprises flying the aerial detector device through the survey area at a height of about 10 meters above ground level (Claim 1 / note Nikulin expressly discloses the attitude that the drone is flown at is less than 50 meters, and such a range is reasonably narrow enough to anticipate the above claimed flying heights (altitudes)).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights