PGPTDETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination. This action is made in response to the communication filed August 21, 2023.
The drawings are objected to.
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are objected to.
Claims 1-3 and 9 include features interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as means-plus-function features.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as indefinite.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Surykumar and ASMTower
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Claims 1 and 9: “a plurality of slopes”; “information of the plurality of slopes”; “base width and top width of the plurality of slopes” “information of a plurality of panels” “a parameter table generated by auto-calculation of values corresponding to the plurality of slopes and the plurality of parameters received from the user”; “a panel information table based on the generated parameter table”; “a multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower in real-time based on the panel information table along with a plurality of output files”; “one or more patterns of the multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower” “the multidimensional model of the transmission tower along with the one or more patterns of the user.”
Claim 2: “optimization parameters”
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 6-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Succession
Claims 1 and 9 substantially recite, “receiving, by an input module, input data comprising of a plurality of parameters in succession.” Claim 6 recites, “wherein the plurality of parameters comprises of a plurality of slopes, panels, members, nodes and extensions of the transmission tower in succession.” Succession is a relative term that implies a specific order. For purposes of examination, this feature will be interpreted to mean that serial processing that all processors, including multiprocessors and GPUs, at least partially use for all processing operations, which means the recitation of a processor by a reference reads on this feature. Should the Applicant wish to assert a different definition, the Applicant is invited to amend the claim to further define the meaning of “in succession,” without adding new matter. Otherwise, the Applicant is required to amend to remove the “in succession” claim language.
Slopes, Panels, Members, Nodes, and Patterns
The claims recite the features Tower, Slopes, Panels, Members, Nodes, and Patterns. The Applicant’s specification paragraph [0045] recites, “[i]n other words, the transmission tower is considered to be an assembly of multiple slopes and each slope is considered to be an assembly of multiple panels and each panel is considered to be an assembly of multiple members and multiple nodes called as a pattern.” This definition provided by the Applicant is intended to replace any plain meaning of the terms, which is also confounding.
There are no clear recognizable definitions in the art that distinguish the features, Slopes, Panels, Members, Nodes, and Patterns. Therefore, it is not clear what element is an assembly of what else with respect to actual elements of the tower being constructed. The figures do not include reference numbers, and there does not appear to be support in the specification to provide the reference numbers. Accordingly, it is impossible to discern the relationship between these elements and the extent of their scope. This also applies to the recited “tables” that are qualified by the term Panel in contrast to parameter. What makes a panel not a parameter? Even still, the Tower is an assembly of items, but that is also a pattern?
Tables
Claims 1 and 9 recite “a parameter table” and “a panel information table,” however, these are not terms of art and are not sufficiently demonstrated in the specification to determine what they are. For purposes of examination, these will be interpreted to be generic data structures for storing data determined by the modules with some of the data structure storing input, intermediary, and output parameter values.
[…] Module Operatively Coupled To The […] Module
Claims 1-3 recite modules that are operatively coupled to one another. However, in their broadest sense, these modules can be entirely in software, with only links/addresses written into software to link the software modules. For purposes of examination, these operative couplings will be interpreted to mean that the recited modules are capable of communicating between one another.
Output Files Is
Claim 7 recites, “wherein the output files is forwarded.” This appears to be a typo.
Wherein […] Used For
Claim 8 recites, “wherein the two-dimensional graphical representation is used for reporting purposes and the three-dimensional graphical representation is used to display a precise interpretation of the transmission tower.” These are not positively recited as method steps. Therefore, this wherein clause is being interpreted to mean that the two-dimensional graphical representation is capable of being used for reporting purposes and that the three-dimensional graphical representation is capable of being used to display an interpretation of the transmission tower.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1: input module; generating module; pattern generation module; display module
Claim 2: optimizing module; patter generation module
Claim 3: recommendation module; pattern generation module
Claim 9: input module; generating module; pattern generation module; recommendation module
These elements, as recited, are interpreted as being software modules executable by the generic “processing subsystem hosted on a server” in claim 1 for claims 1-8 and the server of FIG. 1 and its associated description for claims 1-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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.
Base Width and Top Width of the Plurality of Slopes
Claims 1 and 9 recite, “base width and top width of the plurality of slopes.” These are not terms of art, and the specification has failed to provide clear definitions of these terms or illustrations/references in the figures. Specifically, the specification and drawings fail to demonstrate what the claimed “slopes” are. Accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan cannot discern the metes and bounds of the claims.
Based On… Output Files
Claims 1 and 9 recite, “a multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower in real-time based on the panel information table along with a plurality of output files.” It is unclear whether the plurality of output files are additionally generated or are the basis for the determination of the multi-dimensional model. Accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan cannot discern the metes and bounds of the claims.
Precise
Claim 8 recites, “the three-dimensional graphical representation is used to display a precise interpretation of the transmission tower.” Precise is a relative term of degree for which the Applicant has not provided a standard in the claim or the specification. Accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan cannot discern the metes and bounds of the claims. The Applicant is advised to amend the claim to include a standard for the recited precision or to remove the term.
In Real-Time
Claims 1 and 9 recite generating “a multi-dimensional model […] in real-time[…].” “Real-time” is a relative term. While “real-time” can often have an implicit meaning because an operation is often expected to or is advantaged by occurring contemporaneously with another operation recited in a claim, the recitation here is an element of a design. In reality, these designs are made well in advance of construction in order to determine the necessary materials for the construction, prepare the equipment for the construction, and to get permits necessary for the construction. While the Applicant has touted that automation can increase the speed of designing a tower, the idea that all of the materials are prepared, ordered, and delivered with all of the necessary equipment and permits without there being a finalized by the tower makes no sense. That is, nothing in this claim is going to occur as the tower is being built. Accordingly, it is unclear what real-time means in the context of this claim. If the Applicant merely intends to tout the speed with which the determinations are made, this is clearly not a real-time determination in any meaningful sense with respect to construction. The claim does not even recite the construction of the tower. That being the case, it is not clear what operation(s) the claim intends to conduct contemporaneously with the generating “a multi-dimensional model […] in real-time[…]” steps of claims 1 and 9. Accordingly, an ordinarily skilled artisan cannot discern the metes and bounds of the claims. The Applicant is advised to remove the language by amendment or clarify the contemporaneous nature of
Dependent claims that depend from rejected claims are rejected based on their dependencies.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite mental processes that are capable of being performed in the mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper, which are abstract ideas. The Applicant’s specification confirms as much in its Background section at [0003]-[0006],
A high voltage transmission line structure is a complex structure, and its design (also referred to 'tower geometry') is characterized by special requirements to be met from both electrical and structural points of view. The user decides the general shape of the tower in respect of its height and the length of its cross arms that carry electrical conductors. Further, the shape, height and sturdiness (mechanical strength) depend on the stresses to which they are exposed. Typically, tower geometry is time consuming and increases with the complexity of its design. Additionally, body wind load calculations are also time consuming both in creation and modification. To achieve accurate and optimized tower design, several geometry configurations need to be analyzed thus making the designer spend additional time in geometry, body wind loads and weight calculation. Currently, the increasing demand for electrical energy can be met by developing different configurations of transmission line towers. However, the modelling of the transmission towers remains a challenge. The manual effort for creating the complex structure is a tedious process. Hence, there is a need for an improved system and method for a faster and easier multi-dimensional modelling of transmission towers in real-time which addresses the aforementioned issue(s).
The Applicant concedes that all of the processes of the invention can be conducted manually, even if it is less “tedious” to perform the methods by automation. The court in the recent Recentive decision ruled:
Finally, the claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that (using existing machine learning technology) they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could previously be achieved. We have consistently held, in the context of computer-assisted methods, that such claims are not made patent eligible under § 101 simply because they speed up human activity.
The Applicant’s claims are elements of longstanding practices. Because the claims merely automate existing processes, the additional limitations in the claims are nothing more than generic computer implementations (e.g., processor, memory, display/presentation of a resulting model), insignificant extra-solution activity, well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, and data labels that merely limit the recited abstract ideas to a technological environment. After assessing the Specification as a whole, it is unclear that there are any identifiable additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2 or that combine with other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept at Step 2B. Further, the references of record demonstrate not only that none of the features of the claims are new and non-obvious, but they further demonstrate that the features of the claim are all conventional in the order and manner recited in the claims. Accordingly, claims 1-9 are ineligible.
Independent Claims
Claim 1 (Statutory Category – Machine)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claims recite mental processes, which are abstract ideas.
Claim 9 (Statutory Category – Process)
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, the claims recite mental processes, which are abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites (with claim 9 reciting similar elements):
generate a parameter table in response to the user selecting a base shape of the transmission tower, wherein the parameter table is generated by […] calculation of values corresponding to the plurality of slopes and the plurality of parameters received from the user; (Mental Process – Generating a parameter table from a selected design is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea. See the Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0003]-[0006].)
generate a panel information table based on the generated parameter table; (Mental Process – Generating a panel information table (e.g., summary table) from a parameter table is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea. See the Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0003]-[0006].)
generate a multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower in real-time based on the panel information table along with a plurality of output files; (Mental Process – Generating a model based on specifications is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea. See the Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0003]-[0006].)
constructing, by a pattern generation module, one or more patterns of the multi- dimensional model of the transmission tower; (Mental Process – Constructing patterns of a model (e.g., variations of the models within set tolerances) is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea. See the Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0003]-[0006].)
Claim 9 further recites:
validating, by a recommendation module, the geometry data for overloading conditions and subsequently rendering suggestions to withstand the overloading conditions by altering the geometry data; and (Mental Process – Validating data for constraints, such as those for environmental circumstances, is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea. See the Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0003]-[0006].)
recommending, by the recommendation module, one or more combinations of assembling the transmission tower based on geographical and climatic conditions. (Mental Process – Validating data for constraints, such as those for environmental circumstances, is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, so it is an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea. See the Applicant’s specification paragraphs [0003]-[0006].)
Claims 1 and 9 recite mental processes and mathematical concepts, which are abstract ideas.
Claim 1 and 9 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The independent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 1 (with similar elements in claim 9):
A system for developing a multi-dimensional model of a transmission tower comprising:
a processing subsystem hosted on a server, wherein the processing subsystem is configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among a plurality of modules comprising:
an input module operatively coupled with a user interface, wherein the input module is configured to;
a generating module operatively coupled to the input module wherein the generating module is configured to:
a pattern generation module operatively coupled to the generating module, wherein the pattern generation module is configured to:
[…] auto-calculation […]
[…] a database […]
a display module to present […]
[…] model […]
Claim 9:
[…] by a recommendation module […]
The use of a processor and memory to execute generic software modules with instructions and display are generic computing operations recited at a high level, which, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The specific data processed also merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 (with similar limitations from claim 9):
receive input data comprising of a plurality of parameters in succession and a count of a plurality of slopes required to model a transmission tower from a user, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises information of the plurality of slopes, base width and top width of the plurality of slopes and information of a plurality of panels;
[…]
generate a panel information table based on the generated parameter table;
[…]
a display module to present the multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower along with the one or more patterns to the user.
This is mere data gathering akin to the MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial,” “i. Limiting a database index to XML tags” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display.” Accordingly, this is extra-solution activity and fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The specific data used in this and other elements also merely limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 9 fail to recite any additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 and 9 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Claims 1 and 9 recite the following additional limitations:
The independent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 1 (with similar elements in claim 9):
A system for developing a multi-dimensional model of a transmission tower comprising:
a processing subsystem hosted on a server, wherein the processing subsystem is configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among a plurality of modules comprising:
an input module operatively coupled with a user interface, wherein the input module is configured to;
a generating module operatively coupled to the input module wherein the generating module is configured to:
a pattern generation module operatively coupled to the generating module, wherein the pattern generation module is configured to:
[…] auto-calculation […]
[…] a database […]
a display module to present […]
[…] model […]
Claim 9:
[…] by a recommendation module […]
The use of a processor and memory to execute generic software modules with instructions and display are generic computing operations recited at a high level, which, under MPEP 2106.05(f), fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would be indicative of an inventive concept at Step 2B. The specific data used also merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would be indicative of an inventive concept at Step 2B.
receive input data comprising of a plurality of parameters in succession and a count of a plurality of slopes required to model a transmission tower from a user, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises information of the plurality of slopes, base width and top width of the plurality of slopes and information of a plurality of panels;
[…]
generate a panel information table based on the generated parameter table;
[…]
a display module to present the multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower along with the one or more patterns to the user.
This is well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity akin to the MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “iii. Electronic recordkeeping” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” “v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document” “i. Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means “ “v. Analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants” “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price.” Because these limitations are WURC, they fail to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept. The specific data used in this and other elements also merely limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which, under MPEP 2106.05(h), fails to combine with the other elements of the claim to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would be indicative of an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The additional limitations fail to combine with the other elements of the claims to provide significantly more than the abstract idea that would confer an inventive concept.
Claims 1 and 9 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also ineligible for the following reasons.
Claim 2
an optimizing module operatively coupled to the pattern generating module and configured to
This is a generic computing elements for at least the same reasons as the generic computing elements from the independent claims, so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f).
receive optimization parameters for the generated multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower based on one or more natural factors, wherein the natural factors comprise of wind loads and weight of the plurality of structures.
This is mere data gathering and WURC for the same reasons as the receiving steps in the independent claims, so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(g) and (d).
Further, the context-specific descriptors of the data recited in the claim merely limit the abstract idea to a technological field and fail to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 2 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3
a recommendation module operatively coupled with the pattern generation module and configured to:
This is a generic computer implementation for the same reasons as the software modules recited in the independent claims, and fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(f) for at least the same reasons.
validate the geometry data for overloading conditions and subsequently rendering suggestions to withstand the overloading conditions by altering the geometry data; and recommend one or more combinations of assembling the transmission tower based on geographical and climatic conditions.
These features have analogous features in claim 9. The validation of data to satisfy constraints and recommending a resulting course of action are practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 3 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4
wherein the input data is validated upon receiving to detect the presence of errors and subsequently report the errors to the user.
Validating data to determine whether the data contains errors is practically performable in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper, an evaluation, a mental process, an abstract idea.
Claim 4 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5
wherein the one or more patterns of the multi- dimensional model of the transmission tower is stored in a pattern library, wherein the patten library allows the user to select a desired tower pattern for subsequent modelling process.
This is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., akin to MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display”) and WURC activity (e.g., akin to MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price”), so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d).
Claim 5 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6
wherein the plurality of parameters comprises of a plurality of slopes, panels, members, nodes and extensions of the transmission tower in succession.
These are merely elements of the mere data gathering that is insignificant extra-solution activity and WURC for the same reasons as the receiving step of claim 1.
Also, the elements the data represent merely limit the data to a technological field and fail to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 6 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7
wherein the output files is forwarded to a third-party application.
This is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., akin to MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display”) and WURC activity (e.g., akin to MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price”), so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d).
Claim 7 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8
wherein the multi-dimensional model comprises a two- dimensional graphical representation and a three-dimensional graphical representation of the transmission tower, wherein the two-dimensional graphical representation is used for reporting purposes and the three-dimensional graphical representation is used to display a precise interpretation of the transmission tower.
This is insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., akin to MPEP 2106.05(g) examples: “iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions” “v. Consulting and updating an activity log” “iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display”) and WURC activity (e.g., akin to MPEP 2106.05(d) examples: “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” “iii. Electronic recordkeeping” “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory” “vi. Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price”), so it fails to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d).
Also, the elements the data represent merely limit the data to a technological field and fail to confer eligibility under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 8 fails to provide any additional limitations that confer eligibility.
Claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9: Surykumar and ASMTower
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0334186 to Surykumar et al. (Sury) in view of Youtube video, “Example 1: How to design a 30m monopole with circular platform TIA-222-G or H using ASMTower” by ASMTower (ASM).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Suryakumar teaches:
A system for developing a multi-dimensional model of a transmission tower comprising: a processing subsystem hosted on a server, wherein the processing subsystem is configured to execute on a network to control bidirectional communications among a plurality of modules comprising: (Sury [0003] “The demand for communications towers has notably increased in recent times on account of the rapid surge in worldwide data traffic. With the introduction of advances in wireless communication technology, such as 5G, global mobile traffic is set to rapidly grow in coming years.” – A bidirectional communication tower. [0007] “An embodiment includes a network. The network includes a database, and one or more computing devices. The one or more computing devices are interfaced with the database and operative to receiving structure requirements of a tower. A non-linear optimizer of the one or more computing devices operates to iterate a design of the tower, comprising the non-linear optimizer operating to tower design features, determine a structural model from the structure requirements and the tower design features, define an outline of the tower based on structure requirements and tower design features, define nodal points of the design of the tower based on the outline, define line-elements of the design of the tower based on the nodal points, perform low-order structural analysis based on the structural model and a modeled behavior assigned to the line-elements comprising determining a wind load for each line element, and determine nodal displacements and material failure indices based at least on the wind load for each line element, wherein the non-linear optimizer operates to redetermine the structural model when the nodal displacements and material failure indices indicate failure.” – A computer system for executing the desire thereof)
an input module operatively coupled with a user interface, wherein the input module is configured to receive input data comprising of a plurality of parameters in succession and a count of a plurality of slopes required to model a transmission tower from a user, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises information of the plurality of slopes, base width and top width of the plurality of slopes and information of a plurality of panels; (Sury [0007] “An embodiment includes a network. The network includes a database, and one or more computing devices. The one or more computing devices are interfaced with the database and operative to receiving structure requirements of a tower. “ – An input module coupled with a user interface configured to receive input data comprising a plurality of parameters. [0019] “To initiate design of an antenna tower, structural requirements 210 of the antenna tower are received. For an embodiment, the structure requirements of the antenna tower include high-level design parameters including at least one of a tower height, a tower type (monopole, self-supported or guyed), a mast cross-section (triangle or square), loading (windspeed, gust amplification) or reliability (risk to property in case of crash). For an embodiment, the structural requirements 210 are generated by network planners and communicated, for example, to tower construction sub-contractors to begin a design and build-out of the antenna tower. For an embodiment, the structural requirements 210 may relaxed or tightened to optimize costs.” See Also FIGs. 6 with various design variables – Input parameters include all of the elements including a tower type and bracing which includes a count and character of diagonals (e.g., slopes assembled into “panels” – see the Applicant’s specification for the Applicant’s definition of panels in the specification as an assembly of slopes [0045]), as well as base width and top width (W0 and W1 in FIG. 3) of the structure the slopes form.
PNG
media_image1.png
611
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
739
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a generating module operatively coupled to the input module, wherein the generating module is configured to: (Sury [0007] “The one or more computing devices are interfaced with the database and operative to receiving structure requirements of a tower. A non-linear optimizer of the one or more computing devices operates to iterate a design of the tower” – The optimizer serves as a module configured to perform the operations of the claimed generating module, pattern generation module, and recommendation module)
;
based on the generated ;
generate a multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower ; (Sury [0023] “Referring back to FIG. 2, for an embodiment, the iterating by the non-linear optimizer 250 further includes determining a structural model 230 from the structure requirements and the tower design features. For an embodiment, determining the structural model includes defining an outline of the tower based on structure requirements and tower design features, defining nodal points of the design of the tower based on the outline, and defining line-elements of the design of the tower based on the nodal points.” – An outline, a multidimensional model, of the transmission tower is generated.)
a pattern generation module operatively coupled to the generating module, wherein the pattern generation module is configured to construct one or more patterns of the multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower, (Sury [0026] “Further, as described, determining the structural model includes defining nodal points 410 of the design of the tower based on the outline. For an embodiment, a nodal point 410 is the junction between two structural members of the antenna tower. That is, for example, a point on the structure where a guy wire meets (attaches to) the tower mast, or points of intersection of bracing members of the antenna tower. For an embodiment, the nodal points of the design of the tower are dependent on a tower type, includes a one of a monopole, self-supported or guyed. For an embodiment, for monopoles and guyed towers, the tower mast is assumed to be a single beam and is divided into at least 10 nodes between each breakpoint, wherein a breakpoint is a point where a guy cable attaches to the tower mast. For an embodiment, for guyed towers, one element with nodes on either end, is defined for each guy wire. For an embodiment, for the self-supported tower, the mast is assumed to be a lattice structure and nodes are defined at truss intersection points of the lattice structure.” – Final designs, patterns of the tower, are generated based on the outlines/models.)
.
Sury teaches the use of software to automate communication tower design, but it does not appear to explicitly teach elements of the user interface and data processing of the Tower software itself, but Sury in view of ASM teaches:
generate a parameter table in response to the user selecting a base shape of the transmission tower, wherein the parameter table is generated by auto-calculation of values corresponding to the plurality of slopes and the plurality of parameters received from the user;
ASM 0:30 – 0:45: A base shape, a tapered pole, is selected
PNG
media_image3.png
847
1841
media_image3.png
Greyscale
ASM 0:45-3:35: The input data is assembled for generating the table. Values are auto-calculated to complete/generate the parameter table
PNG
media_image4.png
751
1833
media_image4.png
Greyscale
generate a panel information table based on the generated parameter table;
ASM 25:00 – 26:00: Based on the data in the generated parameter table, a panel information table is generated, as shown on the left of this image, outlined by a dashed square.
PNG
media_image5.png
1035
1852
media_image5.png
Greyscale
generate a multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower in real-time based on the panel information table along with a plurality of output files;
ASM 15:00 – 16:00: A first *asmt design file is output
PNG
media_image6.png
805
1851
media_image6.png
Greyscale
ASM 30:00 – 32:00: Both 2-D (see prior image) and 3-D models are generated based on the panel information table data
PNG
media_image7.png
926
1813
media_image7.png
Greyscale
ASM 38:00 – 39:00: A second *.DXF design drawing file is output
PNG
media_image8.png
796
1849
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[…]
and the one or more patterns are subsequently stored in a database; and
ASM 15:00 – 16:00: A first *asmt design file is output
PNG
media_image6.png
805
1851
media_image6.png
Greyscale
ASM 30:00 – 32:00: Both 2-D (see prior image) and 3-D models are generated based on the panel information table data
PNG
media_image7.png
926
1813
media_image7.png
Greyscale
ASM 38:00 – 39:00: A second *.DXF design drawing file is output
PNG
media_image8.png
796
1849
media_image8.png
Greyscale
a display module to present the multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower along with the one or more patterns to the user.
ASM 30:00 – 32:00: Both 2-D (see prior image) and 3-D models of the design are selectively displayed by a display module.
PNG
media_image7.png
926
1813
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to modify the software-based design optimization of a tower of Sury by the specific tower design software of ASM because the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the aim of Sury to design reliable towers to look to ASM, which provides specific automation software that models towers that are up to code, including safety. (Sury [0042] “At least some of the described embodiments provide a method to rapidly estimate approximate structural capacity for planning purposes. At least some of the described embodiments provide an estimate of the extent of material failure and tower costs using simple design features—tower height, number of guys, antenna loading, etc. The material failure analysis is useful to provide an approximate measure of available structural capacity to support additional loading. This is useful for obtaining quick estimates where detailed design drawings are unavailable for towers. High-level features could instead be extracted form site-surveys or photos.”; ASM Video Description “In this example, you will learn how to design a 30m communication monopole with dual platforms according to the TIA-222-G/H code.” 28:00-29:00:
PNG
media_image9.png
735
1088
media_image9.png
Greyscale
)
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, Sury in view of ASM teaches the feature of claim 1 and further teaches:
an optimizing module operatively coupled to the pattern generating module and configured to receive optimization parameters for the generated multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower based on one or more natural factors, wherein the natural factors comprise of wind loads and weight of the plurality of structures.
28:00-29:00: The design is optimized based on the weight of the materials and wind loads.
PNG
media_image9.png
735
1088
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, Sury in view of ASM teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
a recommendation module operatively coupled with the pattern generation module and configured to: validate the geometry data for overloading conditions and subsequently rendering suggestions to withstand the overloading conditions by altering the geometry data; and recommend one or more combinations ofassembling the transmission tower based on geographical and climatic conditions. (Sury [0031]-[0032] “As described, for an embodiment, performing low-order structural analysis 240 includes determining a wind load for each line element, and determining nodal displacements and material failure indices based at least on the wind load for each line element. For an embodiment, determining a wind load for each line element and antenna is based on sensed wind information. For an embodiment, the sensed wind information is generated by a plurality of wind sensor over time, wherein sensed wind information is stored in a database (as previously described and shown in FIG. 1). For an embodiment, determining the wind load is based on world-wide windspeed (based on sensed wind information) in accordance with civil engineering standards and the aerodynamic features (shape, projected area) of the line element or the antenna. For an embodiment, the iterating by the non-linear optimizer 250 further includes redetermining, by the non-linear optimizer, the structural model when the nodal displacements and material failure indices indicate failure (check for failure 260). For an embodiment, redetermining the structural model when the nodal displacements and material failure indices indicate failure includes reselecting the tower design features before redetermining the structural model, and reperforming the low-order structural analysis, and redetermining the nodal displacements and material failure.” – The optimizer iterates the design to determine performance within an environment/loads/climate, until the optimizer determines that there is no failure. In doing so, the system suggests/recommends the iterative changes and implements them until there is no failure.)
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, Sury in view of ASM teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the input data is validated upon receiving to detect the presence of errors and subsequently report the errors to the user.
ASM 36:00-37:00 – Input is validated upon receiving to determine errors and report the errors to the user.
PNG
media_image10.png
760
1324
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, Sury in view of ASM teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the one or more patterns of the multi- dimensional model of the transmission tower is stored in a pattern library, wherein the patten library allows the user to select a desired tower pattern for subsequent modelling process.
ASM 15:00 – 16:00: A *.asmt design file with the model is saved to a library that allows the user to select the desired tower pattern .
PNG
media_image6.png
805
1851
media_image6.png
Greyscale
ASM 38:00 – 39:00: A second *.DXF drawing file with the model is saved to a library that allows the user to select the desired tower pattern .
PNG
media_image8.png
796
1849
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, Sury in view of ASM teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the plurality of parameters comprises of a plurality of slopes, panels, members, nodes and extensions of the transmission tower in succession.
(Sury [0021] “FIG. 3 shows tower design features, according to an embodiment. As shown, a section of a mast 310 of the tower includes vertical members 312 and horizontal/diagonal members 314 (horizontal & diagonal members are also called bracing members). For an embodiment, the vertical members 312 and the horizontal/diagonal members 314 are essentially steel pipes. For an embodiment, a diameter 304 of the mast leg is the external diameter of the vertical member 312 and the diagonal diameter 308 is the external diameter of the horizontal/diagonal member 314. For an embodiment, the mast size or width is the side length of the mast (shown as mast width, W1, W2, and 302). For an embodiment, the number of guys is the number of guy levels 320 attaching to the mast 330. That is, the number of levels (altitude) of connections of the guys to the mast. For an embodiment, the diameter of the guys is the external diameter 316 of the guy wires 350.” [0026] “For an embodiment, for monopoles and guyed towers, the tower mast is assumed to be a single beam and is divided into at least 10 nodes between each breakpoint, wherein a breakpoint is a point where a guy cable attaches to the tower mast. For an embodiment, for guyed towers, one element with nodes on either end, is defined for each guy wire. For an embodiment, for the self-supported tower, the mast is assumed to be a lattice structure and nodes are defined at truss intersection points of the lattice structure.” See Also FIGs. 3 and 6 – Sury teaches slopes, panels, members, nodes and extensions of the transmission tower in succession.
PNG
media_image1.png
611
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
739
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Also ASM 0:45-3:35: The input data is assembled for generating the parameter table. Each of the elements in the geometry menu is populated either by user input or auto-complete and includes all of slopes, panels, members, nodes and extensions of the transmission tower in succession.
PNG
media_image4.png
751
1833
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, Sury in view of ASM teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the output files is forwarded to a third-party application.
ASM 38:00 – 39:00 – When the CAD design file is saved, the CAD file is opened in the default application for CAD files of the type, in this case, AutoCAD.
PNG
media_image11.png
731
1330
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, Sury in view of ASM teaches the features of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the multi-dimensional model comprises a two- dimensional graphical representation and a three-dimensional graphical representation of the transmission tower, wherein the two-dimensional graphical representation is used for reporting purposes and the three-dimensional graphical representation is used to display a precise interpretation of the transmission tower.
ASM 26:00 – 27:00: 2-D models are generated based on the panel information table data for reporting purposes
PNG
media_image12.png
762
1818
media_image12.png
Greyscale
ASM 30:00 – 32:00: 3-D models are generated based on the panel information table data to display a precise interpretation.
PNG
media_image7.png
926
1813
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Sury teaches:
A method for developing a multi-dimensional model of transmission towers comprising: (Sury [0003] “The demand for communications towers has notably increased in recent times on account of the rapid surge in worldwide data traffic. With the introduction of advances in wireless communication technology, such as 5G, global mobile traffic is set to rapidly grow in coming years.” – A bidirectional communication tower. [0007] “An embodiment includes a network. The network includes a database, and one or more computing devices. The one or more computing devices are interfaced with the database and operative to receiving structure requirements of a tower. A non-linear optimizer of the one or more computing devices operates to iterate a design of the tower, comprising the non-linear optimizer operating to tower design features, determine a structural model from the structure requirements and the tower design features, define an outline of the tower based on structure requirements and tower design features, define nodal points of the design of the tower based on the outline, define line-elements of the design of the tower based on the nodal points, perform low-order structural analysis based on the structural model and a modeled behavior assigned to the line-elements comprising determining a wind load for each line element, and determine nodal displacements and material failure indices based at least on the wind load for each line element, wherein the non-linear optimizer operates to redetermine the structural model when the nodal displacements and material failure indices indicate failure.” – A computer system for executing the desire thereof)
receiving, by an input module, input data comprising of a plurality of parameters in succession and a plurality of slopes required to model a transmission tower from a user, wherein the plurality of parameters comprises information of the plurality of slopes, base width and top width of the plurality of slopes and information of a plurality of panels; (Sury [0007] “An embodiment includes a network. The network includes a database, and one or more computing devices. The one or more computing devices are interfaced with the database and operative to receiving structure requirements of a tower. “ – An input module coupled with a user interface configured to receive input data comprising a plurality of parameters. [0019] “To initiate design of an antenna tower, structural requirements 210 of the antenna tower are received. For an embodiment, the structure requirements of the antenna tower include high-level design parameters including at least one of a tower height, a tower type (monopole, self-supported or guyed), a mast cross-section (triangle or square), loading (windspeed, gust amplification) or reliability (risk to property in case of crash). For an embodiment, the structural requirements 210 are generated by network planners and communicated, for example, to tower construction sub-contractors to begin a design and build-out of the antenna tower. For an embodiment, the structural requirements 210 may relaxed or tightened to optimize costs.” See Also FIGs. 6 with various design variables – Input parameters include all of the elements including a tower type and bracing which includes a count and character of diagonals (e.g., slopes assembled into “panels” – see the Applicant’s specification for the Applicant’s definition of panels in the specification as an assembly of slopes [0045]), as well as base width and top width (W0 and W1 in FIG. 3) of the structure the slopes form.
PNG
media_image1.png
611
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
739
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
generating, by the generating module, a multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower in real-time (Sury [0023] “Referring back to FIG. 2, for an embodiment, the iterating by the non-linear optimizer 250 further includes determining a structural model 230 from the structure requirements and the tower design features. For an embodiment, determining the structural model includes defining an outline of the tower based on structure requirements and tower design features, defining nodal points of the design of the tower based on the outline, and defining line-elements of the design of the tower based on the nodal points.” – An outline, a multidimensional model, of the transmission tower is generated.)
constructing, by a pattern generation module, one or more patterns of the multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower; (Sury [0026] “Further, as described, determining the structural model includes defining nodal points 410 of the design of the tower based on the outline. For an embodiment, a nodal point 410 is the junction between two structural members of the antenna tower. That is, for example, a point on the structure where a guy wire meets (attaches to) the tower mast, or points of intersection of bracing members of the antenna tower. For an embodiment, the nodal points of the design of the tower are dependent on a tower type, includes a one of a monopole, self-supported or guyed. For an embodiment, for monopoles and guyed towers, the tower mast is assumed to be a single beam and is divided into at least 10 nodes between each breakpoint, wherein a breakpoint is a point where a guy cable attaches to the tower mast. For an embodiment, for guyed towers, one element with nodes on either end, is defined for each guy wire. For an embodiment, for the self-supported tower, the mast is assumed to be a lattice structure and nodes are defined at truss intersection points of the lattice structure.” – Final designs, patterns of the tower, are generated based on the outlines/models.)
validating, by a recommendation module, the geometry data for overloading conditions and subsequently rendering suggestions to withstand the overloading conditions by altering the geometry data; and recommending, by the recommendation module, one or more combinations of assembling the transmission tower based on geographical and climatic conditions. (Sury [0031]-[0032] “As described, for an embodiment, performing low-order structural analysis 240 includes determining a wind load for each line element, and determining nodal displacements and material failure indices based at least on the wind load for each line element. For an embodiment, determining a wind load for each line element and antenna is based on sensed wind information. For an embodiment, the sensed wind information is generated by a plurality of wind sensor over time, wherein sensed wind information is stored in a database (as previously described and shown in FIG. 1). For an embodiment, determining the wind load is based on world-wide windspeed (based on sensed wind information) in accordance with civil engineering standards and the aerodynamic features (shape, projected area) of the line element or the antenna. For an embodiment, the iterating by the non-linear optimizer 250 further includes redetermining, by the non-linear optimizer, the structural model when the nodal displacements and material failure indices indicate failure (check for failure 260). For an embodiment, redetermining the structural model when the nodal displacements and material failure indices indicate failure includes reselecting the tower design features before redetermining the structural model, and reperforming the low-order structural analysis, and redetermining the nodal displacements and material failure.” – The optimizer iterates the design to determine performance within an environment/loads/climate, until the optimizer determines that there is no failure. In doing so, the system suggests/recommends the combination of changes at each iteration and implements the suggested/recommended changes until there is no failure.)
Sury teaches the use of software to automate communication tower design, but it does not appear to explicitly teach elements of the user interface and data processing of the Tower software itself, but Sury in view of ASM teaches:
generating, by a generating module, a parameter table in response to the user selecting a base shape of the transmission tower, wherein the parameter table is generated by auto- calculation of values corresponding to the plurality of slopes and the plurality of parameters received from the user;
ASM 0:30 – 0:45: A base shape, a tapered pole, is selected
PNG
media_image3.png
847
1841
media_image3.png
Greyscale
ASM 0:45-3:35: The input data is assembled for generating the table. Values are auto-calculated to complete/generate the parameter table
PNG
media_image4.png
751
1833
media_image4.png
Greyscale
generating, by the generating module, a panel information table based on the generated parameter table;
ASM 25:00 – 26:00: Based on the data in the generated parameter table, a panel information table is generated, as shown on the left of this image, outlined by a dashed square.
PNG
media_image5.png
1035
1852
media_image5.png
Greyscale
generating, by the generating module, a multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower in real-time based on the panel information table along with a plurality of output files;
ASM 15:00 – 16:00: A first *asmt design file is output
PNG
media_image6.png
805
1851
media_image6.png
Greyscale
ASM 30:00 – 32:00: Both 2-D (see prior image) and 3-D models are generated based on the panel information table data
PNG
media_image7.png
926
1813
media_image7.png
Greyscale
ASM 38:00 – 39:00: A second *.DXF design drawing file is output
PNG
media_image8.png
796
1849
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[…]
presenting, by a display unit, the multi-dimensional model of the transmission tower along with the one or more patterns to the user;
ASM 30:00 – 32:00: The model of the transmission tower and its pattern(s) are displayed to the user in multidimensional format.
PNG
media_image7.png
926
1813
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims to modify the software-based design optimization of a tower of Sury by the specific tower design software of ASM because the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the aim of Sury to design reliable towers to look to ASM, which provides specific automation software that models towers that are up to code, including safety. (Sury [0042] “At least some of the described embodiments provide a method to rapidly estimate approximate structural capacity for planning purposes. At least some of the described embodiments provide an estimate of the extent of material failure and tower costs using simple design features—tower height, number of guys, antenna loading, etc. The material failure analysis is useful to provide an approximate measure of available structural capacity to support additional loading. This is useful for obtaining quick estimates where detailed design drawings are unavailable for towers. High-level features could instead be extracted form site-surveys or photos.”; ASM Video Description “In this example, you will learn how to design a 30m communication monopole with dual platforms according to the TIA-222-G/H code.” 28:00-29:00:
PNG
media_image9.png
735
1088
media_image9.png
Greyscale
)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0340311 A1 to Tribedi et al. (Teaches developing models within scenarios to test different designs and load responses)
YouTube Video: “Example 2-4: Defining wind load inputs, connections and finalizing tower design” (Teaches how to set wind loads within the ASMTower software suite)
NPL: “Wind tunnel tests on wind loads acting on an angled steel triangular transmission tower.” By Yang et al. (Teaches how to evaluate wind loads, including at different wind angles)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:00-7:00 EST.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
/J.M.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights