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 communication is in response to the remarks filed 01/13/2026. Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Invention I. Claims 1-6 and 15-20, drawn to determining if an object is a hazard and emitting a projection beam to illuminate the object.
Invention II. Claims 7-14, drawn to determining if an apparatus is moving and emitting a projection beam indicating a moving direction based on the moving data.
Applicant’s election of Invention I, claims 1-6 and 15-20 in the reply filed 01/13/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP §818.01(a)). The restriction is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/23/2023, 03/07/2024, and 11/26/2025 have been entered and considered. Initialed copies of the PTO-1449 by the examiner are attached.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 16-17 and 19 recite limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6; recites the limitation, “controller configured to ……,”.
Claims 2 and 16; recites the limitation, “image capture device ……,”.
Claims 2, 5, 16, and 19; recites the limitation, “image projection device ……,”.
Claims 3, 17; recites the limitation, “alarm device ......,”.
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.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claims 1-3, 5-6, 16-17 and 19:
“Controller” (Fig. 3, #306. Paragraph [0114]- “The person support apparatus 1100 further includes a controller 1306 including one or more processors 1308 and one or more memory modules 1310. Each of the one or more processors 1308 may be any device capable of executing machine readable and executable instructions.”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein is any kind processor.).
“image capture device” (Fig. 2, #216. Paragraph [0041]- “The image capture device 216 may be a camera or the like configured to capture image data reflected by the mirrored dome 204 within a field of view of the image capture device 216. In some embodiments, the image capture device 216 may include one or more optical components, such as a mirror, fish-eye lens, or any other type of lens. In some embodiments, the image capture device 216 includes one or more imaging sensors configured to operate in the visual and/or infrared spectrum to sense visual and/or infrared light. Additionally, while the particular embodiments described herein are described with respect to hardware for sensing light in the visual and/or infrared spectrum, it is to be understood that other types of sensors are contemplated. For example, the sensors described herein could include one or more LIDAR sensors, radar sensors, sonar sensors, or other types of sensors and that such data could be integrated into or supplement the data collection described herein.”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein is any kind camera, LIDAR, RADAR, SONAR sensor).
“image projection device” (Fig. 2, #218. Paragraph [0043]- “The image projection device 218 may be a projector, such as a digital light processing (DLP) projector, liquid-crystal display (LCD) projector, light-emitting diode (LED) projector, liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) projector, laser projector, or the like, capable of projecting an image onto the floor surface of the room around the person support apparatus 100.”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein is any DLP, LCD, LED, LCOS, laser projector, etc.).
“alarm device” (Fig. 1, #116, Fig. 13, #1318. Paragraph [0035]- “The alarm device 116 may include an audio emitting device for emitting an audible alert when an alarm condition is satisfied, such as when a potential hazard or other another potentially hazardous condition is detected, as described herein. In embodiments, one or more of a frequency and volume of the audible alert may increase as a function of time after a potential hazard is first detected. In embodiments, the alarm device 116 may also include a visual alarm device for displaying a visual alert when the alarm condition is satisfied. The visual alert may include flashing lights, text indicating a potential hazard and/or a location of the potential hazard.”. thus, have sufficient structure or material wherein is any audio emitting device, such as a speaker).
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15 and its dependent claim(s) 2-6 and 16-20:
Step 1 analysis: Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A prong 1 analysis: Claim 1 recites, in part:
“analyze image data within an area; determine an object is present in the area based on the image data; determine if the object is a potential hazard based on the image data”
The limitations as shown above, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitations in the mind which fall within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitations of:
“analyze image data within an area;”, “determine an object is present in the area based on the image data;”, and “determine if the object is a potential hazard based on the image data” recite steps that the human mind can perform through an observation and evaluation, such as the human mind can look at an area and through evaluation of objects within the area, determine if there is a potential hazard such as, for example, a spilled drink may be a potential hazard for a person walking to slip on.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2 analysis: this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In
particular, the claim recites the following additional element(s) –
“emitting a projection beam onto a surface of the area to illuminate the object”
The step of “emitting a projection beam” is recited to merely constitute post-solution activities after a determination of a hazard being present. That is, the emitting step is recited at a high level of generality and merely produces a projection beam as a generic output after a determination. The limitation does not impose any limits on how the beam is projected or require any particular components that are used to produce a specific projection beam.
Step 2B analysis: the claims do not include additional elements that either alone nor in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extent that, e.g., “a controller” is claimed, is generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification need not to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Furthermore, the claimed “controller,” as described in paragraph [0114] discloses the following: “The person support apparatus 1100 further includes a controller 1306 including one or more processors 1308 and one or more memory modules 1310. Each of the one or more processors 1308 may be any device capable of executing machine readable and executable instructions.” These elements are reasonably interpreted as generic computer and generic computer components which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such the claimed limitations of “a controller” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more and the claim(s) as a whole is not patent eligible under 101 analysis. Therefore, claim 1 does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 under 101 analysis.
Independent claim 15 does not provide elements that overcome the 101 deficiencies as discussed in claim 1 as discussed above. Therefore, claim 15 does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 under 101 analysis.
Dependent claims 2-6:
Claim 2, recites, in part, “a support frame having a bottom surface; and a mirrored dome mounted on the bottom surface of the support frame, wherein the image capture device and the image projection device are mounted on the person support apparatus below the mirrored dome and have a field of view directed upward toward the mirrored dome.” In such limitation as drafted, the eligibility of the claim is self-evident when viewed as a whole, does not recite an abstract idea and thus is not directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception by requiring unique material and structure for constructing the apparatus such as a mirrored dome mounted at the bottom surface of the support frame. Accordingly, claim 2 qualifies as eligible subject matter.
Corresponding dependent claims 3-6 are patent eligible under 101 analysis on virtue of dependency.
Dependent claims 16-20:
Claim 16, recites, in part, “a field of view of the image capture device and a field of view of the image projection device is directed upward toward a mirrored dome mounted on a bottom surface of a support frame of the person support apparatus.” In such limitation as drafted, the eligibility of the claim is self-evident when viewed as a whole, does not recite an abstract idea and thus is not directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception by requiring unique material and structure for constructing the apparatus such as a mirrored dome mounted at the bottom surface of the support frame. Accordingly, claim 16 qualifies as eligible subject matter.
Claim 17, recites, in part, “operating an alarm device to provide an audible alert in response to determining the object classified as the potential hazard is present”. The step of “operating an alarm to provide an audible alert” is recited to merely constitute post-solution activities after a determination of a hazard being present. That is, the audible alert step is recited at a high level of generality and merely produces a sound as a generic output after a determination. The limitation does not impose any limits on how the sound is produced or require any particular components that are used to produce a specific audible alert. As such the claimed limitations of “alarm device” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more and the claim(s) as a whole is not patent eligible under 101 analysis. Therefore, claim 17 does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 under 101 analysis.
Claim 18, recites, in part, “increasing one or more of a frequency and volume of the audible alert as a function of time since the object classified as the potential hazard is detected.” The step of “increasing a frequency and volume of the audible alert” is recited to merely constitute post-solution activities after a determination of a hazard being present. That is, the audible alert step is recited at a high level of generality and merely produces a sound as a generic output after a determination. The limitation does not impose any limits on how the sound is produced or require any particular components that are used to produce the audible alert. As such the claimed limitations of “alarm device” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more and the claim(s) as a whole is not patent eligible under 101. Therefore, claim 18 does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 under 101 analysis.
Claim 19, recites, in part, “operating an image projection device to emit a second projection beam onto the surface of the area to indicate a path for the person to avoid the potential hazard, the surface being a floor surface.” In such limitation as drafted, the eligibility of the claim is self-evident when viewed as a whole, does not recite an abstract idea and thus is not directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a combination of additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception by requiring unique material and structure for constructing the apparatus such as using a specific image projection device. Applicant’s specification discloses an “image projection device” in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Furthermore, the claimed “Image projection device,” as described in paragraph [0043] discloses the following: “The image projection device 218 may be a projector, such as a digital light processing (DLP) projector, liquid-crystal display (LCD) projector, light-emitting diode (LED) projector, liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) projector, laser projector, or the like, capable of projecting an image onto the floor surface of the room around the person support apparatus 100”. As such the claimed limitations of “image projection device” is reasonably understood as providing significantly more and the claim as a whole is patent eligible under 101 analysis. Accordingly, claim 19 qualifies as eligible subject matter.
Corresponding dependent claim 20 are patent eligible under 101 analysis on virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Criado-Perez et al. (US 20190385430 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Perez”).
Regarding claim 1, Perez discloses an apparatus comprising: a controller configured to (“the hazard detection server 104 are computing devices with one or more non-transitory computer readable media, one or more central processing units (CPUs), and one or more network interfaces.” Perez, [0034]): analyze image data within an area (“The imaging processor module is configured to analyze the digital image from the imaging device to determine whether a hazard condition is present in the digital image by determining a probability that an object is present in the digital image.” Perez, [0075]); determine an object is present in the area based on the image data (“ the object comprises any suitable item or set of items that can be used to identify a hazardous condition either by the object's presence or absence.” Perez, [0075]); determine if the object is a potential hazard based on the image data (“The hazard detection program includes an imaging processor module configured to analyze the digital image from the imaging device to determine whether a hazard condition is present in the digital image by determining a probability that an object is present in the digital image... The hazard detection program includes a notification module configured, in response to the imaging processor module determining the probability exceeds a threshold, to send an electronic alert message to at least one recipient. The electronic alert message is configured to alert the recipient that the hazard condition is present at the location site according to the digital image.” Perez, [0011]); and in response to determining the object is a potential hazard, emitting a projection beam onto a surface of the area to illuminate the object (“The hazard detection processor 158 can be programmed to transmit the command signal when it calculates the probability of the existence of a hazard condition that exceeds a predetermined threshold. The projector 195 is configured to project an illumination in response to receiving the command signal. In embodiments, any suitable projector can be used. In embodiments, the projector 195 can be positionably controlled via the hazard detection processor 158 to adjust the location of the illumination projected by the projector 195 such that the illumination can be projected near the location of the hazard condition as determined by the hazard detection processor 158.” Perez, [0066]).
Regarding claim 15, Perez discloses a method for detecting hazardous objects proximate a person support apparatus comprising: capturing image data within an area (“The imaging device is configured to generate a digital image of a region of the location site. The processor is in operable arrangement with the camera to receive the digital image” Perez, [0010]); analyzing the captured image data (“The imaging processor module is configured to analyze the digital image from the imaging device to determine whether a hazard condition is present in the digital image by determining a probability that an object is present in the digital image.” Perez, [0075]); determining an object is present in the area based on captured image data (“ the object comprises any suitable item or set of items that can be used to identify a hazardous condition either by the object's presence or absence.” Perez, [0075]); determining if the object is a potential hazard based on the captured image data (“The hazard detection program includes an imaging processor module configured to analyze the digital image from the imaging device to determine whether a hazard condition is present in the digital image by determining a probability that an object is present in the digital image... The hazard detection program includes a notification module configured, in response to the imaging processor module determining the probability exceeds a threshold, to send an electronic alert message to at least one recipient. The electronic alert message is configured to alert the recipient that the hazard condition is present at the location site according to the digital image.” Perez, [0011]); and in response to determining the object is a potential hazard, emitting a projection beam onto a surface of the area to illuminate the object (“The hazard detection processor 158 can be programmed to transmit the command signal when it calculates the probability of the existence of a hazard condition that exceeds a predetermined threshold. The projector 195 is configured to project an illumination in response to receiving the command signal. In embodiments, any suitable projector can be used. In embodiments, the projector 195 can be positionably controlled via the hazard detection processor 158 to adjust the location of the illumination projected by the projector 195 such that the illumination can be projected near the location of the hazard condition as determined by the hazard detection processor 158.” Perez, [0066]).
Regarding claim 17, Perez discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising operating an alarm device to provide an audible alert in response to determining the object classified as the potential hazard is present (“If a hazardous condition is detected, the messaging system 114 provides a warning alert... In embodiments, the warning alert can be configured to be visually displayed on a display device and/or audibly emitted through a speaker.” Perez, [0032]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criado-Perez et al. in view of Chen et al. (CN 110522576 A, English translation- hereinafter referred to as “Chen”).
Regarding claim 18, Perez discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising the object classified as the potential hazard is detected (“If a hazardous condition is detected, the messaging system 114 provides a warning alert... In embodiments, the warning alert can be configured to be visually displayed on a display device and/or audibly emitted through a speaker.” Perez, [0032]).
Perez discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching increasing one or more of a frequency and volume of the audible alert as a function of time. However, 2nd ref in the same field of endeavor teaches increasing one or more of a frequency and volume of the audible alert as a function of time (“the general controller will send out an alarm after analysis, including warning sound and warning light. At the same time, the warning sound will gradually increase with time. Suddenly and the volume increases” Chen, bottom of pg. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Perez and Chen before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to provide auditory warnings for protection and early warning systems of patients (Chen, pg. 2). This motivation for the combination of Perez and Chen is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criado-Perez et al. in view of Glatfelter et al. (US 20170337820 A1, - hereinafter referred to as “Glatfelter”).
Regarding claim 19, Perez discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching determining that a person is present in the area; and in response to determining the person is present in the area, operating an image projection device to emit a second projection beam onto the surface of the area to indicate a path for the person to avoid the potential hazard, the surface being a floor surface. However, Glatfelter in the same field of endeavor teaches determining that a person is present in the area (multiple objects 106 and/or individuals 110 may be monitored with the anticipatory collision avoidance system 200” Glatfelter, [0027]); and in response to determining the person is present in the area, operating an image projection device to emit a second projection beam onto the surface of the area to indicate a path for the person to avoid the potential hazard, the surface being a floor surface (“the projection device 114 may be configured as a light emitting device disposed proximate to a floor pathway in the facility 202 for illuminating a portion of the floor pathway in response to the output signal, to provide warning indicia at the intersection region of the movable objects.” Glatfelter, [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Perez and Glatfelter before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to identify and warn individuals of potential conditions that could result in impact of the individual with a moving object (Glatfelter, [0004]). This motivation for the combination of Perez and Glatfelter is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 20, Perez and Glatfelter disclose the method of claim 19, further comprising determining a location of the person support apparatus within the area (“The controller of the collision avoidance system 200 may be programmed with a control algorithm as will be described herein that senses the physical location (e.g., three-dimensional location) in proximity to the objects (such as the mass) and determines potential collisions using one or more collision threshold algorithms” Glatfelter, [0033]; wherein the object may be a person as described at [0027]).
Therefore, combining Perez and Glatfelter would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-6 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eulloqui et al. (US 20190043331 A1) discloses method for providing smart mobility assistance by monitoring an area surrounding a user for hazards and sending feedback alerts to user.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL SILVA-AVINA whose telephone number is (571)270-0729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 AM - 8 PM 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/EMMANUEL SILVA-AVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673