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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 9 -10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Badic et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0175919 A1), hereinafter Badic.
Regarding claim 9, Badic teaches,
A method of operating wireless circuitry, the method comprising: transmitting, using a transmitter, radar signals (para. 0246, “Radar controller 3516 may be configured to transmit radio signals via RF transceiver 3504 and antenna system 3502”); receiving, using a receiver, reflected radar signals (para. 0246, “Radar controller 3516 may be configured…to receive the resulting reflected radio signals after the transmitted radio signals reflect back off objects.”); and adjusting, using one or more processors, a maximum transmit power level of the transmitter based on Doppler information (fig. 36, step 3610, noting that para. 0255 states that Doppler information is used to determine whether a human object is present in a sector. See also para. 0229), the Doppler information being associated with an external object and being generated based on the reflected radar signals (p. 36, step 3606, noting para. 0255, “Radar controller 3516 may therefore detect the Doppler and micro-Doppler effects in the reflected signal and, based thereon, may determine that the blocking object is a human object.”).
Regarding claim 10, Badic teaches (note: what Badic does not teach is struck through),
The method of claim 9, wherein adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises: reducing, using the one or more processors, the maximum transmit power level while the Doppler information has a first characteristic; and maintaining or increasing, using the one or more processors, the maximum transmit power level while the Doppler information has a second characteristic that is different from the first characteristic (fig. 36, step 3606. See also, “Specifically, when a human object is placed in front of antenna system 3502, natural body tremors will cause unique Doppler effects in the reflected signal, and the reflected signal will have phase and frequency variations. Radar controller 3516 may therefore detect the Doppler and micro-Doppler effects in the reflected signal and, based thereon, may determine that the blocking object is a human object.”)
Regarding claim 21, Badic teaches,
The method of claim 9, further comprising: detecting, using the one or more processors, an angle to the external object relative to a boresight of the one or more antennas, wherein adjusting the maximum transmit power level includes reducing the maximum transmit power level while the angle is less than a threshold angle, and maintaining or increasing the maximum transmit power level while the angle is greater than the threshold angle (para. 0231, “For example, by comparing the angular range of sector 1 with the sensor directions of blocking object 3402, controller 3512 may estimate that blocking object 3402 blocks a certain amount of sector 1, such as 33% of sector 1's angular range. Controller 3512 may also determine that blocking object 3402 does not block any of sectors 4-7, e.g., 0% of their angular ranges…Continuing with the example based on FIG. 34, controller 3512 may use 25% as the predefined blocking threshold, and may select only sectors that have blocking levels less than 25% in stage 3612. Controller 3512 may therefore select sectors 1 and 4 to 7 but may omit sectors 2 and 3. This predefined blocking threshold of 25% is exemplary and can be scaled to any other value.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 1594807 B2), hereinafter Ng, in view of Islam et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0356980 A1), hereinafter Islam.
Regarding claim 1, Ng teaches (note: what Ng does not teach is struck through),
Wireless circuitry (fig. 4, radar device 400) comprising: circuitry configured to transmit radar signals and to receive reflected radar signals (fig. 4,radar device 400); one or more processors configured to detect, based on the reflected radar signals, whether an external object is on a surface of a housing that encloses the wireless circuitry (fig. 9, step 930, nothing that the reference does not specify the values of D0-D4, but that it would be reasonable to have one of these values indicate that the radar is on the surface); and a transmitter configured to transmit wireless signals with a first maximum transmit power level while the external object is detected at a first distance (fig. 13, step 1360, noting that a suggested range of values for a range d is given as 0-4 cm from the surface of the device. The examiner notes that col. 9 indicates, “According to embodiments of this disclosure, the different MPE operations can correspond to different power back-offs, such that the transmit power can be reduced in steps when the object is detected to be approaching the module, and vice versa.”), and transmit the wireless signals with a second maximum transmit power level while the external object is detected at a second distance (fig. 13, step 1340).
Islam teaches,
…a transmitter configured to transmit wireless signals with a first maximum transmit power level while the external object is detected on the surface (para. 0078, “increasing the transmit power while using fewer antenna elements to extend the range of the antenna beam.” The examiner notes that Islam teaches that fewer antenna elements are used when a hand is detected on the surface of said antenna elements), and transmit the wireless signals with a second maximum transmit power level while the external object is detected off the surface (para. 0078, “decreasing transmit power when additional antenna elements of the antenna array are determined to be free because the user moved her hand”).
Ng and Islam are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MPE distances of Ng with the detection of an object on the surface of the device of Islam because Ng suggests but does not directly teach that one range of detection distances for modifying MPE includes the surface of the radar device. Ng further suggests that the distance thresholds can be single values rather than ranges, but is silent as to what values might be appropriate . Thus, it would be obvious to select a range of 0 cm from the device as one distance threshold because it is the minimum distance at which an object can be detected.
Regarding claim 2, Ng in view of Islam teaches the wireless circuitry of claim 1. Ng further teaches that a higher transmit level can be used by one antenna array when an object is detected close to a different antenna array of the same device (col. 20, “For example, the electronic device 200 applies the MPE operation by identifying a first antenna array from the plurality of antenna arrays that is closer to the object than a second antenna array from the plurality of antenna arrays based on the position of the object relative to the electronic device and reduces a power level for the first antenna array in order to reduce a power density in proximity to the object, and increases a power level for the second antenna to compensate at least in part for a reduction in the power level for the first antenna array.”). The examiner notes that, in view of Islam as cited above, using a distance threshold of 0 cm (i.e., on the surface of the first antenna array) for this MPE operation is obvious, since Islam teaches increasing the power of one array when another array is blocked.
Regarding claim 3, Ng in view of Islam teaches the wireless circuitry of claim 2. Ng further teaches,
…wherein the one or more processors is configured to detect, based on the reflected radar signals, a range to the external object (fig. 9, step 910), the transmitter being further configured to transmit the wireless signals with the first maximum transmit power level while the range exceeds a threshold value (fig. 9, step 920. The examiner notes that step 920 involves taking no action to change the transmission power of a first antenna array, indicating that the transmission power is comparable to that of the uncovered second antenna array).
Regarding claim 5, Ng in view of Islam teaches the wireless circuitry of claim 1. Ng further teaches,
…wherein the one or more processors is configured to identify, based on the reflected radar signals, Doppler information associated with the external object (fig. 8, step 833), the one or more processors being configured to detect whether the external object is on the surface based on the Doppler information (fig. 8, step 835, noting that a suggested predetermined range of values is 0-4 cm, indicating that the Doppler processing can detect whether the object is on the surface)
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as claim 2.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng in view of Islam and further in view of Smith et al. (Smith, G. et al., Micro-Doppler processing for ultra-wideband radar data (2012). Proc. of SPIE Vol. 8361. doi: 10.1117/12.919932), hereinafter Smith.
Regarding claim 4, Ng in view of Islam teaches the wireless circuitry of claim 2. Ng further teaches (note: what Ng does not teach is struck through),
…wherein the one or more processors is configured to detect, based on the reflected radar signals, whether the external object is human (fig. 13, step 1370), the transmitter being further configured to transmit the wireless signals with the first maximum transmit power level when while the external object is not human (fig. 13, step 1380).
Smith teaches,
…wherein the one or more processors is configured to detect, based on the reflected radar signals, whether the external object is inanimate (p. 1, para. 2, “Imaging of animate targets of interest, such as humans, behind walls and inside enclosed structures proves to be a challenging task due to clutter arising from reflections from exterior and interior walls as well as the interactions between the animate targets and the surroundings…The second approach uses Doppler radars and utilizes Doppler filters to capture the individual Doppler frequencies. This approach is effective in detecting motions and separating targets from the clutter in the Doppler domain”).
Smith is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ng with the animacy detection of Smith. Ng teaches determining whether the object blocking the radar is living, but teaches using the reflectivity of the object to determine whether it is a human, a technique that can require a significant amount of memory. Ng further teaches processing the radar information for Doppler data to determine MPE, indicating that the system of Ng is capable of making Doppler measurements. The system of Smith offers a way of using said Doppler measurements to differentiate between animate and inanimate objects, thus making it less memory-intensive to identify whether a blocking object is human.
Regarding claim 6, Ng in view of Islam teaches the wireless circuitry of claim 5. Ng does not teach,
…wherein the one or more processors is configured to generate a range-Doppler map based on the reflected radar signal, the one or more processors being configured to detect whether the external object is on the surface based on the range-Doppler map
Smith teaches,
…wherein the one or more processors is configured to generate a range-Doppler map based on the reflected radar signal (fig. 7), the one or more processors being configured to detect whether the external object is on the surface based on the range-Doppler map (fig. 7, noting that a range of zero on the range-Doppler map would indicate that the object is on the surface).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ng with the range-Doppler map of Smith because the range-Doppler map of Smith enables separating multiple targets detected by the radar, allowing the radar to be used in systems with more than one target.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng in view of Islam and further in view of Mathworks (Mathworks. Automotive adaptive cruise control using FMCW technology (2021). https://www.mathworks.com/help/radar/ug/automotive-adaptive-cruise-control-using-fmcw-technology.html. Accessed via Wayback Machine), hereinafter Mathworks.
Regarding claim 8, Ng in view of Islam teaches the wireless circuitry of claim 5. Ng further teaches (note: what Ng does not teach is struck through),
The wireless circuitry of claim 5, further comprising: a transmit path coupled to the circuitry (figs. 4, transmitter 404); a receive path coupled to the circuitry (fig. 4, receiver 406), wherein the radar signals comprises chirp signals (fig. 4, signals 402 comprise chirps);
Mathworks teaches,
…wherein the radar signals comprises chirp signals; and a de-chirp mixer on the receive path, wherein the de-chirp mixer is configured to receive the radar signals from the transmit path over a de-chirp path, the de- chirp mixer is configured to receive the reflected radar signals, the de-chirp mixer is configured to generate a beat signal based on the radar signals and the reflected radar signals, and the one or more processors is configured to generate the Doppler information based on the beat signal (p. 4, para. 3, “As briefly mentioned in earlier sections, an FMCW radar measures the range by examining the beat frequency in the dechirped signal. To extract this frequency, a dechirp operation is performed by mixing the received signal with the transmitted signal. After the mixing, the dechirped signal contains only individual frequency components that correspond to the target range.”).
Mathworks is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ng with the de-chirping process of Mathworks because the de-chirping process of Mathworks is a standard technique in the art for extracting frequency components from an FMCW radar signal, and FMCW radars are a common type of monostatic radar.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic in view of Ng.
Regarding claim 11, Badic teaches the method of claim 10. Badic does not teach,
…wherein adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises: reducing, using the one or more processors, the maximum transmit power level while the Doppler information is indicative of the external object being off a surface of the wireless circuitry; and maintaining or increasing, using the one or more processors, the maximum transmit power level while the Doppler information is indicative of the external object being on the surface.
Ng teaches,
…wherein adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises: reducing, using the one or more processors, the maximum transmit power level while the Doppler information is indicative of the external object being off a surface of the wireless circuitry; and maintaining or increasing, using the one or more processors, the maximum transmit power level while the Doppler information is indicative of the external object being on the surface (col. 20, “For example, the electronic device 200 applies the MPE operation by identifying a first antenna array from the plurality of antenna arrays that is closer to the object than a second antenna array from the plurality of antenna arrays based on the position of the object relative to the electronic device and reduces a power level for the first antenna array in order to reduce a power density in proximity to the object, and increases a power level for the second antenna to compensate at least in part for a reduction in the power level for the first antenna array.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the transmit powers of Ng because the distance-based transmit power determination of Ng ensures that total transmit power is high enough to ensure clear transmissions without causing injury to humans using the device. In other words, the process of Ng ensures that compensating for human presence does not impede the transmission quality.
Regarding claim 13, Badic teaches the method of claim 9. Badic does not teach,
…generating, using the one or more processors, a set of Channel Impulse Response (CIR) vectors in the Doppler information based on the reflected radar signals
Ng teaches,
…generating, using the one or more processors, a set of Channel Impulse Response (CIR) vectors in the Doppler information based on the reflected radar signals (col. 14, “Otherwise, the distance of the detected object from the radar module is estimated from the radar signals reflected off the object, which can be in the form of CIR.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the CIR vectors of Ng because using CIR to detect distance is a well-known technique in the art that would be appropriate to use with the system of Badic.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic in view of Regev et al. (Regev N, Wulich D. Radar-Based, Simultaneous Human Presence Detection and Breathing Rate Estimation. Sensors (Basel). 2021 May 19;21(10):3529. doi: 10.3390/s21103529.), hereinafter Regev.
Regarding claim 12, Badic teaches the method of claim 9. Badic further teaches (note: what Badic does not teach is struck through),
…wherein the Doppler information comprises a Doppler signature of the external object and adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises: reducing the maximum transmit power level when a human is detected (fig. 36, step 3606)
Regev teaches detecting human presence based on a width metric of a Doppler signature exceeding a threshold value (p. 2, para. 2, “The feasibility of using breathing to detect presence was proven in [5,6], where they showed that a mechanical target which simulates a breathing human can be detected in a room with 93% accuracy by using a Doppler radar with a threshold on the root mean square (RMS) of the received signal” The examiner notes that RMS is a width metric).
Regev is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the Doppler width-based human presence detection of Regev. Badic teaches using micro-Doppler effects to determine whether a human is present, but is silent as to the specific method of doing so. The method of Regev is one way of using micro-Doppler effects to detect human presence, and allows for the detection of even the smallest motions, thus increasing the likelihood that a blocking object will be correctly detected as human.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic in view of Ng and further in view of Regev.
Regarding claim 14, Badic in view of Ng teaches the method of claim 13. Badic does not teach,
…further comprising: generating, using the one or more processors, a range-Doppler map in the Doppler information based on the CIR vectors
Ng teaches using CIR vectors of Doppler information to detect range but does not teach generating a range-Doppler map (col. 14, “Otherwise, the distance of the detected object from the radar module is estimated from the radar signals reflected off the object, which can be in the form of CIR.”).
Regev teaches,
…further comprising: generating, using the one or more processors, a range-Doppler map in the Doppler information based on the CIR vectors (p. 4, para. 2, “Next, each column spectrum is calculated using the fast Fourier transform (FFT), generating a range-Doppler map.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the CIR vectors of Ng because using CIR to detect distance is a well-known technique in the art that would be appropriate to use with the system of Badic. It would have been further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ng with the range-Doppler map of Regev because the range-Doppler map of Regev enables separating multiple targets detected by the radar, allowing the radar to be used in systems with more than one target.
Regarding claim 15, Badic in view of Ng and further in view of Regev teaches the method of claim 14. Badic does not teach,
…further comprising: detecting, using the one or more processors, a range to the external object based on the range-Doppler map
Regev teaches,
…further comprising: detecting, using the one or more processors, a range to the external object based on the range-Doppler map (p. 4, para. 3, “A maximum peak is then searched for inside the range Doppler map, and its corresponding range-bin is declared as the range bin of the target.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the range-Doppler map of Regev because the map of Regev allows for the detection of multiple objects, differentiating between them. Using said map to detect objects would thus increase the accuracy of the measurements of Badic by allowing for multiple objects to be identified and differentiated between in radar data, which is commonly needed in real-world scenarios.
Regarding claim 16, Badic in view of Ng and further in view of Regev teaches the method of claim 14. Badic does not teach,
…extracting, using the one or more processors, a Doppler vector from the range-Doppler map; and accumulating, using the one or more processors, the Doppler vector with additional Doppler vectors to generate a time-Doppler map (p. 3, para., 6, “If we wait T seconds in slow time or K frames we will get a slow time vs. fast-time matrix of size 𝐾×𝑁𝑟𝑔, in which each row is a radar frame and each column is the change of radar return amplitude over T seconds (and K radar frames) of slow time. If we know the specific range bin in which the breathing phenomenon is present and extract this column, then we will get a slow time signal that is periodic with a fundamental breathing frequency 𝑓𝑏.”).
Regev teaches,
…extracting, using the one or more processors, a Doppler vector from the range-Doppler map; and accumulating, using the one or more processors, the Doppler vector with additional Doppler vectors to generate a time-Doppler map (p. 3, para. 6, “If we wait T seconds in slow time or K frames we will get a slow time vs. fast-time matrix of size 𝐾×𝑁𝑟𝑔, in which each row is a radar frame and each column is the change of radar return amplitude over T seconds (and K radar frames) of slow time. If we know the specific range bin in which the breathing phenomenon is present and extract this column, then we will get a slow time signal that is periodic with a fundamental breathing frequency 𝑓𝑏.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the time-Doppler map of Regev because the time-Doppler map of Regev enables the detection of micro-Doppler effects such as breathing, thus increasing the likelihood that an interfering object will correctly be identified as human or not human, and therefore increasing the safety of the system.
Regarding claim 17, Badic in view of Ng and further in view of Regev teaches the method of claim 16. Badic further teaches using micro-Doppler effects to determine human presence and adjusting the maximum transmit power of a system based on human presence detection (fig. 36, steps 3606-3610 and “specifically, when a human object is placed in front of antenna system 3502, natural body tremors will cause unique Doppler effects in the reflected signal, and the reflected signal will have phase and frequency variations. Radar controller 3516 may therefore detect the Doppler and micro-Doppler effects in the reflected signal and, based thereon, may determine that the blocking object is a human object.”). Badic does not teach,
…identifying, using the one or more processors, a feature of the time-Doppler map, wherein adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises adjusting the maximum transmit power level based on the identified feature of the time-Doppler map.
Regev teaches,
…identifying, using the one or more processors, a feature of the time-Doppler map, wherein adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises adjusting the maximum transmit power level based on the identified feature of the time-Doppler map (p. 3, para. 7, “If we know the specific range bin in which the breathing phenomenon is present and extract this column, then we will get a slow time signal that is periodic with a fundamental breathing frequency 𝑓” The examiner notes that breathing detection is used to determine human presence. See also figs. 7-9).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the time-Doppler map of Regev because the time-Doppler map of Regev enables the detection of micro-Doppler effects such as breathing, thus increasing the likelihood that an interfering object will correctly be identified as human or not human, and therefore increasing the safety of the system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic in view of Ng, further in view of Regev, and further in view of Kalyanaraman et al. (A. Kalyanaraman, E. Soltanaghaei and K. Whitehouse, "Doorpler: A Radar-Based System for Real-Time, Low Power Zone Occupancy Sensing," 2019 IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS), Montreal, QC, Canada, 2019, pp. 42-53, doi: 10.1109/RTAS.2019.00012), hereinafter Kalyanaraman.
Regarding claim 18, Badic teaches reducing maximum transmit power level when human presence is detected (fig. 36). Badic does not teach,
…wherein the identified feature comprises a width metric of the time-Doppler map and adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises reducing the maximum transmit power level while the width metric exceeds a threshold value
Kalyanaraman teaches using a width metric of a time-Doppler map to determine human presence (p. 45, left col., para. 2, “Next, it obtains the envelope of the filtered signal, and detects a crossing only when the envelope power is larger than a threshold (set as 5 times the noise-floor). Fig. 1 shows the envelope power of the Doppler filtered signal for 12 doorway crossings. We can clearly see that the envelope power during a crossing is much larger than that during a crossing absence.”).
Thus, the combination of Badic in view of Ng, further in view of Regev, and further in view of Kalyanaraman teaches,
…wherein the identified feature comprises a width metric of the time-Doppler map and adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises reducing the maximum transmit power level while the width metric exceeds a threshold value
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the width metric of Kalyanaraman because the width metric of Kalyanaraman requires minimal computational power (see Kalyanaraman, p. 45, left col., para. 2), thus making it easier to accurately detect human presence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, Ng in view of Islam and further in view of Smith teaches the wireless circuitry of claim 6. Smith further teaches
… wherein the one or more processors is configured to generate a time-Doppler map based on the range-Doppler map (p. 3, para. 3, “Summation along the range axis results in a two-dimensional matrix with frequency and slow time as axes.” See also figs. 7(c) and 7(d)).
However, Ng, Islam, and Smith all fail to teach,
… the one or more processors being configured to detect whether the external object is on the surface based on the time-Doppler map.
Mathworks, Regev, Badic, and Kalyanaraman all fail to correct the deficiencies in Ng, Islam, and Smith. Thus, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination, fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648