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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 12 say’s item (445) for cameras, however, it was said that item (446) is for cameras.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant remarks, filed 02/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Campbell (US-9869754).
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. The Applicant amends claims 4-6, 12-14, 19 and 20.
The Applicant argues that Pinkelman does not have this structure. However, the abstract of Campbell states “The system further includes an enclosure, where the first lidar sensor and the second lidar sensor are contained within the enclosure.” Which means the reference has the appropriate structure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinkelman (US 11,029,179), in view of, Campbell (US-9869754).
Pinkelman teaches:
In regards to claim 1, Pinkelman teaches a method comprising: (abstract; 600 fig. 6, ‘method’; 6-67 col. 11 to 1-67 col. 12 to 1-67 col. 13)
obtaining a sensor assembly, the sensor assembly including a plurality of cameras including at least a first camera and a second camera; (112 fig(s) 1(A-B), 2, 3A, ‘plurality of sensors’)
performing a first test on the sensor assembly, wherein performing the first test on the sensor assembly include providing commands to the sensor assembly using the computing arrangement; (620 fig. 6; 112 fig(s) 1(A-B), 2, 3A, ‘plurality of sensors’)
monitoring the sensor assembly during the first test, wherein monitoring the sensor assembly includes obtaining data from at least one selected from a group including the sensor assembly and the sensor arrangement and providing the data to the data acquisition arrangement; and (614 fig. 6, ‘receive data from sensors’)
processing the data, wherein processing the data includes determining whether the data indicates that the sensor assembly passes the first test. (628 fig. 6, ‘receive verification data’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Pinkelman to provide a calibrating vision system to improve the accuracy of sensors used in autonomous vehicles and the like.
Pinkelman does not teach:
positioning the sensor assembly in an enclosure of a sensor testing system, the enclosure having a plurality of enclosure targets affixed thereon, the plurality of enclosure targets including a first enclosure target and a second enclosure target,
wherein the enclosure includes a sensor arrangement and wherein the sensor testing assembly further includes a computing arrangement and a data acquisition arrangement;
Campbell teaches:
positioning the sensor assembly in an enclosure of a sensor testing system, the enclosure having a plurality of enclosure targets affixed thereon, the plurality of enclosure targets including a first enclosure target and a second enclosure target, (abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 3,17-18)
wherein the enclosure includes a sensor arrangement and wherein the sensor testing assembly further includes a computing arrangement and a data acquisition arrangement; (abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Campbell to enable a method such as collimating light for a calibrating vision system to improve the accuracy of sensors used in autonomous vehicles and the like.
In regards to claim 2, Pinkelman & Campbell teach a method of claim 1 (in regards to claim 1) wherein the first test includes a camera test, and wherein performing the first test includes capturing a first image of the first enclosure target using the first camera and capturing a second image of the second enclosure target using the second camera. (Pinkelman: 620 fig. 6, ‘sensor(s) determine positioning/arrangement based on sensed projections’; fig(s) 3(A-B), ‘shaded projections’; 100 fig. 2, ‘hard enclosure’)
In regards to claim 3, Pinkelman & Campbell teach a method of claim 2 (see claim rejection 2) wherein the first enclosure target includes a first pattern and the second enclosure target includes a second target, and wherein processing the data includes determining whether the first image captures the first pattern such that the first pattern is identifiable and determining whether the second image captures the second pattern such that the second pattern is identifiable. (Pinkelman: 600 fig. 6, ‘method’; 300, 304, 306, 308 fig(s) 3(A-B) ‘projection’, ‘shaded shapes’; 116(a-b) 502, 504 fig. 5, ‘imaging devices’, 1st and 2nd field of view’, ‘projection’)
In regards to claim 4, Pinkelman & Campbell teach a method of claim 3 (see claim rejection 3) wherein the sensor assembly is configured to be mounted on a vehicle, and wherein (Campbell: (abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 3,17-18)) when it is determined that the first image captures the first pattern such that the first pattern is identifiable and when it is determined that the second image captures the second pattern such that the second pattern is identifiable, the sensor assembly passes the first test, (Pinkelman: 628 fig. 6, ‘receive verification data’) the method further including: mounting the sensor assembly on the vehicle when the sensor assembly passes the first test. (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 3,17-18)
In regards to claim 5, Pinkelman & Campbell teach a method of claim 1 (see claim rejection 1) wherein the sensor arrangement includes a sound sensor, and obtaining the data from the at least one selected from the group including the sensor assembly and the sensor arrangement incudes obtaining the data from both the senior assembly and the sensor arrangement, (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 3,17-18)
the sound sensor being arranged to collect data associated with a sound generated during the first test and to provide the data associated with the sound to the data acquisition arrangement, wherein monitoring the sensor assembly during the first test includes collecting the data associated with the sound generated during the first test. (Pinkelman: 614 fig. 6, ‘receive data from sensors’; 63-67 col. 6 to 1-34 col. 7, ‘a microwave receiver, an ultrasound emitter and/or an associated 20 ultrasound receiver’)
In regards to claim 6, Pinkelman & Campbell teach a method of claim 1 (see claim rejection 1) wherein the sensor arrangement is arranged to obtain data relating to the operation of the sensor assembly and includes a vibration sensor, the vibration sensor being arranged to collect data associated with a vibration generated during the first test and to provide the data associated with the vibration to the data acquisition arrangement, wherein monitoring the sensor assembly during the first test includes collecting the data associated with the vibration generated during the first test. (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 3,17-18
In regards to claim 8, Pinkelman & Campbell teach a method of claim 1 (see claim rejection 1) wherein the sensor assembly includes a lidar and the sensor testing system includes a lidar target, the lidar target being external to the enclosure, and wherein the first test includes activating the lidar and collecting data using the lidar and the lidar target. (Pinkelman: 42-67 col. 8 to 1-23 col. 9; ‘The projection 300 is generally any device, component, or the like that displays, emits, or otherwise provides an encoding that can be sensed by the one or more sensors 112 of the vehicle 110. While FIG. 3A generally depicts a visual pattern (e.g., a pattern that is usable by image sensors, LiDAR components, and/or the like), this is merely illustrative. That is, the projection 300 may be any pattern, encoded signal, and/or the like, including non-visual patterns, encoded signals, and/or the like, such as signals that are sensed by sensors such as sound sensors (e.g., sonar sensors), pressure sensors, radio wave sensors, and/or the like.’)
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinkelman (US 11,029,179), in view of, Campbell (US-9869754).
Pinkelman teaches:
In regards to claim 7, Pinkelman teaches a method of claim 1 wherein the plurality of cameras includes a third camera, and (112 fig(s) 1(A-B), 2, 3A, ‘plurality of sensors’; 42-67 col. 8 to 1-23 col. 9 ‘sensors 112 of the vehicle 110. While FIG. 3A generally depicts a visual pattern (e.g., a pattern that is usable by image sensors, LiDAR components, and/or the like’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Pinkelman to provide a calibrating vision system to improve the accuracy of sensors used in autonomous vehicles and the like.
Pinkelman does not teach:
wherein the enclosure includes a light source configured to generate light and a light collimator configured to collimate the light, wherein the third camera is arranged to capture a third image of the collimated light
Campbell teaches:
wherein the enclosure includes a light source configured to generate light and a light collimator configured to collimate the light, wherein the third camera is arranged to capture a third image of the collimated light. (100, 110, 125 fig. 1, ‘lidar system’, ‘light source’, ‘output beam’; 19-41 col. 4 ‘an output beam of light 125 emitted by light source 110 may be a collimated optical beam with any suitable beam divergence, such as for example, a divergence of approximately 0.1 to 3.0 milliradian (mrad’
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Campbell to enable a method such as collimating light for a calibrating vision system to improve the accuracy of sensors used in autonomous vehicles and the like.
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.
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinkelman (US 11,029,179), in view of, Campbell (US-9869754).
Pinkelman teaches:
In regards to claim 9, Pinkelman teaches Logic encoded in one or more tangible non-transitory, computer-readable media for execution and when executed operable to: (38-67 col. 9, ‘software algorithms’; 612 fig. 6, ‘execution of calibration algorithm’; 44-67 col. 11, ‘encoded signal transmitted via radio waves’; ‘control unit (ECU))
the sensor assembly including at least a first camera and a second camera, the sensor testing system further including a sensor arrangement positioned in the enclosure, the enclosure having a first enclosure target affixed thereon and a second enclosure target affixed thereon, wherein the logic operable to perform the first test on the sensor assembly includes logic operable to provide commands to the sensor assembly using the computing arrangement; (11-24 col. 12; 620 fig. 6; 112 fig(s) 1(A-B), 2, 3A, ‘plurality of sensors’)
monitor the sensor assembly during the first test, wherein the logic operable to monitor the sensor assembly includes logic operable to obtain data from at least one selected from a group including the sensor assembly and the sensor arrangement; and (614 fig. 6, ‘receive data from sensors’)
process the data, wherein the logic operable to process the data includes logic operable to determine whether the data indicates that the sensor assembly passes the first test. (628 fig. 6, ‘receive verification data’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Pinkelman to provide a calibrating vision system to improve the accuracy of sensors used in autonomous vehicles and the like.
Pinkelman does not teach:
perform a first test on a sensor assembly positioned within an enclosure included in a sensor testing system,
Campbell teaches:
perform a first test on a sensor assembly positioned within an enclosure included in a sensor testing system, (abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Campbell to enable a method such as collimating light for a calibrating vision system to improve the accuracy of sensors used in autonomous vehicles and the like.
In regards to claim 10, Pinkelman & Campbell teach a logic of claim 9 (see claim rejection 9) wherein the first test includes a camera test, and wherein the logic operable to perform the first test includes logic operable to capture a first image of the first enclosure target using the first camera and logic operable to capture a second image of the second enclosure target using the second camera. (Pinkelman: 620 fig. 6, ‘sensor(s) determine positioning/arrangement based on sensed projections’; fig(s) 3(A-B), ‘shaded projections’; 100 fig. 2, ‘hard enclosure’)
In regards to claim 11, Pinkelman & Campbell teach a logic of claim 10 (see claim rejection 10) wherein the first enclosure target includes a first pattern and the second enclosure target includes a second target, (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18) and wherein the logic operable to process the data includes logic operable to determine whether the first image captures the first pattern such that the first pattern is identifiable and logic operable to determine whether the second image captures the second pattern such that the second pattern is identifiable. (Pinkelman: 600 fig. 6, ‘method’; 300, 304, 306, 308 fig(s) 3(A-B) ‘projection’, ‘shaded shapes’; 116(a-b) 502, 504 fig. 5, ‘imaging devices’, 1st and 2nd field of view’, ‘projection’)
In regards to claim 12, Pinkelman & Campbell teach a logic of claim 11 (see claim rejection 11) wherein the sensor assembly is configured to be mounted on a vehicle, and wherein (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18) when it is determined that the first image captures the first pattern such that the first pattern is identifiable and when it is determined that the second image captures the second pattern such that the second pattern is identifiable, the sensor assembly passes the first test (Pinkelman: 628 fig. 6, ‘receive verification data’; 112 fig(s) 1(A-B), 2, 3A, ‘plurality of sensors’) and is identified as suitable for mounting on the vehiicle. (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18)
In regards to claim 13, Pinkelman & Campbell teach a logic of claim 9 (see claim rejection 9) wherein the sensor arrangement includes a sound sensor and the logic operable to obtain the data from the at least one selected from the group including the sensor assembly and the sensor arrangement includes logic operable to obtain the data from both the sensor assembly and the sensor arrangement, (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18) the sound sensor being arranged to collect data associated with a sound generated during the first test and to provide the data associated with the sound to the data acquisition arrangement, wherein to logic operable to monitor the sensor assembly during the first test includes logic operable to collect the data associated with the sound generated during the first test. (Pinkelman: 614 fig. 6, ‘receive data from sensors’; 63-67 col. 6 to 1-34 col. 7, ‘a micro-wave receiver, an ultrasound emitter and/or an associated 20 ultrasound receiver’)
In regards to claim 14, Pinkelman & Campbell teach a logic of claim 9 (see claim rejection 9) wherein the sensor arrangement is arranged to obtain data relating to the operation of the sensor assembly and (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18) includes a vibration sensor, the vibration sensor being arranged to collect data associated with a vibration generated during the first test and to provide the data associated with the vibration to the data acquisition arrangement, wherein the logic operable to monitor the sensor assembly during the first test includes logic operable to collect the data associated with the vibration generated during the first test. (Pinkelman: e.g., a pattern that is usable by image sensors, LiDAR components, and/or the like’, this is merely illustrative. That is, the projection 300 may be any pattern, encoded signal, and/or the like, including non-visual patterns, encoded signals, and/or the like, such as signals that are sensed by sensors such as sound sensors (e.g., sonar sensors), pressure sensors, radio wave sensors, and/or the like.’)
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.
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinkelman (US 11,029,179), in view of, Campbell (US-9869754).
Pinkelman teaches:
In regards to claim 15, Pinkelman teaches an apparatus comprising:
a computing arrangement configured to communicate with the sensor assembly support arrangement; (38-67 col. 9, ‘software algorithms’; 612 fig. 6, ‘execution of calibration algorithm’; 44-67 col. 11, ‘encoded signal transmitted via radio waves’; ‘control unit (ECU); (112 fig(s) 1(A-B), 2, 3A, ‘plurality of sensors’)
a data acquisition arrangement configured to obtain data from the computing arrangement when the computing arrangement communicates with the sensor assembly support arrangement and to obtain data from the sensor arrangement; and (38-67 col. 9, ‘software algorithms’; 612 fig. 6, ‘execution of calibration algorithm’; 614 fig. 6, ‘receive data from sensors’; 628 fig. 6, ‘receive verification data’)
a power arrangement, the power arrangement configured to provide power to the sensor assembly support arrangement. (47-62 col. 6 , ‘power-train control module (PCM))
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Pinkelman to provide a calibrating vision system to improve the accuracy of sensors used in autonomous vehicles and the like.
Pinkelman does not teach:
an enclosure arrangement, the enclosure arrangement including a plurality of transparent enclosure surfaces, a plurality of enclosure targets affixed to the plurality of transparent enclosure surfaces, a sensor arrangement, and a sensor assembly support arrangement, wherein the sensor arrangement is configured to obtain information within the enclosure and the sensor assembly support arrangement is configured to support a sensor assembly;
Campbell teaches:
an enclosure arrangement, the enclosure arrangement including a plurality of transparent enclosure surfaces, a plurality of enclosure targets affixed to the plurality of transparent enclosure surfaces, a sensor arrangement, and a sensor assembly support arrangement, wherein the sensor arrangement is configured to obtain information within the enclosure and the sensor assembly support arrangement is configured to support a sensor assembly; (abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Campbell to enable a method such as collimating light for a calibrating vision system to improve the accuracy of sensors used in autonomous vehicles and the like.
In regards to claim 16, Pinkelman & Campbell teach an apparatus of claim 15 (see claim rejection 15) wherein the plurality to enclosure targets . (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18) includes a first camera target having a first pattern and a second camera target having a second pattern, and wherein the apparatus further includes a lidar target, the lidar target being positioned external to the enclosure . (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18)
In regards to claim 17, Pinkelman & Campbell teach an apparatus of claim 15 (see claim rejection 15) wherein the enclosure arrangement (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18) further includes a light arrangement, (Pinkelman: 112 fig(s) 1(A-B), 2, 3A, ‘plurality of sensors’; 42-67 col. 8 to 1-23 col. 9 ‘sensors 112 of the vehicle 110. While FIG. 3A generally depicts a visual pattern (e.g., a pattern that is usable by image sensors, LiDAR components, and/or the like’) the sensor arrangement includes a sound sensor arranged to detect sound within the enclosure and a vibration sensor arranged to detect a vibration within the enclosure arrangement. (Campbell: 100, 110, 125 fig. 1, ‘lidar system’, ‘light source’, ‘output beam’; 19-41 col. 4 ‘an output beam of light 125 emitted by light source 110 may be a collimated optical beam with any suitable beam divergence, such as for example, a divergence of approximately 0.1 to 3.0 milliradian (mrad’
In regards to claim 18, Pinkelman & Campbell teach an apparatus of claim 17 (see claim rejection 17) wherein the data acquisition arrangement is configured to process the data obtained from the computing arrangement and the data obtained from the sensor arrangement, and wherein the data includes data obtained from the sound sensor and data obtained from the vibration sensor. (Pinkelmann: e.g., a pattern that is usable by image sensors, LiDAR components, and/or the like), this is merely illustrative. That is, the projection 300 may be any pattern, encoded signal, and/or the like, including non-visual patterns, encoded signals, and/or the like, such as signals that are sensed by sensors such as sound sensors (e.g., sonar sensors), pressure sensors, radio wave sensors, and/or the like.’)
In regards to claim 19, Pinkelman teaches an apparatus of claim 18 (see claim rejection 18) wherein the computing arrangement is configured to communicate with the sensor assembly support arrangement to cause a test to be run, and wherein data acquisition arrangement is configured to process the data to determine whether the test is successful, (Pinkelman: 300, 304, 306, 308 fig. 3B, ‘projection’, ‘shaded shapes’; 116(a-b) 502, 504 fig. 5, ‘imaging devices’, 1st and 2nd field of view’, ‘projection’; 38-67 col. 9, ‘software algorithms’; 612 fig. 6, ‘execution of calibration algorithm’; 614 fig. 6, ‘receive data from sensors’; 628 fig. 6, ‘receive verification data’) wherein the sensor assembly is identified as suitable for mounting on a vehicle when the test is successful. (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18)
In regards to claim 20, Pinkelman teaches an apparatus of claim 19 (see claim rejection 19) wherein the sensor assembly support arrangement supports a sensor assembly including a first camera, a second camera, and a lidar, and wherein the test includes capturing images of the plurality of enclosure targets using the first camera and the second camera, the test further including capturing an image associated with the lidar target using the lidar. (Pinkelman: 42-67 col. 8 to 1-23 col. 9; ‘The projection 300 is generally any device, component, or the like that displays, emits, or otherwise provides an encoding that can be sensed by the one or more sensors 112 of the vehicle 110. While FIG. 3A generally depicts a visual pattern the sensor assembly support arrangement being arranged to communicatively couple the sensor assembly to the computing arrangement. (Campbell: abstract, 66-77 col. 11 to 1-10 col. 12; claim 1; fig(s) 17-18)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Speldrich (CN 119363967), Semansky (US 10,785,474), and Breuer (DE 102018208846) references further describe a calibration method of a camera module as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights