CTFR 18/476,347 CTFR 99211 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Applicant has canceled claim 10. Thus, application has pending claims 1-9 and 11-20. Examiner’s Comments Examiner notes a call was made to Brian A. Jones to discuss potential allowable subject matter by incorporating language within the dependent claims 9 and 15 into claim 1, and mirroring claims 14 and 18. However, the Attorney and Examiner could not come to an agreement. Because no agreement was able to be reached, this action is presented as disclosed below. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Firstly, Applicant states on pages 6-7 of the Remarks that Bakshi does not disclose bits that represent the task state. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant even mentions in their argument that Bakshi may teach the determined hashchain value with semantic information. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner believes that Bakshi’s hashchain, which is a fixed string on bites, i.e., a multi-bit key, does represent the task state. Bakshi ¶79 additionally discloses that computing the hashchain includes assigning an identification code and a task code associated with at least one task to be executed. Examiner is interpreting this to mean that the hashchain includes the identification of a bot, as well as its task. This would fit the claim’s disclosure of a hash code representing a task state, especially in light of the Specification ¶22, wherein a robot receives semantic tasks to be performed . Secondly, Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that there is no reason to combine Bakshi with Hong and CHO. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. CHO has already disclosed a hash code that relates to a task state, and the purpose of Bakshi’s teaching is to modify CHO’s hash code is a multi-bit key of bits. Bakshi’s teaching also further discloses that a part, or portion, of the hashchain is related to the task state (see Bakshi ¶79, wherein the hashchain contains a bot identifier and a task identifier). Additionally, the hashchain is a fixed string on bytes (see Bakshi ¶79), and a byte is a collection of 8 bits. Thirdly, Applicant argues that Vilchis with Bakshi would fundamentally change Bakshi. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Vilchis and Bakshi are intended to modify the hash code of CHO. As disclosed in the second response, CHO and Bakshi already disclose a task state in their hash code. Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to be able to modify CHO’s hash code to also be a multi-bit key of bits, as taught by Bakshi. Additionally, CHO’s tasks include locations (see CHO ¶80), thus it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill to include Vilchis’s position data in its hash key and include it in CHO’s hash code disclosure. Lastly, Applicant argues that combining Vilchis with Bakshi would not result in the claimed invention. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the previous responses, the intention behind Vilchis and Bakshi was to modify CHO’s hash code to include the multi-bit key as well as the volumetric space in the hash code. While Vilchis does not explicitly disclose their hash codes consisting of portions, Bakshi does mention that his does disclose a part of the hashchain is a task identifier (see Bakshi ¶79) and CHO does disclose its hash code comprising location information (see CHO ¶67 and ¶80). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify CHO’s hash code to include the multi-bit key and volumetric space of Bakshi and Vilchis, respectively. Thus, this action is made FINAL . Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein each hash code is stored…”. There is lack of antecedent basis, as claim 1 only discloses a hash code, rather than multiple hash codes . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: “a non-transitory computer-readable medium that includes instructions which, if executed…”. The claim language “if executed” is unnecessary . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. Claim 11 discloses a 64-bit key of 64 bits. There is no support in the Specification, filed 09/28/2023, disclosing that the 64-bit key is comprised of 64 bits; only that there are 8 bit allocations for the spatial coordinate and the task-class representation as disclosed in [0033]. 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 19 rejected to because of the following informalities: “…wherein each of the plurality of voxels…”. It is unclear whether the “each” refers to multiple pluralities of voxels or if it is referring to the voxels within the plurality of voxels. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 rejected to because of the following informalities: “…wherein each voxel of the plurality of voxels…”. It is unclear whether the “each” refers to multiple pluralities of voxels or if it is referring to the voxels within the plurality of voxels. Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. In claim 18, the limitations “a means for capturing an image,” “a means for converting the image…,” “a means for determining... a hash code…,” “a means for determining a motion plan…,” and “a means for causing the robot to execute the motion plan,” have been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “means” and functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 9, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungseok HONG US-20240091950-A1, hereinafter HONG, in further view of Joonmyun CHO US-20220261644-A1, hereinafter CHO, Sakshi Bakshi US-20240378078-A1, hereinafter Bakshi, and Jose Parra Vilchis US-20200027262-A1, hereinafter Vilchis . As per claim 1, HONG discloses a system for representing a workspace of a robot, the system comprising:a sensor configured to capture an image of the workspace ( see HONG ¶69 and FIG. 2, wherein an image of a scene [such as a workspace] is captured. See additionally ¶81 );a processor in communication with the sensor, the processor configured to ( see HONG ¶70, wherein a processor of the device connected to the imaging sensor is disclosed ):convert the image into a point cloud representation of the workspace ( see HONG ¶3, ¶70-72, and ¶84 and FIGS. 2-3, wherein point clouds are created for the objects in the scene for the robot in its environment [e.g. warehouse] );determine, for at least one point in the point cloud representation, a metric embedding that relates a task to a volumetric space associated with the at least point ( see HONG ¶84, wherein the robot creates metric embeddings of the segmented point clouds corresponding to the object shapes based on semantic and geometric information. The robot also generates confidence scores for each point of the completed shape point clouds. See further ¶85, wherein the robot uses filtered predictions with the confidence score to perform an action, or task, on a target object );determine a motion plan for the robot within the workspace based on the metric embedding ( see HONG ¶85-89 and FIG. 4, wherein the robot creates a priority list using the confidence scores, which were acquired from the metric embeddings, to perform tasks / actions in the view planning process. See prior ¶81-82, wherein the motion of the robot is controlled to perform these tasks / actions ); andcause the robot to execute the motion plan ( see HONG ¶93, wherein the robot performs an action on at least one object after the robot is controlled to move in the last step of the view planning process. Additionally, see HONG ¶171 and FIG. 9 step 970, wherein the controlling a motion of a robot based on the confident scores is disclosed ). Although HONG discloses creating embeddings, HONG however fails to explicitly disclose where CHO teaches:determine a hash code that relates a task state ( see CHO ¶67, wherein a hash code is acquired by performing a hash operation on a task state of the sequence data, wherein the sequence data includes video, or image data. See additionally FIG. 3A ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify HONG by using CHO’s teaching by modifying the metric embedding to a hash code relating to a task state in order to improve the task plan generation for the robot motion plan. However, HONG, in combination with CHO, fails to explicitly disclose where Bakshi teaches:the hash code comprises a multi-bit key of bits, wherein a first portion of bits of the multi-bit key represents the task state ( see Bakshi ¶79, wherein a hashchain (also known as a hash key or hash code) value, which is a fixed string on bytes, i.e., multi-bit key of bits, for task assignment is disclosed ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify HONG’s, as modified by CHO, system by using Bakshi’s teaching by including a multi-bit key to the hash code in order to use the semantic information to store the task state to provide further information to the robot motion plan. However, HONG, in combination with CHO and Bakshi, fails to explicitly disclose where Vilchis teaches:the hash code comprises a multi-bit key of bits, wherein a portion of the multi-bit key represents the volumetric space ( see Vilchis ¶36 and FIG. 5, wherein a hash key is comprised of bits that contain relative position along a coordinate plane with respect to a voxel group, i.e., volumetric space ). While Vilchis does not explicitly disclose a second portion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify HONG’s, in combination with CHO and Bakshi, hash code to include a volumetric space in another portion of the hash code, as CHO’s hash code includes a location for the task state (see CHO ¶80). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify HONG’s, in combination with CHO and Bakshi, system by using Vilchis’s teaching by including a multi-bit key to the hash code in order to use the geometric information in the metric embedding to store the volumetric space to provide further information to the robot motion plan. As per claim 2, HONG, as modified by CHO, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the volumetric space comprises a grouping of one or more points in the point cloud representation, wherein the grouping is represented by a voxel ( see HONG ¶106, Table 1, and FIG. 5, wherein the voxel associated with the segmented point cloud comprising a position of a point is disclosed ). As per claim 9, HONG, as modified by CHO, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the motion plan is based directly on the hash code ( see HONG ¶144, wherein the confidence scores, which are acquired from the metric embeddings, in the priority list are used to control a motion of a robot in the view planning process . See CHO ¶107-109 wherein the task plan is generated from sequence data, and the task state sequence data is based on the hash code ). As per claim 12, HONG, as modified by CHO, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the multi-bit key of bits of hash code ( see CHO ¶67, wherein the processor acquires a hash code. See additionally Bakshi ¶79, which discloses the hash code being a multi-bit key ) based on concatenated results from a plurality of functions that are based on a level of a voxel that represents the volumetric space, a cartesian coordinate of the voxel, the task state, a semantic classification associated with the volumetric space, and/or a unique identifier of a physical resource of the workspace ( see HONG ¶98 and FIG. 5, wherein the data pipeline in the robot control system includes a segmentation component includes a voxel as disclosed in ¶106, a tracker that includes voxel level as disclosed in ¶110, and a semantic class as disclosed in ¶106 and Table 1. See further HONG ¶111-112 and FIG. 5, wherein the metric embedding component acquires the information from the segmentation component to create embeddings ). As per claim 13, HONG, as modified by CHO, discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the hash codes are stored as a map of the workspace, wherein each hash code is stored with a semantic classification for the at least one point that is associated with the volumetric space and/or the task state ( see HONG ¶111-112 and FIG. 5, wherein the metric embeddings are created alongside the semantic map then fed into the GP inference component using the information from the embeddings and semantic information, which includes the semantic class label, as further disclosed in ¶118 . See CHO ¶108-112, wherein a string hash code is generated corresponding to the task state. See also CHO FIGS. 2-3A, wherein the task states in the work location are shown ). As per claim 14, the rationale provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14 ( see HONG ¶46, wherein a non-transitory computer-readable medium is disclosed ) corresponds to the system of claim 1. As per claim 16, HONG, as modified by CHO, discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the volumetric space has an associated semantic classification ( see HONG ¶106 and Table 1, wherein the voxels, a volumetric space, in the semantic map contains a semantic class ). As per claim 17, HONG, as modified by CHO, discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein the associated semantic classification comprises a class token, a task token, and/or a position token of the at least one point ( see HONG ¶108-109, wherein a tracker is included in the semantic information, which acquires the object ID of observed objects and calculates centroid positions, i.e., position tokens ). As per claim 18, the rationale provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, the apparatus of claim 18 ( see HONG ¶46, wherein an apparatus is disclosed ) corresponds to the system of claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3-4 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, in further view of HIU YUAN WO-2023159428-A1, hereinafter YUAN . As per claim 3, HONG, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the voxel is one of a plurality of voxels, wherein each of the plurality of voxels comprises a multilevel octree ( see HONG ¶106-107, wherein the semantic map of the segmented point cloud comprises voxels for each observed object and an OctoMap library that uses an octree data structure is disclosed ). However, HONG, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, fails to explicitly disclose where YAUN teaches:the point cloud representation is divided into a plurality of voxels ( see YUAN page 7-8/78, wherein a recursive octree structure is used on the point cloud to divide the point cloud to a certain depth to acquire voxels ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify HONG’s, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, system by using YUAN’s teaching by including division to the point cloud representation in order to improve the precision of the point cloud. As per claim 4, HONG, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the voxel represents a portion of physical space within the workspace, wherein the voxel is defined by a cartesian coordinate and a level of the voxel ( see HONG Table 1 and ¶110, wherein a position coordinate (x, y, z), i.e., cartesian coordinates, and a voxel level are disclosed ). However, HONG, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, fails to explicitly disclose where YAUN teaches:the voxel is defined by a bounding box ( see YUAN page 7-8/78 and FIG. 6, wherein a bounding box is used in the octree structure, which is then used to acquire the voxels ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify HONG’s, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, system by using YUAN’s teaching by including a bounding box to the voxel in order to further define the space in which a voxel is calculated to exist. As per claims 19-20, the rationale provided in claims 3-4 are incorporated herein. In addition, the apparatus of claims 19-20 ( see HONG ¶46, wherein an apparatus is disclosed ) corresponds to the system of claims 3-4 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, in further view of Xing-she ZHOU CN-109408157-A, hereinafter ZHOU . As per claim 5, HONG, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, fails to explicitly disclose where ZHOU teaches:The system of claim 1, wherein the task state relates to a work requirement of a multilevel task representation framework ( see ZHOU top of page 7/24 and FIG. 3, wherein a PetriNet model diagram, i.e., multilevel task representation framework, is disclosed ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify HONG’s, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, system by using ZHOU’s teaching by including a multilevel task representation framework to the task state in order to acquire a further developed structure for completing tasks. As per claim 6, HONG, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, Vilchis and ZHOU, discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the multilevel task representation framework comprises a multilevel Petri-Net, where the task state is represented by a configuration of mark on the multilevel Petri-Net ( see ZHOU bottom of page 6/24, wherein the PetriNet, a multilevel task representation framework, includes a tuple (P, T, F, R, M), wherein M represents an initial containing the mark of the sub-task set ). As per claim 7, HONG, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, Vilchis and ZHOU, discloses the system of claim 6, wherein the configuration of marks comprises a set of input or output requirements within the multilevel Petri-Net ( see ZHOU page 7/24 and FIG. 4, wherein the transition rule that moves the mark comprises an input and output library set ). As per claim 8, HONG, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, Vilchis and ZHOU, discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the set of input or output requirements is described by a subtask, wherein the subtask is associated with a physical resource needed for the subtask ( see ZHOU page 4/24 step 101, wherein the whole task is broken down into sub-tasks according to the execution object, i.e., physical resource. The transition rule of the PetriNet model in page 7/24 can determine multiple MP type sub-tasks, as disclosed on the top of page 6/24 which contains parameters relating to the executable object ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG, in combination with CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, in further view of Nick Horgan US-20140093073-A1, hereinafter Horgan . As per claim 11, HONG, in combination with CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, fail to explicitly disclose where Horgan teaches:The system of claim 1, wherein the multi-bit key comprises a 64-bit key of 64 bits, wherein the first portion comprises 8 bits of the 64 bits and the second portion comprises another 8 bits of the 64 bits that are different from the first portion of 8 bits ( see Horgan ¶51 and FIG. 2, wherein a 64-bit key is comprised of 8-bit portions. These portions are particular, meaning each portion is different from the other ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify HONG’s, in combination with CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, system by using Horgan’s teaching by include a 64-bit key to the multi-key in order to optimize the bit data space allotted to the task state and volumetric space information . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HONG, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, in further view of Maxime Meilland US-20210225074-A1, hereinafter Meilland . As per claim 15, HONG, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, fails to explicitly disclose where Meilland teaches:The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the hash code is a unique hash code that uniquely identifies one of the points in the point cloud representation ( see Meilland ¶57-58 and FIG. 4, wherein the 3D volumetric data and coordinates of each voxel in the hash table entries are unique. The 3D positions are used as keys, i.e., hash codes ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify HONG’s, as modified by CHO, Bakshi, and Vilchis, system by using Meilland’s teaching by including a unique hash code to the point cloud in order to obtain unique identifiers for the robot to have more precise environmental awareness. Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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. /BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671 /VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 2 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 3 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 4 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 5 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 6 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 7 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 8 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 9 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 10 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 11 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 12 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 13 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 14 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 15 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 16 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 17 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 18 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 19 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/476,347 Page 20 Art Unit: 2671
Prosecution Insights