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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant contends that Pirch and Choi, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest a UWB shield arranged between first and second sets of antenna devices, wherein at least one of the sets comprises two or more different antenna devices, and wherein the UWB shield is configured to delay or block UWB signals traveling from the UWB transmitter to antenna devices arranged behind the UWB shield. Applicant further contends that Pirch merely uses a material to slow electromagnetic waves and does not disclose the claimed shield configured to delay or block UWB signals or force a longer travel path.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pirch expressly discloses a material positioned between first and second UWB antennas and configured to slow down electromagnetic waves passing through the material. Specifically, Pirch discloses that the material between UWB antennas 506 and 508 is selected, designed, or configured to slow down electromagnetic waves passing therethrough, thereby providing an effective or functional separation distance between the antennas greater than their actual physical separation (Par. 61: the PCB comprises material selected, designed, or configured to “slow down” electromagnetic waves passing therethrough such that a reduced physical thickness provides an effective or functional separation distance between UWB antennas 506 and 508). Pirch further expressly discloses an embodiment in which antenna 508, material 702, and antenna 506 are stacked such that material 702 is positioned between the antennas (Par. 62: antenna 508 is attached to PCB 704, material 702 is placed, stacked, or affixed on antenna 508, and antenna 506 is placed, stacked, or affixed on material 702). Thus, a UWB signal traveling to an antenna positioned behind the intervening material travels through material expressly configured to slow the electromagnetic wave, thereby delaying receipt of the UWB signal at the antenna. The claim recites that the shield is configured to “delay or block” the UWB signal and does not require the shield to force the signal to travel along a longer physical path. Accordingly, Applicant's argument regarding the absence of a forced longer travel path is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Applicant further contends that Choi's antennas are located in the same plane and that a signal-delaying shield cannot therefore be arranged between the antennas of Choi. Applicant argues that incorporating Choi's coplanar antenna array into Pirch would be physically incompatible with Pirch's stacked antenna configuration and would render Pirch's shield inoperable for its intended purpose.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's argument is based on a modification different from that proposed in the rejection. The rejection does not require replacing Pirch's shield-separated antenna configuration with the particular physical arrangement of Choi's antenna array. Rather, Pirch's arrangement of antennas separated by the intervening signal-delaying material is retained, and Choi is relied upon for its teaching of using a plurality of antennas, including three or more antennas, for localization. Choi expressly discloses a first, second, and third antenna and performing location determination of a signal source using the three antennas. Choi determines a first signal reception angle using the first and second antennas and a second signal reception angle using the first and third antennas, and further expressly provides that more antennas may be used (Par. 70: the electronic device performs location determination of a signal source using first, second, and third antennas; a first angle is identified using the first and second antennas and a second angle is identified using the first and third antennas; the disclosure is not limited to three antennas and an embodiment using more antennas is also possible). Accordingly, Choi's particular illustrated coplanar arrangement need not be bodily incorporated into Pirch in order to apply Choi's teaching of using additional antennas for localization. Moreover, Pirch itself expressly contemplates adding antennas to its disclosed reader. Pirch explains that certain credential-device positions may produce similar distance and angle-of-arrival determinations and expressly states that “one or more additional antennas could be added to reader 502” to distinguish such credential-device positions when additional localization is desired or required (Par. 59: one or more additional antennas may be added to reader 502 to distinguish between credential device locations and provide additional localization information). Thus, contrary to Applicant's assertion that a multi-antenna arrangement is physically incompatible with Pirch's shield-separated configuration, Pirch itself expressly contemplates incorporating additional antennas into the same reader employing the disclosed antenna configuration.
Applicant further contends that modifying Pirch according to Choi would destroy Pirch's principle of operation because Pirch requires its stacked, shielded antenna structure, whereas Choi utilizes a coplanar antenna array.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The proposed modification does not remove Pirch's first and second antennas, eliminate the intervening material, or otherwise require abandonment of Pirch's signal-delaying antenna configuration. Rather, Pirch's existing shield-separated arrangement is retained while one or more additional antennas are incorporated into at least one antenna grouping. Such a modification is consistent with Pirch's express disclosure that one or more additional antennas may be added to reader 502 when additional localization is desired. Choi further demonstrates that using three or more antennas to obtain additional angular information for localization of a signal source was known in the art. Accordingly, the proposed modification supplements Pirch's localization arrangement rather than changing or destroying its principle of operation.
Applicant additionally contends that Pirch's signal-delaying material and Choi's multi-antenna array represent distinct alternative solutions for improving localization and that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the references.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pirch itself provides an express reason for incorporating additional antennas into its localization device. Specifically, Pirch recognizes that its existing localization arrangement may not distinguish between certain credential-device positions and teaches that one or more additional antennas may be added when additional localization is desired or required. Choi, in turn, teaches a known multi-antenna localization arrangement in which signals received through three antennas are used to obtain localization information along different axes and determine the location of a signal source. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to implement Pirch's expressly contemplated additional antenna or antennas according to the known multi-antenna localization teachings of Choi in order to obtain additional spatial information and distinguish transmitter locations that may otherwise produce ambiguous localization determinations.
Applicant's assertion of impermissible hindsight is likewise unpersuasive. The reason for adding additional antennas is not derived from Applicant's disclosure. Rather, Pirch itself expressly identifies the desirability of adding one or more antennas when additional localization is desired or required, while Choi provides a known implementation employing three or more antennas for localization. The proposed combination therefore follows from the teachings of the cited references and would have predictably resulted in Pirch's shield-separated localization arrangement having two or more antenna devices in at least one of the antenna groupings while retaining Pirch's signal-delaying material between the respective antenna groupings.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive, and the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Applicant contends, regarding claims 2-12, that Chen fails to disclose the limitations of claims 2–12. In particular, Applicant contends that, although Chen discloses directional antennas having non-uniform sensitivity patterns, Chen fails to disclose antenna sensitivity patterns characterized by an outward sensitivity directed away from a UWB shield and an inward sensitivity directed toward the UWB shield, wherein the inward sensitivity is less than the outward sensitivity. Applicant further contends that Chen fails to disclose a UWB shield arranged between first and second sets of antenna devices, a shielding structure configured to delay or block UWB signals traveling to antenna devices positioned behind the shield, or determining transmitter location using times of arrival at antenna devices separated by such a shield.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's argument considers Chen individually rather than the collective teachings of the references as set forth in the rejection. Chen is not relied upon for teaching the UWB shield or the shield-separated antenna arrangement. As detailed in the rejection of claim 1, Pirch in view of Choi teaches the UWB shield arranged between first and second antenna groupings and the use of multiple antennas for localization. Chen is relied upon for teaching the additional antenna sensitivity pattern recited by claim 2. In particular, Chen teaches oppositely directed antenna devices having outward directional sensitivity lobes directed away from the center between the antennas and in-ward sensitivity directed toward the center between the antennas, wherein the inward sensitivity is less than the outward sensitivity (Fig. 4; The two antennas have outward directional antenna lobes directed away from the center of the antennas, and the outward sensitivity is greater than the inward sensitivity).
The rejection proposes configuring the shield-separated antennas of Pirch in view of Choi according to the directional sensitivity pattern taught by Chen, such that the greater out-ward sensitivity is directed away from Pirch's intervening UWB shield and the lower inward sensitivity is directed toward the UWB shield. Thus, Chen need not itself disclose a UWB shield for the combination to result in the claimed relationship between the antenna sensitivity pattern and the UWB shield. Rather, the claimed relationship results from applying Chen's expressly taught outward-high/inward-low directional antenna configuration to the shield-separated antenna arrangement of Pirch in view of Choi. As set forth in the rejection, such a configuration would have predictably allowed the antennas to preferentially receive signals arriving from the open side of the respective antenna grouping while reducing sensitivity toward the shield-facing side, thereby enhancing directional discrimination and improving the reliability of localization.
Applicant's additional arguments that Chen fails to disclose a shield configured to delay or block UWB signals or determining location using times of arrival at antennas separated by such a shield are likewise unpersuasive because Chen is not relied upon for those limitations. Those limitations are taught by Pirch in view of Choi for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of Pirch, Choi, and Chen, rather than on Chen individually.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments regarding claims 2–8 have been fully considered but are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1,9,10,11,12,13,19,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirch (WO 2021058479) in view of Lee et al. (US 20220173790, hereinafter Choi)
Regarding claim 1, Pirch discloses a UWB localization device comprising:
a UWB receiver having a plurality of antenna devices for receiving UWB signals from a UWB transmitter (Par. 11: Lines 3-4; A UWB signal from a credential device (i.e. UWB transmitter) is sent to a first and second UWB antenna);
and a processing unit configured to determine for UWB signals from the UWN transmitter times of arrival at the plurality of antenna devices, using signal properties of the UWB signals (Par. 11: Lines 4-6; Localization of the UWB credential device is determined by time of receipt of the UWB signal at each of the first and second UWB antennas; A device capable of performing the recited functions necessarily includes a processing unit);
wherein the UWB localization device further comprises a UWB shield arranged between a first antenna device and a different second antenna device, and the UWB shield being configured to delay or block UWB signals traveling from the UWB transmitter to the antenna arranged behind the UWB shield with respect to the UWB transmitter (Par. 10: Lines 2-8; A material is placed between the first and second antennas configured to slow down (i.e. delay) electromagnetic waves passing therethrough);
and the processing unit is further configured to determine a location of the UWB transmitter, using times of arrival at the antenna devices of the first antenna device and the second antenna device (Par. 11: Lines 3-8; Localization of the UWB device such as determining whether is inside or outside a secure area (relative location) is performed using the time of receipt of the UWB signals to the first and second antenna).
Pirch discloses a first and second antenna but does not disclose a first set of antenna devices and a second set of antenna devices with at least one of the first set of antenna devices and second set of antenna devices comprising two or more different antennas. Pirch, however, expressly contemplates adding one or more additional antennas to the reader when additional localization is required (Par. 59; One or more additional antennas could be added to the reader 502 in order to distinguish between credential-device locations if additional localization is required or desired).
Choi, however, discloses a set of antenna devices used for localization that includes two or more different antennas (Par. 43: Lines 7-8; The antenna module can include an antenna array; Par. 70: Lines 1-4; Localization can be performed using a first, second, and third antenna),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pirch to include two or more antennas in at least one of the antenna groupings, as taught by Choi, in order to provide additional localization information and distinguish between transmitter locations. Pirch expressly recognizes the desirability of adding one or more antennas when additional localization is desired, and Choi provides a known multi-antenna localization configuration for obtaining additional spatial information. Incorporating such a multi-antenna configuration into Pirch would have predictably provided the additional localization expressly contemplated by Pirch while retaining Pirch's existing signal-delaying material between the antenna groupings.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1, Pirch discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the location of the UWB transmitter (Par. 26: Lines 4-6; Localization of the of the credential or key device is performed with respect to the reader), whereby the location includes a distance (Par. 26: Lines 4-6; The range (distance) of the credential or key device with respect to the reader is determined) and a relative position of the UWB transmitter with respect to the UWB localization device (Par. 48: Lines 9-10; It can be determined if the credential device is inside or outside the secure area (relative position)).
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1, Pirch discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to determine the location of the UWB transmitter (Par. 26: Lines 4-6; Localization of the of the credential or key device is performed with respect to the reader), whereby the location includes a distance (Par. 26: Lines 4-6; The range (distance) of the credential or key device with respect to the reader is determined) and a relative angular arrangement of the UWB transmitter with respect to the UWB localization device (Par. 51: Lines 1-5; In addition to distance, the angle of incidence of arrival (AoA) of the credential device with respect to the reader can be determined).
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1, Pirch discloses wherein the processing unit is configured to control an access control barrier based on the location of the UWB transmitter (Par. 11: Lines 1-9; Intent to access a secured area involves determining if the credential device is inside or outside the secure area; Par. 11: Lines 9-13; If the credential information is valid and the intent has been determined, access to the secure area may be permitted).
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 1, Pirch discloses the UWB localization device further comprising a human interaction device, and ca communication device for data communication (Par. 31: Lines 1-4; The reader can include a communication module and a user interface).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 and claim 11 as applied to claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 13. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 9 addresses the limitations presented in claim 19. Therefore, the limitations of claim 19 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 20 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 10 addresses the limitations presented in claim 20. Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 have been addressed.
Claims 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,14,15,16,17,18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirch (WO 2021058479) in view of Lee et al. (US 20220173790, hereinafter Choi) in further view of Chen et al. (CN 111865354, hereinafter Chen)
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Pirch in view of Choi discloses a UWB shield but does not disclose wherein the antenna devices have an antenna sensitivity pattern characterized by an outward sensitivity, directed away from the UWB shield along a pattern axis, and an inward sensitivity, directed towards the UWB shield along the axis pattern, the inward sensitivity being less sensitive to UWB signals than the outward sensitivity.
Chen, however, discloses antenna devices that have an antenna sensitivity pattern characterized by an outward sensitivity, directed away from the center of the two antennas along a patter axis (Fig. 4; Two antennas have outward directional antenna lobes directed away from the center of the antennas; Directional lobes represent are representative of the sensitivity), and an inward sensitivity, directed towards the center of the two antennas along a pattern axis (Fig. 4; Two antennas have inward directional antenna lobes directed towards the center of the antennas; Directional lobes represent are representative of the sensitivity), the inward sensitivity being less sensitive to UWB signals than the outward sensitivity (Fig. 4; The outwards sensitivity is more sensitive than the inward sensitivity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the antennas of Pirch in view of Choi to have the outward-high / inward-low sensitivity pattern as taught by Chen, because in a shield-separated antenna arrangement it is desirable to preferentially receive signals arriving from the open, unobstructed side of each antenna and to attenuate signals arriving from the shield-facing side, thereby enhancing directional discrimination, reinforcing the delay effect introduced by the shield, and improving the accuracy and reliability of time-of-arrival based localization in a predictable manner.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2, Pirch in view of Choi discloses a UWB shield but does not disclose wherein at least one antenna device from the first set of the antenna devices and at least one antenna device from the second set of the antenna devices are arranged with their respective outward sensitivity directed in opposite directions along the pattern axis.
Chen, however, discloses a first antenna and a second antenna arranged with their respective outward sensitivity directed in opposite directions along the pattern axis (Fig. 4; Two antennas have outward directional antenna lobes directed away from the center of the antennas; Directional lobes represent are representative of the sensitivity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the antennas of Pirch in view of Choi to have the outward directed sensitivity pattern as taught by Chen, because in a shield-separated antenna arrangement it is desirable to preferentially receive signals arriving from the open, unobstructed side of each antenna and to attenuate signals arriving from the shield-facing side, thereby enhancing directional discrimination, reinforcing the delay effect introduced by the shield, and improving the accuracy and reliability of time-of-arrival based localization in a predictable manner.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 2, Pirch in view of Choi discloses a UWB shield but does not disclose wherein one antenna device from the first set of the antenna devices and one antenna from the second set of antenna devices are arranged with their respective outward sensitivity directed in opposite directions along a first axis pattern, and another one antenna device from the first set of antenna devices and another one antenna device from the second set of the antenna devices are arranged with their respective outward sensitivity directed in opposite directions along a second pattern axis.
Chen, however, discloses a first and second antenna device arranged with their respective outward sensitivity directed in opposite directions along a first axis pattern, and another pair of antennas arranged with their respective outward sensitivity directed in opposite directions along a second pattern axis (Fig. 20; Two pairs of antennas are shown. The horizontal pair of antennas have their outward sensitivity directed in opposite directions along a first axis pattern. The vertical pair of antennas have their outward sensitivities along a second pattern axis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the shield-separated antenna sets of Pirch in view of Choi to include multiple antenna pairs arranged with their outward sensitivities directed in opposite directions along respective pattern axes as taught by Chen, in order to enhance directional discrimination and improve the reliability and resolution of time-of-arrival based localization in a predictable manner.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 4, Pirch in view of Choi does not disclose wherein the first pattern axis and the second pattern axis are crossing each other.
Chen, however, discloses wherein the first pattern axis and the second pattern axis are crossing each other (Fig. 20; The two pattern axis are perpendicular to each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the shield-separated antenna sets of Pirch in view of Choi to include two pairs of antennas oriented with their outward sensitivities directed in opposite directions along respective crossing first and second pattern axes as taught by Chen, in order to provide bidirectional directional coverage along multiple axes, improve angular resolution of the UWB transmitter location, and enhance localization accuracy in a predictable manner using known multi-axis antenna orientation techniques.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 4, Pirch in view of Choi teach a UWB shield with the possibility of multiple antennas on either side of the shield. Pirch in view of Choi does not teach wherein the first pattern axis and the second pattern axis are running parallel to each other.
Chen, however, discloses a pair of antennas with their respective outward sensitivity directed in opposite directions along the pattern axis (Fig. 4; Two antennas have outward directional antenna lobes directed away from the center of the antennas; Directional lobes represent are representative of the sensitivity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure an additional antenna pair of Pirch in view of Choi with opposing outward sensitivities as taught by Chen, since Chen demonstrates that arranging a pair of antennas with outward-directed opposing sensitivity along a pattern axis is a known and functional antenna configuration. Applying this known orientation to additional antenna pairs in the same shield-separated multi-antenna system would have been a predictable design choice to extend directional discrimination capabilities without altering the underlying operation of the device.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1, Pirch in view of Choi discloses a UWB shield arranged between a first set of the antenna devices and a different second set of the antenna devices, and the UWB shield being configured to delay or block UWB signals traveling from the UWB transmitter to the antenna devices arranged behind the UWB shield with respect to the UWB transmitter (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1).
Pirch in view of Choi does not disclose wherein the UWB localization device comprises one or more further UWB shields arranged between antenna devices of the first set of the antenna devices and/or between antenna devices of the second set of the antenna devices, the one or more further UWB shields being configured to delay or block UWB signals traveling from the UWB transmitter to antenna devices arranged behind the one or more further UWB shields with respect to the UWB transmitter.
Chen, however, discloses four antennas with each pair of opposite antennas having pattern axis crossing each other (as detailed in the rejection of claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide additional UWB shields between additional antenna pairs in the multi-antenna arrangement of Chen, in view of Pirch and Choi’s teaching that positioning a shield between antennas delays or attenuates signals reaching antennas located behind the shield, thereby improving signal discrimination and localization performance. A skilled artisan would have recognized that applying the same shielding technique to additional antenna pairs in a four-antenna configuration would predictably extend the same signal-conditioning and isolation benefits to those pairs, improving directional resolution and reducing undesired signal interference across multiple axes.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 7, Pirch in view of Choi discloses a UWB shield, arranged between the first set of antennas devices and the second set of antenna devices, defining a first plane shield (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1).
Pirch in view of Choi does not disclose one or more further UWB shields defining a further shield plane which crosses the first plane shield.
Chen, however, discloses four antennas with each pair of opposite antennas having pattern axis crossing each other (as detailed in the rejection of claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange one or more further UWB shields defining a shield plane that crosses the first shield plane, in order to correspond to the multi-axis antenna arrangement taught by Chen, since a skilled artisan would have recognized that when antennas are arranged along crossing axes to improve angular localization capability, applying shielding structures along each axis would predictably provide signal isolation and controlled propagation effects in both directions, thereby improving localization accuracy and reducing interference; moreover, because Pirch in view of Choi already demonstrates that placing a shield between antennas is an effective technique for delaying or controlling UWB signal propagation, it would have been a straightforward and predictable design choice to position an additional shield between the other pair of antennas so as to apply the same known signal-control principle to that pair and achieve consistent performance across both axes.
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 14. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 14, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 15. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 15, the rejection of claim 4 addresses the limitations presented in claim 16. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 7 addresses the limitations presented in claim 17. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 17, the rejection of claim 8 addresses the limitations presented in claim 18. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 have been addressed.
Conclusion
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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights