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 . 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 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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Examiner notes that the application is a continuation of PCT/CN2022/096175 (which has a priority date of 05/31/2022), but also claims priority to foreign application CN202110610324.7 (which has a priority date of 06/01/2021). Because this application is a bypass application, examiner has checked and verified that the subject matter contained in the current application (18/527,236) is supported by that of the foreign application (CN202110610324.7). As such, the claims at hand are granted the earlier priority date of 06/01/2021.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/10/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-3 and 6-22 remain pending in the application. The previously stated 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been overcome, however, new claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as seen below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitations of “when the first autonomous robot receives …”. Under BRI, this limitation is a conditional limitation as it only discloses a specific method step when a certain condition is applicable (first autonomous robot receiving a signal). However, the method claim makes no mention of what happens when the first autonomous robot doesn’t receive a processed signal. As such, the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 22 depends from claim 21 and contains the same indefinite subject matter as that of claim 21. As such, claim 22 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-14, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Luo, WO 2017045622, herein referred to as Luo, and in view of Park et al., US 20180279847 A1, herein referred to as Park.
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses a first autonomous robot (Paragraph 0038; system includes at least a first autonomous robot), performing an operation on a ground in a working region (Paragraph 0046; at least the first robot may perform a sweeping/cleaning function), determining, when detecting an abnormal condition during the operation, based on a type of abnormal condition and a work type that is processable by the first autonomous robot, that the abnormal condition is not independently processable by the first autonomous robot (Paragraphs 0046-0049; the robotic device may encounter an abnormal condition such as the robotic device being faulty, etc., requiring assistance may be considered a working policy, assistance may be requested based on if the robotic device not being able to perform its function (cleaning, sweeping) which can be considered a work type), in response to determining that the abnormal condition is not independently processable by the first autonomous robot, the first autonomous robot waits at a target position at which the abnormal condition is detected and continuing to perform the operation in the working region (Paragraphs 0083-0087; if a first device receives feedback information indicating possible assistance, the first device may wait until the assistance is completed or may perform other tasks which can be considered as leaving the target position at which the abnormal condition is detected and continuing an operation), sending, by the first autonomous robot, an assistance request to another device in an Internet of Things in which the first autonomous robot is located, the assistance request including position information of the target position (Paragraphs 0039-0040, 0044-0046; if the robotic device is not able to resolve the abnormal condition (device is faulty, etc.), then it may request assistance, the request for assistance may be done utilizing a broadcast message over a local network, a local network between devices can be considered an Internet of Things (IoT), a request for assistance includes position information as the second robot knows the locations where assistance is needed), and in response to receiving a processed signal sent by a second autonomous robot, the first autonomous robot returning to the target position and performing the operation on the target position or within a preset range of the target position (Paragraphs 0083-0087; if a second device is able to perform the assistance, the first device may wait until processing of the abnormal condition is completed before returning to its task, if a first device returns and continues its work operation after assistance is rendered, then the first device is at least within a range of the location in which it required assistance, the first device may have to wait until assistance is rendered to perform a given action, for instance, a second device may be required to sweep a given location before the first device can mop, etc.).
However, Luo fails to explicitly disclose in response to determining that the abnormal condition is not independently processable by the first autonomous robot, the first autonomous robot leaving a target position at which the abnormal condition is detected and continuing to perform the operation in the working region. However, Park, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches in response to determining that the abnormal condition is not independently processable by the first autonomous robot, the first autonomous robot leaving a target position at which the abnormal condition is detected and continuing to perform the operation in the working region (Fig. 6, Paragraphs 0129-0142; if an urgent cleaning is required at a given location, one or more robots may assist another robot with cleaning; a first robot may move to a waiting location until the urgent cleaning is finished by another robot; this can be considered as the first robot leaving). Therefore, from the teaching of Park, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Luo to include in response to determining that the abnormal condition is not independently processable by the first autonomous robot, the first autonomous robot leaving a target position at which the abnormal condition is detected and continuing to perform the operation in the working region, as taught/suggested by Park. The motivation to do so would be to ensure that a given robot is able to continue performing work or going to a location which is out of the way so that other robots may adequately clean/process an abnormal or urgent situation.
Regarding claim 2, Luo in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Luo further discloses the first autonomous robot is an autonomous robot having a scheduling function (Paragraph 0063; the first robotic device may have an assistance scheduling request which can be considered a scheduling function), receiving, by the first autonomous robot, status information of the another device (Paragraph 0055; the assistance request may generate feedback information regarding a second device, the feedback information may include an estimated time for arrival to assist the first device which can be considered status information), determining, according to the status information, whether a second autonomous robot is configured to independently process the abnormal condition exists in the Internet of Things (Paragraphs 0055-0056; the first device may request assistance from one or more second devices that are capable of performing assistance (resolving the abnormal condition), the request may be performed over a local network (IoT; see claim 1 rationale)), in response to determining that the second autonomous robot that is configured to independently process the abnormal condition exists in the Internet of Things, sending, by the first autonomous robot, a scheduling instruction to the second autonomous robot, wherein the scheduling instruction comprises a scheduling path for the second autonomous robot to reach a specified position, so that the second autonomous robot reaches the specified position according to the scheduling instruction to process the abnormal condition (Paragraphs 0055-0056; the request for assistance transmitted by the first device may be one in which the device is faulty (abnormal condition), the request for assistance may indicate a time for the second device to arrive at the first device which can be considered a scheduling instruction comprising a scheduling path as it includes a position for the second device to be at a given time).
Regarding claim 3, Luo in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2. Luo further discloses wherein the processed signal is sent by the second autonomous robot after processing the abnormal condition (Paragraphs 0083-0087; a second device may indicate that it is unable to complete the assistance task within a given time, this means that the second device has already begun processing the abnormal condition in some fashion), and sending, by the first autonomous robot, a return instruction to the second autonomous robot, wherein the return instruction comprises a return path for the second autonomous robot to return to a position before processing the abnormal condition, so that the second autonomous robot returns, according to the return instruction, to the position before processing the abnormal condition, to continue executing an interrupted operation of the second autonomous robot (Paragraphs 0083-0087; if a second device is not able to complete its assistance of the abnormal condition, it may return to a waiting point or perform assistance for another device, both of which can be considered an uninterrupted operation, the return to a waiting point or perform assistance for another device may be considered as a return path as it includes a given location for waiting/performing work).
Regarding claim 6, Luo in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2. Luo further discloses determining, by the first autonomous robot according to the status information, that at least one autonomous robot of which an executable work type matches a work type for eliminating the abnormal condition or a functional component matches a functional component for eliminating the abnormal condition in the another device (Paragraph 0071; when the first device sends the assistance request, it may receive feedback based on if the second devices are capable of performing the assistance for resolving the abnormal condition, devices capable of performing the assistance are determined based on what type of work they can perform (mopping, sweeping, etc.)), and if only one autonomous robot of the at least one autonomous robot meets an assistance condition, determining the only one autonomous robot meeting the assistance condition as the second autonomous robot or if a plurality of autonomous robots of the at least one autonomous robot meets the assistance condition, selecting, according to a first screening rule, one autonomous robot from the plurality of autonomous robots meeting the assistance condition as the second autonomous robot (Paragraph 0071; if a second device is capable of performing the assistance to the first device, it is selected for performing the assistance request).
Regarding claim 8, Luo in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Luo further discloses receiving, by the first autonomous robot, status information of the another device (Paragraphs 0043, 0071; the first device may send an assistance request to numerous ‘second’ devices), determining, according to the status information, whether a third autonomous robot is configured to assist in processing the abnormal condition exists in the Internet of Things (Paragraphs 0043, 0071; the first device may receive feedback information indicating another device is capable of performing assistance if a other devices are not capable of performing the assistance (other devices can be a first instance of feedback from a ‘second’ device; the third device may be one that is capable of performing assistance), and in response to determining that the third autonomous robot that is configured to assist in processing the abnormal condition exists in the Internet of Things, sending, by the first autonomous robot, a scheduling instruction to the third autonomous robot, wherein the scheduling instruction comprises a scheduling path for the third autonomous robot to reach a specified position, so that the third autonomous robot reaches the specified position according to the scheduling instruction, and the first autonomous robot processes the abnormal condition in cooperation with the third autonomous robot (Paragraphs 0043, 0071; if a third device is determined as the one capable of performing the assistance request (see above rationale for ‘second’ and ‘third’ devices), the request for assistance may contain information that may indicate a time for the third device to arrive at the first device which can be considered a scheduling instruction comprising a scheduling path as it includes a position for the third device to be at a given time, the request for assistance may be send over a local network which can be considered an IoT (see claim 1 rationale)).
Regarding claim 9, Luo in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 8. Luo further discloses sending, by the first autonomous robot, an action instruction to the third autonomous robot (Paragraphs 0043, 0071; the assistance request sent to a third device may be considered to include an action instruction such as assisting with cleaning, sweeping, etc.), and when the first autonomous robot receives receiving confirmation information returned by the third autonomous robot for the action instruction, performing, by the first autonomous robot and the third autonomous robot, an action corresponding to the action instruction according to the action instruction, so that the first autonomous robot and the third autonomous robot cooperatively process the abnormal condition (Paragraphs 0043, 0071; the first autonomous may receive feedback information that indicates a third device (see previous rationale) being capable of performing assistance, receiving the feedback information may be considered a confirmation, the third device may assist the first device to perform a given action (cleaning, sweeping, etc.)).
Regarding claim 11, Luo in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Luo further discloses the first autonomous robot is an autonomous robot that does not have a scheduling function (Paragraph 0065; a central server may be the one which generates an assistance scheduling request instead of each of the devices, this can be considered as the first device not having a scheduling function), sending, by the first autonomous robot, the assistance request to an autonomous robot having the scheduling function or a scheduling system, to cause the autonomous robot having the scheduling function or the scheduling system determines a processing policy corresponding to the abnormal condition according to the assistance request, and when the processing policy corresponding to the abnormal condition is an independent processing policy, schedules, according to the independent processing policy, a third autonomous robot that is configured to independently process the abnormal condition (Paragraphs 0055-0056, 0065; the request for assistance transmitted by the first device may be one in which the device is faulty (abnormal condition), the request for assistance may indicate a time for the second (or third, etc.) device to arrive at the first device which can be considered a scheduling instruction comprising a scheduling path as it includes a position for the second (or third, etc.) device to be at a given time), and when the processing policy corresponding to the abnormal condition is a cooperative processing policy, schedules, according to the cooperative processing policy, a fourth autonomous robot that is configured to assist in processing the abnormal condition (Paragraphs 0055-0056, 0065; if multiple devices are needed for assistance, the central server may send out a schedule to utilize numerous devices to assist).
Regarding claim 12, Luo in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Luo further discloses monitoring, by the first autonomous robot, an ambient environment during the operation (Paragraph 0039; the first device may monitor the environment to determine an abnormal condition), detecting the abnormal condition in the ambient environment, acquiring, by the first autonomous robot, information about the abnormal condition, and determining, based on the information about the abnormal condition, that the abnormal condition affects normal running of the first autonomous robot, and the abnormal condition needs to be processed (Paragraph 0039; abnormal environment conditions may be acquired by the first device, abnormal environment information may indicate that assistance is required), performing, by the first autonomous robot, a determination of a working policy required to eliminate the abnormal condition and determining, based on the type of the abnormal condition, the working policy, and the work type that is processable by the first autonomous robot, that the abnormal condition is not independently processable by the first autonomous robot (Paragraphs 0046-0049; the robotic device may encounter an abnormal condition such as the robotic device being faulty, abnormal environmental information, etc., requiring assistance may be considered a working policy, assistance may be requested based on if the robotic device not being able to perform its function (cleaning, sweeping) which can be considered a work type).
Regarding claim 13, Luo in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Luo further discloses the another device comprises an autonomous robot, and the first autonomous robot sends the assistance request by using a v2v communication protocol (Paragraph 0040; the first device may send an assistance request over a local network to another device (second, third, etc.), this can be considered a V2V communication protocol).
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are similar to a portion of those in claim 2 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, the limitations are similar to those in claim 20 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 20.
Claims 7, 10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Luo, in view of Park, and further in view of Song et al., US 20070050937 A1, herein referred to as Song.
Regarding claim 7, Luo in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 2. Luo further discloses in response to determining that no second autonomous robot that is configured to independently process the abnormal condition exists in the Internet of Things, calling, by the first autonomous robot, another autonomous robot (Paragraphs 0043, 0071; if a second or third device is not capable of performing assistance, the first device may continue to query for devices that can assist; requests for assistance and feedback may be transmitted over a local network between devices), but fails to disclose in response to determining that no second autonomous robot that is configured to independently process the abnormal condition exists in the Internet of Things, calling, by the first autonomous robot, pre-stored position information of a working head station and a working head list of the working head station, wherein the working head station has a plurality of working head placement positions, at least one working head is pre-placed at each working head placement position, a working head identifier is set at a corresponding working head placement position or set on a corresponding working head, and the working head identifier comprises a working head type or work type information that is executable by the corresponding working head, and selecting, according to the status information and from the another device, a third autonomous robot that is configured to identify a working head identifier of a working head configured to eliminate the abnormal condition in the working head list, and sending a replacement instruction to the third autonomous robot, wherein the replacement instruction comprises a return path for the third autonomous robot to move to the working head station and the working head that is configured to eliminate the abnormal condition, so that the third autonomous robot mounts, according to the replacement instruction, the working head that is configured to eliminate the abnormal condition.
However, Song, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches in response to determining that no second autonomous robot that is configured to independently process the abnormal condition exists in the Internet of Things, calling, by the first autonomous robot, pre-stored position information of a working head station and a working head list of the working head station, wherein the working head station has a plurality of working head placement positions, at least one working head is pre-placed at each working head placement position, a working head identifier is set at a corresponding working head placement position or set on a corresponding working head, and the working head identifier comprises a working head type or work type information that is executable by the corresponding working head (Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0057-0063; a robot may exchange its working head based on a detected environmental condition; the exchange station has a given position and each of the exchangeable working heads has a dedicated position and identifier), and selecting, according to the status information and from the another device, a third autonomous robot that is configured to identify a working head identifier of a working head configured to eliminate the abnormal condition in the working head list, and sending a replacement instruction to the third autonomous robot, wherein the replacement instruction comprises a return path for the third autonomous robot to move to the working head station and the working head that is configured to eliminate the abnormal condition, so that the third autonomous robot mounts, according to the replacement instruction, the working head that is configured to eliminate the abnormal condition (Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0057-0063; if it is determined that a current working head is not able to perform a task, the robot may go and exchange the working head with another suitable one at the exchange station).
Therefore, from the teaching of Song, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have further modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Luo and Park to include in response to determining that no second autonomous robot that is configured to independently process the abnormal condition exists in the Internet of Things, calling, by the first autonomous robot, pre-stored position information of a working head station and a working head list of the working head station, wherein the working head station has a plurality of working head placement positions, at least one working head is pre-placed at each working head placement position, a working head identifier is set at a corresponding working head placement position or set on a corresponding working head, and the working head identifier comprises a working head type or work type information that is executable by the corresponding working head, and selecting, according to the status information and from the another device, a third autonomous robot that is configured to identify a working head identifier of a working head configured to eliminate the abnormal condition in the working head list, and sending a replacement instruction to the third autonomous robot, wherein the replacement instruction comprises a return path for the third autonomous robot to move to the working head station and the working head that is configured to eliminate the abnormal condition, so that the third autonomous robot mounts, according to the replacement instruction, the working head that is configured to eliminate the abnormal condition, as taught/suggested by Song. The motivation to do so would be to allow each robot to swap out its working head to either independently process an abnormal condition or assist another robot to help with processing an abnormal condition.
Regarding claim 10, Luo in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 7 but are for a third autonomous robot. As such, the rationale for rejection is the same as Song discloses a multitude of robots, each of which can perform the recited limitations as seen in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Luo in view of Park renders obvious all the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, a portion of the limitations are similar to those in claim 7 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 7. Furthermore, Luo discloses receiving status information of the another device, and determining, according to the status information, whether a second autonomous robot that is configured to independently process the abnormal condition exists in the Internet of Things (Paragraphs 0055-0056; the assistance request may generate feedback information regarding a second device; the feedback information may include an estimated time for arrival to assist the first device which can be considered status information; the first device may request assistance from one or more second devices that are capable of performing assistance (resolving the abnormal condition); the request may be performed over a local network (IoT; see claim 1 rationale)), and in response to determining that the second autonomous robot that is configured to independently process the abnormal condition exists in the Internet of Things, sending the scheduling instruction to the second autonomous robot, wherein the scheduling instruction comprises a scheduling path for the second autonomous robot to reach a specified position, so that the second autonomous robot reaches the specified position according to the scheduling instruction to process the abnormal condition (Paragraphs 0055-0056; the request for assistance transmitted by the first device may be one in which the device is faulty (abnormal condition); the request for assistance may indicate a time for the second device to arrive at the first device which can be considered a scheduling instruction comprising a scheduling path as it includes a position for the second device to be at a given time).
Regarding claim 16, Luo in view of Park all the limitations of claim 14. Additionally, the claim limitations are similar to a portion of those in claims 10 and 15 (working head teaching from claim 10; scheduling instruction disclosure from claim 15) and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 10 and 15.
Regarding claim 17, Luo in view of Park, and further in view of Song renders obvious all the limitations of claim 16. Luo further discloses in a cooperative processing process, simultaneously sending, according to an action corresponding to the abnormal condition, an action instruction corresponding to the action to the first autonomous robot and the third autonomous robot, to control synchronous action of the first autonomous robot and the third autonomous robot (Paragraphs 0055-0059, 0065; a scheduling assistance request may determine that another device can assist the first device in performing an assistance process to resolve an abnormal condition; the first device may require the other device to perform its assistance before performing its own work), and when multiple actions exist, sending each action instruction according to an execution sequence of the multiple actions corresponding to the abnormal condition, and sending a next action instruction after the first autonomous robot and the third autonomous robot completely execute an action corresponding to one action instruction; or selecting one of the first autonomous robot and the third autonomous robot as a main control robot, and simultaneously sending, by the main control robot according to the action corresponding to the abnormal condition, the action instruction corresponding to the action to the first autonomous robot and the third autonomous robot, to control the synchronous action of the first autonomous robot and the third autonomous robot (Paragraphs 0055-0059, 0065; a first device may require the other device to perform its assistance before performing its own work; this can be considered a sequence of action instructions sent to synchronize the performance of both devices).
Regarding claim 18, Luo in view of Park, and further in view of Song renders obvious all the limitations of claim 17. Luo further discloses pre-recording positions of the first autonomous robot and the third autonomous robot before processing the abnormal condition, and after receiving cooperative processing completion signals fed back by the third autonomous robot and the first autonomous robot for the abnormal condition, respectively sending a first return instruction to the first autonomous robot and a third return instruction to the third autonomous robot, wherein the first return instruction comprises a corresponding position of the first autonomous robot before processing the abnormal condition, and the third return instruction comprises a corresponding position of the third autonomous robot before processing the abnormal condition, so that the first autonomous robot and the third autonomous robot respectively return, according to the first return instruction and the third return instruction, to the positions before processing the abnormal condition, and the first autonomous robot and the third autonomous robot can respectively execute respective interrupted operations (at least Paragraphs 0083-0087; a first device and third device (see above rationale for ‘second’, ‘third’, etc. devices) may perform cooperatively to address an abnormal condition; the first device may wait until the third device finishes its assistance and then performs its original intended task (mopping for first device must wait for third device sweeping); each device may return to a given location for performing its original tasks before requesting/performing assistance; these locations that are returned to will be already known as tasks are associated with given locations, regions, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/C.A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658