DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or preAIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1 and 13:
“a storage unit configured to…”;
“an acquisition unit configured to…”;
“an identification unit configured to…”; and
“an output unit configured to…”.
Claim 11:
“a transmission unit configured to…”; and
“a reception unit configured to…”;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or preAIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 (and claims 12-13), the following 2-step analysis is applied for analyzing the 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject matter eligibility of the claims. Claims 12 and 13 recite similar limitations.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites an "information processing device," which falls within the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1: recites an abstract idea
Claim 1 is directed to the abstract ideas of mental processes (comparing information to identify a degree of association) and certain methods of organizing human activity (managing and prioritizing work history information).
Step 2A, Prong 2: not integrated into a practical application
The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it utilizes generic computer components ("storage unit," "identification unit") to perform the abstract steps without reciting a specific improvement to computer functionality or a particular technical solution (e.g., a specific data structure or similarity metric).
Step 2B: does not amount to significantly more
The additional elements in the claim consist only of generic computer hardware performing well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (storing data, acquiring input, and outputting results), which do not add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Conclusion: Claim 1 (and 12-13) is directed to an abstract idea and lacks an inventive concept. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11: Limitations in all dependent claims have been examined in a similar way to the above independent claims. It was found that none of the dependent claims recite a specific technical improvement to computer functionality or a non-conventional arrangement of components sufficient to overcome the § 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namba et al (US20200234219) in view of El Saban et al (US20190138963).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13, Namba teaches an information processing device, comprising:
a storage unit configured to store history information in which
area information regarding a past work area and
time information regarding a work time in the past work area
are associated with each other;
(Namba, Figs. 1-2, “The DB server 2 is a storage portion configured to store the information for analysis which is the information required for analysis on the disposition of the items. In this embodiment, the DB server 2 stores a work achievement table 210 which is work achievement information related to the work of the items, location information 220 indicating the disposition place capable of disposing the items as the information for analysis, and a work time estimation model 230 for estimating work time taken for the work”, [0029]; “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the work achievement table 210 is a table related to a work (a picking work, here) actually performed for the items in the warehouse. More specifically, the work achievement table 210 shows a work (Work) ID specifying the Work subjected to the picking work, an item ID specifying an item related to the picking work (an item taken out by the picking work), a location ID specifying an actual disposition place which is a disposition place where the item is actually disposed, and actual work time which is work time actually taken for the picking work for each picking ID specifying the picking work”, [0030]; a storage unit (DB server 2) that stores history information—a table associating area (location ID) and time (actual work time) for past works or areas)
Namba does not expressly disclose but El Saban teaches:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire area information regarding a current work area;
(El Saban, Fig. 3; “In step 302, the sub-method 300 begins. In embodiments, the data acquisition module 120 is activated by the user 136. In step 304, the historical data from the heavy equipment database 150 (which, as noted, may be multiple databases) for every job or project previously tracked for each operator is downloaded from the heavy equipment database 150. Heavy equipment data may currently be retrieved from already existing databases such as Drilling Info (DI) or IHS Market”, [0043]; acquiring current area information and updating/project-specific data from internal or external databases)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of El Saban into the system or method of Namba in order to improve operational flexibility and accuracy by enabling dynamic retrieval of up-to-date site-specific data by activating acquisition and downloading current and historical area data from various databases at the start of each project or job. While R1 focuses on pre-storing area information for analysis. The combination of Namba and El Saban also teaches other enhanced capabilities.
The combination of Namba and El Saban further teaches:
an identification unit configured to identify a degree of association between the area information acquired by the acquisition unit and the history information stored in the storage unit; and
(Namba, Fig. 4, “the control portion 330 acquires a mutual action search policy indicating a plurality of mutual action emergence patterns indicating a relation between two disposition places influencing the work time of the picking work and a search importance degree which is a degree of importance of each of the mutual action emergence patterns, and records it in the memory 390”, [0039]; identifying association by “search importance degree” and patterns; El Saban, Fig. 4; “Step 406 may include modeling in the form of linear regression, logarithmic regression, and/or non-linear regression using known methods (e.g., least square approach, least absolute deviation approach, random forest regression, boosted tree model, etc.). Regression may be used to fit a predictive model to observed rig count historical heavy equipment data and variables (e.g., the w variables as discussed above). W variables may be related to rig count, depending on the operator. Non-linear and/or linear regression can be applied to quantify the strength of the relationship between rig count and the w variables”, [0048], [claim 3, claim 5]; using statistical/regression modeling to quantify degree of association between historical/work area data)
an output unit configured to output information included in the history information with priority according to the degree of association identified by the identification unit.
(Namba, Fig. 8, “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of the display screen. The display screen 810 illustrated in FIG. 8 includes a first table 801 indicating the mutual action search policy, a second table 802 indicating a relation between the search importance degree and the estimated work time, and a third table 803 indicating the disposition change plan”, [0052]; “Moreover, when the line is selected from the second table 802, and when the policy determination button 812 is further pressed, the disposition change plan according to the selected search importance degree is generated in the disposition change optimization portion 370, and the screen generating portion 380 generates and transmits the data for display indicating the display screen 810 further including the third table 803 indicating the disposition change plan to the client terminal 1”, [0055]; output/display of prioritized plans and historical data by association degree; El Saban, “a calculating device for calculating, upon request by a user, a total time to complete a potential project based on the portion of historical heavy equipment information; and an output device for displaying the calculated total time for the potential project. The request by the user comprises information about the potential project including a quantity of a terrain, an operator, and geological property of the terrain. The calculating device updates the calculated total time for the potential project calculation with the data that is updated at the predetermined time interval”, [0008]; output devices that display results calculated and prioritized based on history and association modeling)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Namba and El Saban teaches its/their base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the area information includes
size information regarding a size of the work area and
(El Saban, “The request by the user comprises information about the potential project including a quantity of a terrain, an operator, and geological property of the terrain”, [0008]; “the request by the user includes information about the potential project including a quantity of a terrain, an operator, and geological property of the terrain”, [claim 13]; “Quantity of terrain” is size of the work area)
workability information regarding easiness of work in the work area.
(El Saban, “the potential project includes a quantity of a terrain, or acreage owned by an operator, an operator, and at least one geological property of the terrain”, [0007]; “information about... geological property of the terrain ... the calculating device updates the calculated total time for the potential project calculation with the data that is updated at the predetermined time interval”, [claim 13]; “Well density of a particular location depends on the drilling spacing unit, which is an area allotted to a well. The well density of a tract of land often depends on the geologic structure, the size of the reservoir, the commodity in the reservoir, etc. Accordingly, well density is not necessarily (or even likely) to be the same across projects”, [0052]; “Variables or factors (e.g. geological properties, estimated ultimate recovery of commodity, and the like) associated with that specific location are factored into the determination of well density, as each relevant factor may have an effect on the operator's ability to complete wells”, [0037]; “Geological property of the terrain,” “drilling spacing unit,” and “well density” (determined by ease of drilling, reservoir quality, etc.) correspond directly to “workability information regarding easiness of work.” These properties are modeled and factored in the system)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Namba and El Saban teaches its/their base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein
the area information includes division information regarding a division of work,
(Namba, Fig. 2; “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the work achievement table 210 is a table related to a work (a picking work, here) actually performed for the items in the warehouse. More specifically, the work achievement table 210 shows a work (Work) ID specifying the Work subjected to the picking work, an item ID specifying an item related to the picking work (an item taken out by the picking work), a location ID specifying an actual disposition place which is a disposition place where the item is actually disposed, and actual work time which is work time actually taken for the picking work for each picking ID specifying the picking work”, [0030]; use Work ID and Picking ID to subdivide the work area and actions (divisions of work), thus teaching division information)
the size information includes information regarding an area for each division of the work,
(Namba, Fig. 2; “FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of the location information 220. The location information 220, as illustrated in FIG. 3, indicates a disposition place capable of disposing the items for each item ID... The position on the two-dimensional area is indicated by coordinates (X-coordinate and Y-coordinate), and the height is indicated by the number of stages (stage height) in the rack on which the items are disposed”, [0032]; Area/size for each division (each item, picking work, or rack) is taught by the assignment of X, Y, and stage height (physical area per subdivision))
the workability information includes information regarding workability for each division of the work, and
(El Saban, “Well density of a particular location depends on the drilling spacing unit, which is an area allotted to a well. The well density of a tract of land often depends on the geologic structure, the size of the reservoir, the commodity in the reservoir, etc. Accordingly, well density is not necessarily (or even likely) to be the same across projects”, [0052]; “Variables or factors (e.g. geological properties, estimated ultimate recovery of commodity, and the like) associated with that specific location are factored into the determination of well density, as each relevant factor may have an effect on the operator's ability to complete wells”, [0037]; modeling workability (ease of work) per job unit/division (“well density depends on spacing, geology, reservoir, and operator’s ability”), which maps to division-level workability)
the time information includes information regarding a work time for each division of the work.
(Namba, Fig. 2; “More specifically, the work achievement table 210 shows ... actual work time which is work time actually taken for the picking work for each picking ID specifying the picking work”, [0030]; actual work time stored per division/unit of work (picking ID, Work ID))
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Namba and El Saban teaches its/their base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires information input by a user as the area information.
(El Saban, “To begin, in step 202, the method 200 is initiated by activating the total time determination tool 118 by the user 136 (e.g. through the input device 110). The user 136 may be interacting with a GUI 160 initiated by the GUI module 130, as discussed above. The user 136 may define the potential project including the terrain and geological features and the desired operator to evaluate”, [0035]; “The request by the user comprises information about the potential project including a quantity of a terrain, an operator, and geological property of the terrain”, [0008]; the area information (terrain, geological properties, size, operator selection, etc.) is provided by user input through a GUI/input device and used by the acquisition unit as part of project definition)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Namba and El Saban teaches its/their base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the area information includes division information regarding a division of work, and
(Namba, Fig. 2; “As illustrated in FIG. 2, the work achievement table 210 is a table related to a work (a picking work, here) actually performed for the items in the warehouse. More specifically, the work achievement table 210 shows a work (Work) ID specifying the Work subjected to the picking work, an item ID specifying an item related to the picking work (an item taken out by the picking work), a location ID specifying an actual disposition place which is a disposition place where the item is actually disposed, and actual work time which is work time actually taken for the picking work for each picking ID specifying the picking work”, [0030]; Work ID and Picking ID provide division information; the history, location, and time info is divided by work units)
the output unit outputs information included in the history information for each division of the work with priority according to the degree of association identified by the identification unit.
(Namba, Fig. 8; “FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating an example of the display screen. The display screen 810 illustrated in FIG. 8 includes a first table 801 indicating the mutual action search policy, a second table 802 indicating a relation between the search importance degree and the estimated work time, and a third table 803 indicating the disposition change plan”, [0052]; “Moreover, when the line is selected from the second table 802, and when the policy determination button 812 is further pressed, the disposition change plan according to the selected search importance degree is generated in the disposition change optimization portion 370, and the screen generating portion 380 generates and transmits the data for display indicating the display screen 810 further including the third table 803 indicating the disposition change plan to the client terminal 1”, [0055]; History information (disposition plan, estimated time) for each work/item division is output/displayed with priority set by association degree ("search importance degree") as identified by the identification unit in the mapping)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Namba and El Saban teaches its/their base claim(s).
The combination further teaches the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the output unit outputs information included in predetermined number of pieces of the history information having the high degree of association for each division of the work.
(Namba, Fig. 6; “More specifically, the mutual action set search portion 360 sorts each element of the disposition change candidate set with the estimation value in the order from the one with a larger improvement estimation value T of the work time. Then, the mutual action set search portion 360 generates the elements for the predetermined value N portion in the order from the one with the larger estimation value T included in the disposition change candidate set with the estimation value as the mutual action information. The predetermined value N may be determined in advance by hard-coding in the program or may be configured by the analyst or the like at initial configuration or the like. The mutual action information indicates the mutual action emergence patterns of the disposition places where the items identified by the two item IDs in the item combination are disposed and the improvement estimation value for each item combination as illustrated in FIG. 6. The mutual action information illustrated in FIG. 6 is an example in the case of N=2”, outputting (for each division/item combination) a predetermined number (N) of top-ranked (by “improvement estimation value” = degree of association) pieces of history information, as mutual action information. This is shown in FIG. 6 for N=2 and explained in the text)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Namba and El Saban teaches its/their base claim(s).
The combination further teaches a terminal device, comprising:
a transmission unit configured to transmit area information regarding a current work area to the information processing device according to claim 1;
(Namba, Fig. 1; “The client terminal 1 is a terminal apparatus operated by an analyst who is a user using the disposition optimization system 10. The client terminal 1 includes an input portion 110, a startup portion 120, a communication portion 130, and a screen display portion 140”, [0024]; “The communication portion 130 transmits the start signal and the access information output from the startup portion 120 to the analysis server 3. Moreover, the communication portion 130 receives data for display from the analysis server 3”, [0027])
a reception unit configured to receive information output by the output unit; and
a display unit configured to display the information received by the reception unit.
(Namba, Fig. 1; “The client terminal 1 is a terminal apparatus operated by an analyst who is a user using the disposition optimization system 10. The client terminal 1 includes an input portion 110, a startup portion 120, a communication portion 130, and a screen display portion 140”, [0024]; “the communication portion 130 receives data for display from the analysis server 3”, [0027]; “the communication portion 130 receives data for display from the analysis server 3”, [0028]; the client terminal (terminal device) includes a unit for transmitting information (input/communication portions), receiving information output from the processing device (communication portion), and displaying that information (screen display portion))
Claim(s) 5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Namba et al (US20200234219) in view of El Saban et al (US20190138963) and further in view of Pettersson (US20150163993).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Namba and El Saban teaches its/their base claim(s).
The combination does not expressly disclose but Pettersson teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the acquisition unit acquires, as the area information, information based on a captured image of a device capable of capturing an image of the work area.
(Pettersson, Fig. 1; “the camera 10 is attached at the front of the lawnmower 1 for capturing images of the terrain (environment) while movement of the mower 1 over ground (generating a set of image data). The camera 10 provides to capture a series of images of the terrain”, [0079]; “As the position (and orientation) of the mower 1 is continuously changing while mowing and the position (and orientation) of the camera 10 is changing as well, each captured image covers an alternative terrain section. The captured terrain section thus is defined by the respective pose and the viewing area of the camera 10”, [0080]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Pettersson into the modified system or method of Namba and El Saban in order to Integrate real images into a workflow management system to obtain enhancements for managing workers' trajectories by providing rich, real-world context to raw tracking data. The combination of Namba, El Saban and Pettersson also teaches other enhanced capabilities.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Namba and El Saban teaches its/their base claim(s).
The combination of Namba, El Saban and Pettersson teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the workability information includes information regarding at least one selected from the group consisting of an inclination of the work area, a non-entry region of a working machine in the work area, an object disposed in the work area, and a type of a plant in the work area.
(Pettersson, Figs. 2 and 4; “the mower 1 may comprise further sensor units which allow to determine the orientation of the mower 1 e.g. relative to a gravitation vector (e.g. inclination sensor and/or acceleration sensor) and to align the electronic distance measuring unit 12 for keep aiming the point based on the determined orientation”, [0103]; using inclination sensing, obstacle detection (objects, trees), and the identification of plant height/growth/density for determining actual workability in the work area, using sensor and image-based data straight from the autonomous gardening mower and its SLAM terrain mapping routine; creating a comprehensive information processing system that leverages advanced autonomous sensing and digital mapping modules with the structured history-based association and prioritization by capturing detailed workability data such as inclination information)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Namba and El Saban teaches its/their base claim(s).
The combination of Namba, El Saban and Pettersson teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the size information includes information regarding a surface area of a hedge to be a work target.
(Pettersson, Fig. 4; “The area of the terrain 20 is limited by a fence 25, a hedge 26 and a small river 24. Furthermore, the terrain 20 comprises two trees 22, which represent obstacles with respect to the work of the mower 1”, [0110]; mapping terrain elements like hedges, fences, and trees in the digital terrain map)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Namba and El Saban teaches its/their base claim(s).
The combination of Namba, El Saban and Pettersson teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the division of the work includes at least one selected from the group consisting of lawn work, grass work, manual work, and hedge work.
(Pettersson, “The mower tool 7 comprises a set of cutting blades (at least one), wherein the mower tool 7 is rotatable around an axis B and thereby cutting plants by the rotating cutting blade”, [0078]; “the lawnmower 1 comprises functionality for determining a borderline 15 for the terrain 20 to be mown, wherein that borderline 15 limits the area of movement for the mower 1”, [0111]; “the gardening-tool is guided according to a designated shape of a plant based on the terrain data and the gardening data”, [0049]; “Such functionality provides individual and automatic (i.e. autonomously controlled) shaping of bushes, hedges or trees etc. in the terrain. Particularly, the gardening data is provided as digital data (e.g. CAD-data) representing at least one designated shape and size of an object to be sculpted”, [0050]; “the gardening-tool particularly being designed as cutting-tool, particularly hedge-cutter, tree-branch cutter, grass-cutter or scissors, as fertilising unit, as pesticide unit, as watering unit or as lawn thatcher”, [0044]; division between lawn work (mowing), grass work (grass-cutter), hedge work (hedge-cutter), and manual work (scissors, fertilising unit). Specific tool references and data allow autonomous segmentation of the yard/garden tasks)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANXUN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9874. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 8AM-5PM Pacific Time.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIANXUN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662 2/9/2026
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662