DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 09/29/2025.
In the filed response, claims 1-18 have been amended, where claims 1 and 13 are independent claims.
Accordingly, Claims 1-18 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see examiner’s responses below.
2. Applicant argues (pgs. 8-9 of remarks) that the cited references (notably de Bonfim Gripp), whether viewed individually or in combination, do not disclose or suggest each and every element of claim 1. For example, Applicant states the cited references do not disclose or suggest "projecting radiation, in combination with a geometry that blocks or shields infrared radiation, to form a radiation pattern in the infrared spectrum, the radiation pattern being projected on an inspected material," as recited in claim 1. Applicant further states the cited references do not disclose or suggest “for example, "projecting radiation, in combination joined with a geometry that blocks or shields infrared radiation, to form a radiation pattern in the infrared spectrum, the radiation pattern being projected on an inspected material," as recited in claim 13.
3. Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, however, after carefully considering the art of record, the examiner finds the work of de Bonfim Gripp to be relevant in light of the amendments made given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). For e.g., with respect to "projecting radiation, in combination with a geometry that blocks or shields infrared radiation, to form a radiation pattern in the infrared spectrum, the radiation pattern being projected on an inspected material,", de Bonfim Gripp discloses a light source which has a geometric pattern in front (e.g. a thin alternating blade of material) for creating patterns of light-shade cast on a material to be analyzed. de Bonfim Gripp also shows the light may be infrared radiation. Please see abstract, ¶0026-¶0027, and ¶0072, with reference to fig. 1 for support. With respect to de Bonfim Gripp’s teachings, the shaded regions are construed as being blocked/shielded from the infrared radiation of the source by the material noted above; hence, this will form a corresponding radiation pattern on the material to be analyzed. As such, and given the BRI of the claims, the examiner respectfully submits that the work of Bonfim Gripp remains relevant in light of the amended features. Please see office action below for further details.
4. Applicant requested examiner to confirm receipt of the DAS number in the corrected ADS filed on 04/15/2024. Receipt of the ADS dated 04/15/2024 is confirmed, however, the examiner is unfamiliar with the DAS number. Please clarify where this can be found. A certified copy of the BR1020220256772 application will need to be furnished as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
5. The examiner acknowledges the response and amendments addressing the claim objections in the last office action. As such the objections are withdrawn.
6. Regarding the double patenting rejection, this has been reconsidered in light of the amendments, however, the examiner finds that the rejection can be maintained. Please see office action below for details.
7. The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response and amendments regarding the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As such, the rejection is withdrawn.
8. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
9. In light of the foregoing, Claims 1-18 have been examined and are pending.
Double Patenting
10. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321I or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, and 10-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,024,020 B2, in view of de Bonfim Gripp et al. US 2019/0287237 A1, hereinafter referred to as 020 and de Bonfim Gripp, respectively, where de Bonfim Gripp is directed to an automatic inspection for defects using projected infrared radiation onto a material to be inspected in a pattern of light and shade (e.g. abstract and 0026-0027). Details of the claim mapping between claim sets is provided in the table below for reference.
**Note: The items below that are BOLD/UNDERLINED in the Instant Application/Patented Application, respectively, indicate differences in the claim limitation.
Instant Application 18/542,086
U.S. Patent No. 11,024,020 B2
(16/428,393)
Claim 1
A method for automatic inspection of materials, the method comprising: projecting radiation, in combination with a geometry that blocks or shields infrared radiation, to form a radiation pattern in the infrared spectrum, the radiation pattern being projected on an inspected material to be inspected; capturing one or more images in the infrared spectrum; and performing identification, location and/or classification of the inspected material, based on the one or more captured, using artificial intelligence techniques.
Note – please refer to de Bonfim Gripp below for support with respect to the emphasized limitations above
Claim 1
A method for automatic inspection of materials, the method comprising the steps of: projecting a light pattern on a material to be inspected with a light source; capturing an image reflected or refracted by the material with an image capturing device; processing the captured image in a software; extracting features from the processed image with a software; and identifying, locating and/or classifying defects based on the features extracted from the image, wherein the light pattern projected on the material is a pattern of light and shade; the captured image comprises light fringes and shade regions corresponding to the light pattern of the inspected material; the processing comprises the steps of (i) transforming the image into a binary image having 2 pixel values and (ii) separating the pixels belonging to the light fringes and shade regions; and the defects are identified, located and/or classified by a defect classification algorithm based on distortions in the light fringes caused by the defects.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein projecting radiation includes heating the inspected material in the infrared spectrum.
Not in 020
Please see de Bonfim Gripp below for support
Claim 3
The method of claim 1, wherein the radiation pattern includes a pattern of light and shadow.
Claim 1
“wherein the light pattern projected on the material is a pattern of light and shade”
Claim 4
The method of claim 3, wherein the one or more captured images include the pattern of light and shadow.
Claim 1
“wherein the light pattern projected on the material is a pattern of light and shade”
Claim 7
The method of claim 3, wherein performing the identification, location and/or classification of defects is based on distortion caused in the light and shadow patterns of the captured image.
See claim 1
Claim 8
The method of claim 7, wherein performing the identification, localization, and/or classification of defects includes using multi-layered perceptrons, decision trees, convolutional neural networks, or combinations of these algorithms with the identification, localization, and/or classification of distortions in the image.
Note – please refer to de Bonfim Gripp below for support
Not in 020
Claim 10
The method of claim 1, further comprising creating and displaying a report showing the location of the identified defects.
Note – please refer to de Bonfim Gripp below for support
Claim 3
The method of claim 1 further comprising generating an inspection report.
Claim 11
The method of claim 1, further comprising saving data generated in the process, along with the one or more captured images.
Note – please refer to de Bonfim Gripp below for support
Not in 020
Claim 12
The method of claim 11, further comprising extracting statistical data from the one or more captured images.
Note – please refer to de Bonfim Gripp below for support
Not in 020
Claim 13
Similar to instant claim 1 above
See claim 1
Claim 14
Similar to instant claim 3 above
See claim 1
Claim 15
The system of claim 13, wherein the image capture device includes an array of electromagnetic sensors capable of capturing an images in the infrared spectrum.
Note – please refer to de Bonfim Gripp below for support
Claim 6
The system of claim 4 wherein the image capturing device is any device comprising an array of electromagnetic sensors capable of capturing an image.
Claim 16
The system of claim 13, wherein the device running the software is a computer, a mobile device, a microprocessor, or a device for processing and analyzing data.
Claim 20
The system of claim 16, wherein the device running the software is a computer, a mobile device, a microprocessor or any other device capable of processing and analyzing data.
Claim 17
The system of claim 13, wherein the radiation generation system and the imaging device are mechanically connected, to form an optical inspection system.
Claim 8
The system of claim 4, wherein the image capturing device and the light source are mechanically connected, forming an optical inspection system.
Claim 18
The system of claim 17, wherein the optical inspection system is moved in various positions so as to capture images in various regions of the inspected material while maintaining a standard distance and angle.
Claim 9
The system of claim 8, wherein the distances and angles of measurement between the inspected material, the image capturing device and the light source are maintained standardized.
Obviousness rationale:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of 020 discloses and/or suggests all of the features except for “projecting radiation, in combination with a geometry that blocks or shields infrared radiation, to form a radiation pattern in the infrared spectrum” and also “using artificial intelligence techniques”. de Bonfim Gripp is therefore brought in to describe these features. de Bonfim Gripp discloses a light source which has a geometric pattern in front (e.g. a thin alternating blade of material) for creating patterns of light-shade cast on a material to be analyzed. de Bonfim Gripp also shows the light may be infrared radiation. Please see abstract, ¶0026-¶0027, and ¶0072, with reference to fig. 1 for corresponding support. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of de Bonfim Gripp so as to help improve the objectivity, reproducibility, repeatability and celerity of the processes for performing quality inspection of materials (e.g. ¶0015).
Regarding claim 2, since de Bonfim Gripp discloses using the IR spectrum (¶0027), it would have been obvious to a skilled person in the art to know that a material at a particular temperature will emit radiation in the IR spectrum as described by Plank’s law. See ¶0040 of the filed specification.
Regarding claims 8, 11, and 12, the claims of 020 do not provide support. However, de Bonfim Gripp is found to address the respective features. Claim 8 (for e.g. ¶0080 and figs. 5-6) and claims 11-12 (for e.g. ¶0095). The motivation is the same as that presented above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claims of 020 do not appear to address “displaying a report”. However, de Bonfim Gripp is found to teach/suggest this feature where a report includes overlaid segments on the original image classified as defects. This indicates said report can be displayed for viewing by the quality inspector; hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of de Bonfim Gripp so as to help improve the objectivity, reproducibility, repeatability and celerity of the processes for performing quality inspection of materials (e.g. ¶0015).
Regarding claim 15, since the claims of 020 do not describe infrared radiation, please refer to instant claim 1 above for support as found in the teachings of de Bonfim Gripp. The motivation is the same as that presented above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by de Bonfim Gripp et al. US 2019/0287237 A1, hereinafter referred to as de Bonfim Gripp, since automatic inspection of material quality can be performed using projected infrared radiation (e.g. abstract and 0027). Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 1, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp discloses and/or suggests “A method for automatic inspection of materials [Abstract], the method comprising: projecting radiation, in combination with a geometry that blocks or shields infrared radiation [See abstract and ¶0026 with reference to fig. 1. A set of lights (e.g. LED bulbs, etc.) which may be in the infrared (¶0027), has a geometric pattern (e.g. a thin alternating blade of material which creates patterns of light-shade) cast on a material to be analyzed. Also please note ¶0072. Shaded regions are blocked/shielded regions of IR radiation], to form a radiation pattern in the infrared spectrum [Same as above where the alternating light-shade patterns of infrared radiation are projected onto the material to be analyzed], the radiation pattern being projected on an inspected material; [See for e.g. figs. 1 and 4 (and associated text) where a radiation pattern of light and dark stripes can be projected by a light source (110 and 400) onto an inspection surface (110 and 410) in the infrared (e.g. ¶0027)]; capturing one or more images in the infrared spectrum [See infrared camera in ¶0027]; and performing identification, location and/or classification of the inspected material, based on the one or more captured images[Please refer to fig. 2 for support], using artificial intelligence techniques.” [See abstract]
Regarding claim 2, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further discloses and/or suggests “wherein projecting radiation includes heating the inspected material in the infrared spectrum.” [de Bonfim Gripp does not explicitly recite “heating a material” to generate the IR spectrum. However, it would have been obvious to a skilled person in the art to know that a material/object having a given temperature will emit/radiate heat energy in the IR spectrum as described by Plank’s law. See ¶0040 of the filed specification]
Regarding claim 3, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further discloses and/or suggests “wherein the radiation pattern includes a pattern of light and shadow.” [Please refer to figs. 1 and 4 where projected light and dark patterns onto the inspection surface are shown.]
Regarding claim 4, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further discloses and/or suggests “wherein the one or more captured images include the pattern of light and shadow.” [Please refer to the processing sequence for processing a captured image in fig. 2 (and associated text – e.g. ¶0073-¶0074)]
Regarding claim 7, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further discloses and/or suggests “wherein performing the identification, location and/or classification of defects is based on distortion caused in the light and shadow patterns of the captured image.” [Please see for e.g. fig. 4 (¶0087-¶0088)for the inspection of optical distortion in the light patterns of a captured image]
Regarding claim 8, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further discloses and/or suggests “wherein performing the identification, localization, and/or classification of defects includes using multi- layered perceptrons, decision trees, convolutional neural networks, or combinations of these algorithms with the identification, localization, and/or classification of distortions in the image.” [See for e.g. ¶0080 and figs. 5-6]
Regarding claim 10, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising creating and displaying a report indicating the location of the identified defects.” [See the report described in for e.g. ¶0081-¶0082, ¶0086, and ¶0095]
Regarding claim 11, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising saving data generated in the process, along with one or more captured images.” [¶0095 describes all data and pictures generated by the disclosed techniques can be stored or sent to other systems. Stored data is analogous to saved data.]
Regarding claim 12, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising extracting statistical data from the one or more captured images.” [¶0095 also shows that statistical analysis can be conducted on the stored/sent data and pictures]
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. For e.g., see the systems in figs. 1 and 4 for the automatic inspection of materials, where the devices shown run software for performing the needed routines to identify and classify defects. Please refer to the citations provided in method claim 1 for details.
Regarding claim 14, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the radiation pattern includes a pattern of light and shadow.” [Please refer to figs. 1 and 4 which show the light and dark patterns of IR radiation]
Regarding claim 15, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the image capture device includes an array of electromagnetic sensors capable of capturing images in the infrared spectrum.” [See the infrared camera in ¶0027 for example.]
Regarding claim 16, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the device running the software is a computer, a mobile device, a microprocessor, or a device for processing and analyzing data.” [Please refer to ¶0050]
Regarding claim 17, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the radiation generation system and the imaging device are mechanically connected to form an optical inspection system.” [Please see the optical inspection system shown in fig. 8B (e.g. ¶0094-¶0096) which illustrate the mechanical connections between components]
Regarding claim 18, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. “wherein the optical inspection system is moved in various positions so as to capture images in various regions of the inspected material while maintaining a standard distance and angle.” [Please see the optical inspection system shown in fig. 8B (e.g. ¶0094-¶0096) for corresponding support]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Bonfim Gripp, in view of Huang et al. US 2019/0304113 A1, hereinafter referred to as Huang.
Regarding claim 5, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although de Bonfim Gripp discloses various types of image processing (e.g. fig. 3A), de Bonfim Gripp does not appear to discuss any type of image pre-processing step when capturing the one or more images. Huang on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “further comprising performing an image pre- processing step when capturing the one or more images” [Please refer to ¶0017 and ¶0052, where an image may be obtained by pre-processing the image captured by an IR camera. Said pre-processing may include, for e.g. size normalization, alignment, denoising, etc.] Given Huang’s image processing method (e.g. abstract), it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the quality inspection techniques of de Bonfim Gripp, to add the teachings of Huang as above to provide pre-processing of captured images of an object in advance so as to improve the accuracy of subsequently obtained depth information of said object (e.g. ¶0052).
Regarding claim 6, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp and Huang teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although de Bonfim Gripp addresses various types of image processing, there is no mention of any pre-processing step as recited in claim 5. As such, de Bonfim Gripp does not teach and/or suggest the features of claim 6. Huang on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein performing the pre-processing step comprises changing resolution, direction, contrast shift, image cropping, application of masks, filters and/or other image processing.” [Given the “and/or” condition (emphasis added), Huang describes various types of pre-processing that may include, for e.g. size normalization, alignment, denoising, etc. (¶0052). These are all examples of “other image processing”] The motivation for combining de Bonfim Gripp and Huang has been discussed in connection with claim 5, above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Bonfim Gripp, in view of Kim et al. US 2022/0189002 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 9, (Original) de Bonfim Gripp teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. de Bonfim Gripp further discloses and/or suggests “wherein performing the identification, location and/or classification of defects [e.g. ¶0080] includes using a YOLO (You Only Look Once) convolutional neural network in real time.” [However de Bonfim Gripp does not address the foregoing feature regarding a YOLO CNN. Please see Kim below for support] Since de Bonfim Gripp does not describe “using a YOLO (You Only Look Once) convolutional neural network in real time.” Kim from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest this feature. [Please see ¶0039 with respect to using a YOLO model which is a representative CNN-detection based model for performing defect inspection (abstract)]
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 RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486