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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-14 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. Recited in claim 6, the phrase “basis coefficients” in the art of radar typically refers to scalar values that, when multiplied by basis vectors, can be used to describe any element in a vector space (see attached PDF of the Wikipedia definition of basis in the field of linear algebra). However, the claims upon which claim 6 depends do not introduce a vector space of any kind, making it unclear as to what the phrase “basis coefficients” is being used to indicate. For the purposes of examination, the basis coefficients are being taken to indicate coefficients for the standard basis (
i
^
,
j
^
,
k
^
). Claims 7-14 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 15 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cherry et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,281,801 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Cherry et al. discloses,
An electromagnetic imaging method (col. 5, lines 52-54, “The sensor system 10 includes a means for generating an electromagnetic signal, such as a signal generator 12 shown in FIG. 1”), comprising: determining frequency domain information from measurements (col. 6, lines 44-49, “The amount of energy transferred between the transmit and receive lines is affected by the local properties in the medium and is measured across a wide frequency range by the signal processor which analyzes the ratio of signal return to signal transmitted as a function of frequency.”); converting the frequency domain information to time domain information (col. 6, lines 49-51, “Using an inverse fast Fourier transform algorithm, the measured data is converted from the frequency domain into the time domain.”); and using the time domain information to parametrically describe a state of a stored commodity (col. 13, lines 36-47, “FIG. 3 is a graph of the data collected during the above time periods depicting signal propagation time in relation to signal magnitude. The time shown is round trip time of propagation of the signal with S.sub.21 being the measured parameter. The parameter S.sub.21 is the signal response in the receive line versus the power in the transmit line (i.e., the ratio of signal returned vs. signal transmitted). The one-dimensional plot in the graph of FIG. 3 is the magnitude of the difference between the measured S.sub.21 magnitude at the three different time periods and that measured at the starting reference time. The graph shows the changes in properties of the compost as the wet part was dried over the measured time periods of 18 hours, 42 hours, and 60 hours.” The examiner notes that the difference between the magnitude of S21 and the baseline magnitude is being understood to be a parameter that describes the state of the stored commodity. Although the broadest reasonable interpretation of “stored commodity” includes the compost being measured in fig. 3, the examiner notes that col. 11, lines 29-32 specifies that the sensor system can be used to measure moisture content of agricultural products in bulk storage facilities as in the instant application. See also, “For example, the sensor system of the invention can provide a profile of the water content as a function of distance along the transmission lines. The sensor system locates changes in the soil environment such as water content along the entire length of the transmission lines, by looking for changes from the baseline signal to indicate changes in water content.”).
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as method claim 1, noting that Cherry et al. further discloses,
An electromagnetic imaging system (fig. 1, system 10), comprising: memory comprising instructions; and one or more processors configured by the instructions (fig. 1, signal processor 18, one-dimensional data output 20, data processor (mapping) 22, noting that, “A means for processing and analyzing data received from the transmission line and/or receive line if used is also provided such as a digital signal processor. In addition, an output device for displaying a profile generated by the processing means can also be employed. The processing means generates the profile of the detectable property of the medium by using an inverse fast Fourier transform algorithm to convert data from the frequency domain to the time domain.”)
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons and using the same citations as method claim 1, noting that Cherry et al. further discloses,
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to…(fig. 1, signal processor 18, one-dimensional data output 20, data processor (mapping) 22, noting that, “A means for processing and analyzing data received from the transmission line and/or receive line if used is also provided such as a digital signal processor. In addition, an output device for displaying a profile generated by the processing means can also be employed. The processing means generates the profile of the detectable property of the medium by using an inverse fast Fourier transform algorithm to convert data from the frequency domain to the time domain.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherry et al. in view of Gilmore et al. (C. Gilmore, I. Jeffrey, M. Asefi, N. T. Geddert, K. G. Brown and J. Lovetri, "Phaseless Parametric Inversion for System Calibration and Obtaining Prior Information," in IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 128735-128745, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939725).
Regarding claim 2, Cherry et al. discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses determining an S-parameter measurement (see col. 10 line 20, noting that transmission coefficient is an S-parameter measurement). Cherry et al. does not, however, teach determining plural S-parameter measurements.
Gilmore et al. discloses,
…wherein determining comprises determining S-parameter measurements (section I(A), para. 1, “Our contribution is to answer that such systems can be calibrated through the use of a phaseless parametric inversion algorithm, using only uncalibrated S -parameter measurements.”).
Cherry et al. and Gilmore et al. are both analogous to the claimed invention because they disclose electromagnetic imaging techniques for describing the state of a stored commodity. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cherry et al. to measure multiple S-parameter measurements as in Gilmore et al. because doing so increases the range of data available for data analysis, thus increasing the accuracy of analytical outputs. Furthermore, the network analyzer of Cherry et al. typically is used to measure multiple S-parameters, making incorporation of said measurements a trivial addition to the invention of Cherry et al.
Claims 3-5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. (J. R. Ernst, H. Maurer, A. G. Green and K. Holliger, "Full-Waveform Inversion of Crosshole Radar Data Based on 2-D Finite-Difference Time-Domain Solutions of Maxwell's Equations," in IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 2807-2828, Sept. 2007, doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2007.901048.).
Regarding claim 3, Cherry et al. teaches the method of claim 1. Cherry et al. does not teach,
…wherein the time domain information comprises one or a combination of time-of-arrival information or peak power detection and compensation factors
Ernst et al. teaches,
…wherein the time domain information comprises one or a combination of time-of-arrival information or peak power detection and compensation factors (section III, para. 3, “To begin the inversion process, we applied conventional ray tomography using the first-arrival times and maximum first-cycle amplitudes [4], [6], [9] to obtain the velocity and attenuation tomograms that were converted to corresponding dielectric permittivity and electrical conductivity distributions using the following high-frequency approximations.” The examiner notes that first-arrival times are understood to be time-of-arrival information).
Ernst et al. is analogous to the claimed invention because it describes electromagnetic imaging techniques for analyzing stored commodities. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cherry et al. to include the time-of-arrival information of Ernst et al. because the method of Ernst et al. is a conventional technique in the art (see Ernst et al., section III, para. 3) that is useful for ray-based analysis of radar data.
Regarding claim 4, Cherry et al. as modified by Ernst et al. teaches the method of claim 3. Cherry et al. further discloses,
…wherein describing a state of the stored commodity comprises determining one or more properties of an imaging domain (col. 8, lines 3-6, “The sensor system 10 uses EM energy to detect changes in the electrical conductivity and/or dielectric properties of global or localized regions in a medium.” The examiner notes that the imaging domain is being understood to be the physical region being imaged.).
Regarding claim 5, Cherry et al. as modified by Ernst et al. teaches the method of claim 4. Cherry et al. further teaches measuring magnetic permeability, electrical permittivity, and electrical conductivity of the medium, as discussed in col. 5, lines 16-20. Cherry et al. does not teach,
…wherein the one or more properties comprises one or a combination of inverse speed or attenuation
Ernst et al. teaches,
…wherein the one or more properties comprises one or a combination of inverse speed or attenuation (eqn. 20b).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cherry et al. to include the attenuation measurement of Ernst et al. because the equation for attenuation α in Ernst gives attenuation as a function of conductivity, permittivity, and permeability.
Regarding claim 16, Cherry et al. teaches the system of claim 15. Cherry et al. further teaches,
…wherein the one or more processors are further configured by the instructions to reconstruct a three-dimensional (3D) wave (col. 3, lines 41-48, “In addition, the generated one-dimensional profile, which relates to distance or time measurement along the transmission line, can be used in a further data processing step to construct a two-dimensional or three-dimensional output for the physical system that is being measured.”)
Ernst et al. teaches,
…wherein the one or more processors are further configured by the instructions to reconstruct a (eqn. 20a, noting that the primary reference measures permittivity and permeability in three dimensions, thus allowing for a calculation of velocity in three dimensions).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3D image of Cherry et al. to include the calculation of wave speed because doing so is a simple calculation using only data that is already measured (permittivity and permeability) and allows for further information about the material to be clearly conveyed.
Claims 6-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. and further in view of Gilmore et al.
Regarding claim 6, Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. teaches the method of claim 5. Neither Cherry et al. nor Ernst et al. teach,
…further comprising representing the one or more properties using a set of basis coefficients
Gilmore et al. teaches,
…further comprising representing the one or more properties using a set of basis coefficients (section III(B), para. 1, “To compute estimates of the total field, utottx,rx in Eq. 2, we use a full-3D Finite-Element Method based forward direct solver previously reported in [50]. In this solver, the bin is divided into tetrahedral cells with the characteristic length of the tetrahedral equal to a minimum of 1/10th of the wavelength in grain. The solver uses the MPI librar, with sparse matrix and vector products completed using PETSc. Evaluating the cost-functional at each node of the Nelder-Mead simplex requires calling the forward solver for each transmitter location (e.g. 24 times in our examples). The FEM forward solver uses edge basis functions on each tetrahedral, which means more FEM-unknowns than tetrahedrals.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cherry et al. with the basis coefficients of Gilmore et al. because the basis coefficients of Gilmore et al. are a computationally efficient method of estimating the total field in three dimensions.
Regarding claim 7, Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. and further in view of Gilmore et al. teaches the method of claim 6. Neither Cherry et al. nor Ernst et al. teach,
…further comprising determining a set of basis coefficients based on application of algebraic equations, wherein the algebraic equations relate the set of basis coefficients to the time domain information
Gilmore et al. teaches,
…further comprising determining a set of basis coefficients based on application of algebraic equations, wherein the algebraic equations relate the set of basis coefficients to the time domain information (eq. 2, noting that the equation relates bulk complex permittivity to the total field, and the total field is determined using basis coefficients).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cherry et al. with the basis coefficients being related to algebraic equations of Gilmore et al. because the basis coefficients of Gilmore et al. are a computationally efficient method of estimating the total field in three dimensions. The examiner notes that, while the bulk complex permittivity of Gilmore et al. is not given in relation to time, the complex permittivity of Cherry et al. is time domain information. Thus, relating the complex permittivity of Cherry et al. to the total field calculated using the set of basis coefficients of Gilmore et al. is a relation between time domain information and the set of basis coefficients.
Regarding claim 8, Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. and further in view of Gilmore et al. teaches the method of claim 7. Cherry et al. further teaches,
…further comprising obtaining a set of properties of the stored commodity based on the one or more properties (col. 8, lines 3-13, “The sensor system 10 uses EM energy to detect changes in the electrical conductivity and/or dielectric properties of global or localized regions in a medium. Thus, any condition which alters the electrical complex permittivity of the medium and/or energy propagation through the medium is potentially detectable by sensor system 10. Examples of such conditions that can be monitored include changes in moisture content, chemical composition, temperature, percent solids or liquid, salinity, physical or structural integrity, ion content, and electrical conductivity.”).
Regarding claim 9, Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. and further in view of Gilmore et al. teaches the method of claim 8. Cherry et al. further teaches,
… wherein the set of properties comprises one or a combination of permittivity or conductivity of the stored commodity (col. 8, lines 3-13, “The sensor system 10 uses EM energy to detect changes in the electrical conductivity and/or dielectric properties of global or localized regions in a medium. Thus, any condition which alters the electrical complex permittivity of the medium and/or energy propagation through the medium is potentially detectable by sensor system 10. Examples of such conditions that can be monitored include changes in moisture content, chemical composition, temperature, percent solids or liquid, salinity, physical or structural integrity, ion content, and electrical conductivity.”).
Regarding claim 10, Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. and further in view of Gilmore et al. teaches the method of claim 7. Cherry et al. further teaches measuring permittivity. Cherry et al. does not teach,
…further comprising parametrically reconstructing a wave speed of the stored commodity based on application of the algebraic equations
Ernst et al. teaches,
…further comprising parametrically reconstructing a wave speed of the stored commodity based on application of the algebraic equations (eqn. 20a, noting that the primary reference measures permittivity).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cherry et al. with the parametric reconstruction of wave speed of Ernst et al. because calculating wave speed allows for conversion of round-trip time into physical distance, thus making it easier to locate the position of changes in permittivity and thus locations of sources of moisture.
Regarding claim 11, Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. and further in view of Gilmore et al. teaches the method of claim 7. Cherry et al. further teaches (note: what Cherry et al. does not teach is struck through),
…further comprising providing a three-dimensional (3D) wave (col. 3, lines 41-48, “In addition, the generated one-dimensional profile, which relates to distance or time measurement along the transmission line, can be used in a further data processing step to construct a two-dimensional or three-dimensional output for the physical system that is being measured.”)
Ernst et al. teaches (note: what Ernst et al. does not teach is struck through),
…further comprising providing a (eqn. 20a, noting that the primary reference measures permittivity in three dimensions).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3D image of Cherry et al. to be a 3D image of wave speed because Cherry et al. measures permittivity in three dimensions, thus making the application of the wave speed equation of Ernst et al. a trivial way to show the wave speed within the medium. As previously discussed, a 3D wave speed image is beneficial because it makes locating specific points of moisture intrusion significantly easier.
Regarding claim 12, Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. and further in view of Gilmore et al. teaches the method of claim 11, including providing a 3D wave speed image. Cherry et al. further teaches,
…further comprising providing the 3D wave speed image to one or a combination of a display device, an inversion imaging algorithm, or a neural network (col. 6, line 53-col. 7, line 3, “A one-dimensional data output 20 operatively connected to signal processor 18 can be displayed using a CRT to provide an output for the processed data in a readily understood format. The one-dimensional data output 20 can also provide external feedback control. Various output formats can be utilized, depending on the particular use to which the sensor system is applied, in order to provide a user-friendly output for interpretation of the data by the instrument operator….As discussed in greater detail below, by doing the appropriate interpolation, a two-dimensional or three-dimensional profile of the monitored area can be generated.”).
The examiner notes that, although the 3D image of Cherry et al. is not explicitly taught to be a wave speed image, the obviousness of modifying the 3D image of Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. to show wave speed is discussed above in reference to claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. and further in view of Gilmore et al. teaches the method of claim 10. Neither Cherry et al. nor Ernst et al. teach,
…wherein reconstructing is further based on polynomial basis functions.
Gilmore et al. teaches,
…wherein reconstructing is further based on polynomial basis functions (section III(B), para. 1, “To compute estimates of the total field, utottx,rx in Eq. 2, we use a full-3D Finite-Element Method based forward direct solver previously reported in [50]. In this solver, the bin is divided into tetrahedral cells with the characteristic length of the tetrahedral equal to a minimum of 1/10th of the wavelength in grain. The solver uses the MPI librar, with sparse matrix and vector products completed using PETSc. Evaluating the cost-functional at each node of the Nelder-Mead simplex requires calling the forward solver for each transmitter location (e.g. 24 times in our examples). The FEM forward solver uses edge basis functions on each tetrahedral, which means more FEM-unknowns than tetrahedrals.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. to include the basis function calculation of Gilmore et al. because the calculation method of Gilmore et al. is a computationally efficient method to calculate the total field in three dimensions, and thus is an efficient way to calculate the permittivity in three dimensions.
Regarding claim 17, Cherry et al. as modified by Ernst et al. teaches the system of claim 16. Cherry et al. does not teach,
…wherein the one or more processors are further configured by the instructions to reconstruct the 3D wave speed image based on total-field imaging and scattered-field imaging
Ernst et al. does not teach,
…wherein the one or more processors are further configured by the instructions to reconstruct the 3D wave speed image based on total-field imaging and scattered-field imaging
Gilmore et al. teaches,
…wherein the one or more processors are further configured by the instructions to reconstruct the 3D wave speed image based on total-field imaging and scattered-field imaging (section I, “In this work, we outline a way of using uncalibrated total-field S-parameter measurements to generate both the calibration model and the prior (background) model for imaging applications with imaging regions that are not easily manipulated.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. with the total-field and scattered-field imaging of Gilmore et al. because the imaging method of Gilmore et al. allows for remote data calibration for multi-static inversion systems (see Gilmore et al. section I(A)).
Regarding claim 18, Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. and further in view of Gilmore et al. teaches the system of claim 17. Cherry et al. does not teach,
…wherein the one or more processors are further configured by the instructions to implement the total-field imaging by: extracting power and delay features from measured pulses of an imaging domain corresponding to the stored commodity with unknown properties; and using the power and delay features and information about an imaging system for the imaging domain to reconstruct properties of the imaging domain.
Ernst et al. teaches,
…wherein the one or more processors are further configured by the instructions to implement the total-field imaging by: extracting power and delay features from measured pulses of an imaging domain corresponding to the stored commodity with unknown properties (section III, para. 3, “To begin the inversion process, we applied conventional ray tomography using the first-arrival times and maximum first-cycle amplitudes [4], [6], [9] to obtain the velocity and attenuation tomograms that were converted to corresponding dielectric permittivity and electrical conductivity distributions using the following high-frequency approximations.” The examiner notes that first-arrival times are being understood to be delay features and maximum first-cycle amplitudes are being understood to be power features); and using the power and delay features and information about an imaging system for the imaging domain to reconstruct properties of the imaging domain (eqn. 4, noting that the transmitter and receiver positions are understood to be information about the imaging system).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cherry et al. to include measurements of power and delay features and information about the imaging system for the reconstruction of properties in the imaging domain because doing so is a conventional technique in the art that is highly effective for mapping subsurface electrical properties (see Ernst et al., section I, para. 1).
Regarding claim 19, Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. and further in view of Gilmore et al. teaches the system of claim 17. Cherry et al. further teaches,
…wherein the one or more processors are further configured by the instructions to implement the scattered-field imaging by: extracting power and delay features from incident pulses resulting from interrogation of an imaging domain having known material; extracting power and delay features from total pulses resulting from interrogation of an object in the imaging domain having known material; and using the power and delay features from the incident and total pulses to reconstruct properties of the imaging domain (col. 13, lines 35-47, “The time shown is round trip time of propagation of the signal with S21 being the measured parameter. The parameter S21 is the signal response in the receive line versus the power in the transmit line (i.e., the ratio of signal returned vs. signal transmitted). The one-dimensional plot in the graph of FIG. 3 is the magnitude of the difference between the measured S21 magnitude at the three different time periods and that measured at the starting reference time.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, Cherry et al. in view of Ernst et al. and further in view of Gilmore et al. teaches the method of claim 13. Cherry et al. does not teach,
…further comprising deriving a matrix based on integrating the polynomial basis functions along plural transmitter-receiver paths, the matrix and time information used in the algebraic equations to derive the wave speed.
Both Ernst et al. and Gilmore et al. fail to correct for the deficiencies in Cherry et al. Thus, the prior art made of record individually or in any combination, fails to teach, render obvious, or fairly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the combination of the claimed features of claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trabelsi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6691563 B1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648