DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a 371 national stage of the PCT filed 3/22/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the process illustrated in fig. 2 as a flowchart merely includes reference characters without descriptive text. For improved clarity, the examiner suggests amending the flowchart of fig.2 to include corresponding descriptive text alongside the reference characters inside each box describing the process steps.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for controlling the robot” in claim 12.
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. Paragraph [0053] of the specification describes the structure: “A system and/or means in the sense of the present invention may be designed in terms of hardware and/or software, in particular having at least one processing unit, in particular a digital processing unit, in particular a microprocessor unit (CPU), graphics card (GPU) or the like, which is preferably connected to a storage and/or bus system in terms of data or signals, and/or having one or more programs or program modules.”
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hollmann (US 20130218334 A1).
Regarding Claim 7,
Hollmann teaches
A method for carrying out a robot application (“The present invention concerns a process and a device to control a robot,” See at least [0001]) that includes at least one process movement and at least one transfer movement of the robot, (Also see at least fig. 1 (annotated figure provided below) and corresponding description provided in [0025-0026]; Examiner Interpretation: The first and last movements as indicated by the annotated dashed arrows in the drawing below are interpreted as transfer movements of the robot while the intermediate movement as indicated by the annotated solid arrow in the drawing below is interpreted as a process movement. This is similar to the instant application’s description in fig. 1 and paragraph [0060] wherein the transfer movements are the initial and final movements between points P1 and P2 in the robot application and the process movement is the intermediate movement between points P2 through P6.)
PNG
media_image1.png
568
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the method comprising: controlling the robot to carry out the transfer movement in a set-up operation, wherein the robot speed reaches a set-up transfer movement top speed; controlling the robot to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation, wherein the robot speed reaches a set-up process movement top speed; (“It is preferable that the remote access operating mode uses at least in part one or more manual control inputs in the same manner as used in the set-up operating mode. … A preferred embodiment limits the manual operation of the robot in the remote access operating mode in the same manner as in the set-up operating mode. Specifically, regardless of the protective monitoring, the manual operation may be limited in speed and/or acceleration of a TCP and/or joint(s) of the robot that is less than the maximum speed or acceleration feasible given the dynamics of the robot, for example. … A preferred embodiment provides for limits on the operation of the robot in the remote access operating mode by selection and/or by segments. Specifically, the limit may be imposed for certain segments of an operating program or of a programmed route.” See at least [0011-0014] and fig. 1 (provided above); Examiner Interpretation: The remote access operating mode is interpreted as part of the set-up operation. At least the box labeled 5 in fig. 1 illustrates that the robot is controlled according to the top speeds.)
controlling the robot to carry out the transfer movement in an automatic operation, wherein the robot speed reaches an automatic transfer movement top speed; and controlling the robot to carry out the process movement in the automatic operation, wherein the robot speed reaches an automatic process movement top speed; (“Full operating speed is defined here with the normal definition, specifically the speed with which the robot follows the operating program in the automatic operating mode, specifically on a pre-specified course.” See at least [0015] and fig. 1 (provided above); Examiner Interpretation: Full operating speed is the top speed in the automatic operation for both the transfer movement and process movement as illustrated in the box labeled 4 in fig. 1.)
wherein at least one of: the robot is controlled such that: a) the set-up transfer movement top speed is reduced compared to the automatic transfer movement top speed, and b) the set-up process movement top speed is not reduced compared to the automatic process movement top speed, or is reduced to a lesser degree than the set-up transfer movement top speed compared to the automatic transfer movement top speed, (“A preferred embodiment provides for limits on the operation of the robot in the remote access operating mode by selection and/or by segments. Specifically, the limit may be imposed for certain segments of an operating program or of a programmed route. Such segments could then be travelled initially at a reduced speed and thus be tested. … segments that had been tested previously could be travelled at full processing speed, i.e. that the speed limit is vacated for these segments.” See at least [0014] and fig. 1 (provided above); Examiner Interpretation: As illustrated in fig. 1 (see the annotated version above), the transfer movement segments (indicated by the annotated dashed arrows) in the remote access operating mode (interpreted as a set-up mode) have lowered speed limits as compared to the transfer movement segments in the automatic mode while the process movement segment (indicated by the annotated solid arrow) in the remote access operating mode (interpreted as a set-up mode) operates at the same full operating speed as the automatic mode. The space between the two points defining the process movement is interpreted as a process space. The limited speed of the transfer movement segments is an upper set-up transfer movement speed threshold and this speed is exceeded in the process space while the robot is being controlled to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation.)
Regarding Claim 9,
Hollmann further teaches
further comprising: at least one of observing or evaluating the robot application during the set-up operation by at least one person that is present, at least temporarily, in at least one of a working region of the robot, a cell of the robot, or a space within reach of the robot; (“In the set-up operating mode, which is specifically intended to teach the robot how to pose, the robot may be operated manually even though the protective cover is open in order to provide the user with a better view of the working range during the teaching activity.” See at least [0004]; “It is preferable that this remote access operating mode relies on the same protective monitoring as the automatic operating mode. … uses at least one non-separating protective device based on optical, electromagnetic, force balance measurement and/or thermal monitoring of the working space, where entry into the working space by a person is sensed by heat measurement, weight on the floor or a parameter change.” See at least [0009]; Examiner Interpretation: The set-up operating mode along with the remote access operating mode is interpreted as the set-up operation. The user views (observes) the robot when manually teaching the robot. The user is also present when they are able to see the robot through an open protective cover and/or when they enter into the working space in the example of being detected by the ‘non-separating’ protective device in the remote access operating mode.)
and at least one of temporarily stopping the robot application or modifying the robot application by the at least one person. (“It is preferable that the remote access operating mode uses at least in part one or more manual control inputs in the same manner as used in the set-up operating mode. It is possible here that all or merely a few of the control inputs or functions of the set-up operating mode are also used in the remote access operating mode. Similarly, the remote access operating mode may include additional functions beyond the functions used in the set-up operating mode. This could respond to the different safety considerations between the remote access operating mode that assures safety in manual control inputs by protective monitoring and the set-up operating mode that allows operation of the robot only when the confirming device is engaged.” See at least [0011]; Examiner Interpretation: The manual control inputs are performed by a person and modify the robot application.)
Regarding Claim 13,
Hollmann teaches
A computer program product having program code stored on a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, the program code configured to, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers (“claim 11 describes a computer program product, specifically a storage medium or a machine readable carrier, on which a program to carry out the process of the invention is stored. The subsidiary claims describe advantageous embodiments.” See at least [0007]; “A control device for a robot … characterized by having the control to operate the process embodied in accordance with claim 1. … A computer programming product with a program stored thereon that executes a process in accordance with claim 1, when it operates in a control device in accordance with claim 10.” See at least claims 10 and 11) to carry out the method of claim 7. (See the rejection of claim 7 in view of Hollmann.)
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(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollmann (US 20130218334 A1) in view of Yamada (US 20220258350 A1).
Regarding Claim 8,
Hollmann does not explicitly teach, but Yamada teaches
further comprising: triggering an error response in response to the robot exceeding a limit of the process space while the robot is being controlled to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation. (“the speed monitoring using the second upper limit value V2 is performed while the user moves the robot 100 in the manual operation mode and, when the speed of the robot 100 exceeds the second upper limit value V2, the robot 100 is stopped.” See at least [0043])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hollmann to further include the teachings of Yamada with a reasonable expectation of success to implement Yamada’s stopping response when the top speed is exceeded during the set-up operation of the process movement as taught by Hollmann to improve safety of the robot system and to follow international safety standards (ISO 10218) for industrial robots. (See at least [0032] of Yamada)
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollmann (US 20130218334 A1) in view of Krause (US 20020045970 A1).
Regarding Claim 10,
Hollmann further teaches
(“a protective fence around the working space of an industrial robot with a protective cover, the lock of which cover is monitored by a protective switch. If the protective switch and thus the protective cover are closed, the robot may travel a course at full operating speed v=v.sub.max where the course is shown by four taught TCP positions as indicated by points in FIG. 1 (third row "OPERATION" of FIG. 1). … The likewise essentially known set-up operating mode "SET-UP" (right column of FIG. 1) monitors in lieu of protective monitoring whether a confirming key of a hand operating device is pushed. If the confirming key is pushed, as indicated in FIG. 1 by a solid key of the hand operating device, shown here schematically, then the robot can be moved manually at reduced speed v<v.sub.max (third row "OPERATION" of FIG. 1). … The middle column "REMOTE ACCESS" depicts a remote access operating mode according to the invention. It shows the protective monitoring previously described with reference to the automatic operating mode (first row "SAFETY" of FIG. 1), inasmuch as the lock of the protective cover is monitored.” See at least [0023-0025] and fig. 1; Examiner Interpretation: The lock/protective switch and confirming key are consent switches.)
Hollmann does not explicitly teach, but Krause teaches
further comprising triggering an error response in response to at least one of: a consent to be effected by the person is not present while the robot is being controlled to carry out the … movement in the set-up operation. (“The emergency stop switch 508 is electrically connected to the emergency stop switch 502 and the deadman switch 504 on the teach pendant 112. … When operation for depressing the deadman switch 504 is stopped, or when any of the emergency stop switches 502, 508 is depressed while the deadman switch 502 is depressed, power to the servoamplifier is forcibly interrupted.” See at least [0035])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hollmann to further include the teachings of Krause with a reasonable expectation of success to “secure the safety of an operator.” ([0033]; Also see at least [0035])
Regarding Claim 11,
Hollmann further teaches
wherein the consent to be effected by the person comprises actuating a consent switch. (“a protective fence around the working space of an industrial robot with a protective cover, the lock of which cover is monitored by a protective switch. If the protective switch and thus the protective cover are closed, the robot may travel a course at full operating speed v=v.sub.max where the course is shown by four taught TCP positions as indicated by points in FIG. 1 (third row "OPERATION" of FIG. 1). … The likewise essentially known set-up operating mode "SET-UP" (right column of FIG. 1) monitors in lieu of protective monitoring whether a confirming key of a hand operating device is pushed. If the confirming key is pushed, as indicated in FIG. 1 by a solid key of the hand operating device, shown here schematically, then the robot can be moved manually at reduced speed v<v.sub.max (third row "OPERATION" of FIG. 1). … The middle column "REMOTE ACCESS" depicts a remote access operating mode according to the invention. It shows the protective monitoring previously described with reference to the automatic operating mode (first row "SAFETY" of FIG. 1), inasmuch as the lock of the protective cover is monitored.” See at least [0023-0025] and fig. 1; Examiner Interpretation: The lock/protective switch and confirming key are consent switches.)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollmann (US 20130218334 A1) in view of Nihei (US 20100191372 A1).
Regarding Claim 12,
Hollmann teaches
A system for carrying out a robot application (“The present invention concerns a process and a device to control a robot,” See at least [0001]) that includes at least one process movement and at least one transfer movement of the robot, (Also see at least fig. 1 (annotated figure provided below) and corresponding description provided in [0025-0026]; Examiner Interpretation: The first and last movements as indicated by the annotated dashed arrows in the drawing below are interpreted as transfer movements of the robot while the intermediate movement as indicated by the annotated solid arrow in the drawing below is interpreted as a process movement. This is similar to the instant application’s description in fig. 1 and paragraph [0060] wherein the transfer movements are the initial and final movements between points P1 and P2 in the robot application and the process movement is the intermediate movement between points P2 through P6.)
PNG
media_image1.png
568
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the system comprising: means for controlling the robot to carry out the transfer movement in a set-up operation, wherein the robot speed reaches a set-up transfer movement top speed; means for controlling the robot to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation, wherein the robot speed reaches a set-up process movement top speed; (“It is preferable that the remote access operating mode uses at least in part one or more manual control inputs in the same manner as used in the set-up operating mode. … A preferred embodiment limits the manual operation of the robot in the remote access operating mode in the same manner as in the set-up operating mode. Specifically, regardless of the protective monitoring, the manual operation may be limited in speed and/or acceleration of a TCP and/or joint(s) of the robot that is less than the maximum speed or acceleration feasible given the dynamics of the robot, for example. … A preferred embodiment provides for limits on the operation of the robot in the remote access operating mode by selection and/or by segments. Specifically, the limit may be imposed for certain segments of an operating program or of a programmed route.” See at least [0011-0014] and fig. 1 (provided above); Examiner Interpretation: The remote access operating mode is interpreted as part of the set-up operation. At least the box labeled 5 in fig. 1 illustrates that the robot is controlled according to the top speeds.)
means for controlling the robot to carry out the transfer movement in an automatic operation, wherein the robot speed reaches an automatic transfer movement top speed; and means for controlling the robot to carry out the process movement in the automatic operation, wherein the robot speed reaches an automatic process movement top speed; (“Full operating speed is defined here with the normal definition, specifically the speed with which the robot follows the operating program in the automatic operating mode, specifically on a pre-specified course.” See at least [0015] and fig. 1 (provided above); Examiner Interpretation: Full operating speed is the top speed in the automatic operation for both the transfer movement and process movement as illustrated in the box labeled 4 in fig. 1.)
wherein at least one of: the robot is controlled such that: a) the set-up transfer movement top speed is reduced compared to the automatic transfer movement top speed, and b) the set-up process movement top speed is not reduced compared to the automatic process movement top speed, or is reduced to a lesser degree than the set-up transfer movement top speed compared to the automatic transfer movement top speed, controlled to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation. (“A preferred embodiment provides for limits on the operation of the robot in the remote access operating mode by selection and/or by segments. Specifically, the limit may be imposed for certain segments of an operating program or of a programmed route. Such segments could then be travelled initially at a reduced speed and thus be tested. … segments that had been tested previously could be travelled at full processing speed, i.e. that the speed limit is vacated for these segments.” See at least [0014] and fig. 1 (provided above); Examiner Interpretation: As illustrated in fig. 1 (see the annotated version above), the transfer movement segments (indicated by the annotated dashed arrows) in the remote access operating mode (interpreted as a set-up mode) have lowered speed limits as compared to the transfer movement segments in the automatic mode while the process movement segment (indicated by the annotated solid arrow) in the remote access operating mode (interpreted as a set-up mode) operates at the same full operating speed as the automatic mode. The space between the two points defining the process movement is interpreted as a process space. The limited speed of the transfer movement segments is an upper set-up transfer movement speed threshold and this speed is exceeded in the process space while the robot is being controlled to carry out the process movement in the set-up operation.)
Hollmann does not explicitly teach, but Nihei teaches
or an error response is triggered if, while the robot is being controlled to carry out the transfer movement in the set-up operation, the robot speed outside a process space exceeds an upper set-up transfer movement speed threshold (“a monitoring device 2b may be employed, which is configured to stop robot 2 when the speed of the component of robot 2 in cooperative task area 5 exceeds a predetermined maximum speed.” See at least [0052]; “Due to the production system according to the embodiment of the invention, operator 1 and robot 2 may simultaneously and cooperatively perform a task in cooperative task area 5. Therefore, for example, robot 2 can convey parts and/or a jig, required for the task of operator 1, to a place where operator 1 may reach. Further, for example, operator 1 may use robot 2 as a jig.” See at least [0055]; Examiner Interpretation: The stop is the triggered error response. The robot task area 4 (see at least [0048] and figs. 2A-2B) is interpreted as a process space. The cooperative task area is outside of the robot task area (process space). Movement within the cooperative task area is interpreted as transfer movement in a set-up operation.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Hollmann to further include the teachings of Nihei with a reasonable expectation of success “provide a production system in which a human and a robot can simultaneously perform a task in the same area (or can perform a cooperative task) while ensuring the human's safety.” (See at least [0011])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Anfindsen (US 20040193321 A1) is pertinent because it discusses programming and industrial robot involving a transport speed in a transport zone and a process speed in a paint zone for the robot tool.
Tanaka (US 20060108960 A1) is pertinent because it discusses limiting the robot speed in a teaching mode and speed limited regions with different maximum operating speeds for the teaching mode.
Iida (US 20170326734 A1) is pertinent because it discusses a first region around the robot with a maximum speed and a second region further from the robot with a lower maximum speed to improve safety around humans.
Watanabe (US 20170357242 A1) is pertinent because it discusses a robot cooperating with humans implementing a high-speed operation region and low-speed operation regions where the robot cooperates with the humans including transferring workpieces.
Yamamoto (US 20180093378 A1) is pertinent because it discusses stopping operation of the robot in the presence of a person in a cooperative operation space when the speed of the robot exceeds a predetermined reference speed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karston G Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-8480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571)270-3976. 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.
/KARSTON G. EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3657