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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/14/2023 and 03/22/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
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 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.
Claim(s) 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stettiner (US 20200393536) in view of Fermann et al. (US 20180048113 hereinafter Fermann) and further in view of Kamimura (US 20190049557).
Regarding claim 8, Stettiner teaches A radar apparatus comprising (title): a transceiver to output a transmission wave (0029 “a transceiver”) that is frequency-modulated (0029 “FMCW”), and
to receive a reflected wave propagated by reflection of the transmission wave from a target and to output a reception signal (0007 “Each transmitter emits a millimeter wave radio signal which is reflected or scattered from surrounding objects”; fig 3); and
an interference wave avoidance processor to change, when an interference wave is received together with the reflected wave (0022 “mitigate and avoid mutual interference from other nearby automotive radars”),
a modulation frequency of the transmission wave based on a result of estimating a frequency of the interference wave received (Abstract “The chirp hopping sequence is altered so chirps do not interfere with the interfering radar's chirps. Offending chirps are re-randomized, dropped altogether or the starting frequency of another non-offending chirp is reused. Windowed blanking is used to zero the portion of the received chirp corrupted with the interfering radar's chirp signal.”; Abstract “A novel and useful radar sensor incorporating detection, mitigation and avoidance of mutual interference from nearby automotive radars. The normally constant start frequency sequence for linear large bandwidth FMCW chirps is replaced by a sequence of lower bandwidth chirps with start frequencies spanning the wider bandwidth and randomly ordered in time to create a pseudo random chirp hopping sequence.”),
the interference wave being a radio wave other than the reflected wave and being frequency-modulated in a mode different from a mode of the transmission wave (Abstract “To mitigate interference, the signal received is used to estimate collisions with other radar signals”; 0099 “the radar 30 functions to detect and estimate the other interfering radar's chirp parameters, such as bandwidth, duration, timing, etc.”),
wherein the transceiver outputs a first reception beat signal and a second reception beat signal to the interference wave avoidance processor (0077 “The frequency offset between transmit and receive signals is also known as the beat frequency. The beat frequency has a Doppler frequency component f.sub.D and a delay component f.sub.T. The Doppler component contains information about the velocity, and the delay component contains information about the range. With two unknowns of range and velocity, two beat frequency measurements are needed to determine the desired parameters. Immediately after the first signal, a second signal with a linearly modified frequency is incorporated into the measurement.”),
the first reception beat signal being generated by (0068 “Each receive block 32, 40 comprises an antenna 31, low noise amplifier (LNA) 33, mixer 35”; 0077 “two beat frequency measurements are needed to determine the desired parameters”),
second reception beat signal being generated by (0077 “two beat frequency measurements are needed to determine the desired parameters”)
the interference wave avoidance processor estimates a frequency of the interference wave based on the first reception beat signal and the second reception beat signal (Abstract “The chirp hopping sequence is altered so chirps do not interfere with the interfering radar's chirps. Offending chirps are re-randomized, dropped altogether or the starting frequency of another non-offending chirp is reused. Windowed blanking is used to zero the portion of the received chirp corrupted with the interfering radar's chirp signal.”; Abstract “A novel and useful radar sensor incorporating detection, mitigation and avoidance of mutual interference from nearby automotive radars. The normally constant start frequency sequence for linear large bandwidth FMCW chirps is replaced by a sequence of lower bandwidth chirps with start frequencies spanning the wider bandwidth and randomly ordered in time to create a pseudo random chirp hopping sequence.”).
Stettiner does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Fermann teaches
the first reception beat signal being generated by down-converting the reception signal (0008 “The beat signal generated from the RF modulated cw laser with individual comb frequencies can then be used for feedback to reduce the noise of the VCO in the RF domain”),
second reception beat signal being generated by down-converting the reception signal (0008 “The beat signal generated from the RF modulated cw laser with individual comb frequencies can then be used for feedback to reduce the noise of the VCO in the RF domain”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fermann with the teachings of Stettiner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the SNR of the system (Fermann 0009). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fermann merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular phase features. Since both Fermann and Stettiner disclose similar circuitry, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kamimura teaches
changing a phase of the reception signal after down-conversion by 90 degrees (Abstract “quadrature demodulation”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kamimura with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system performance (Kamimura 0071). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kamimura merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular phase features. Since both Kamimura and cited prior art disclose similar circuitry, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the transceiver outputs the transmission wave that is a radio wave converted from a local signal that is frequency-modulated, and the interference wave avoidance processor includes a local frequency controller to control (Stettiner 0080 “which is the radio frequency signal in the millimeter wave band, and a second portion relating to a local signal L that will be used to generate a beat signal. The transmitting antenna 16 radiates the transmission signal Ss as a radar wave toward a measuring range where a target object may be located.”), based on the result of estimating the frequency of the interference wave received, a frequency of the local signal such that a modulation frequency band of the local signal falls outside a frequency band of the interference wave (Stettiner Abstract “The chirp hopping sequence is altered so chirps do not interfere with the interfering radar's chirps. Offending chirps are re-randomized, dropped altogether or the starting frequency of another non-offending chirp is reused. Windowed blanking is used to zero the portion of the received chirp corrupted with the interfering radar's chirp signal.”; Abstract “A novel and useful radar sensor incorporating detection, mitigation and avoidance of mutual interference from nearby automotive radars. The normally constant start frequency sequence for linear large bandwidth FMCW chirps is replaced by a sequence of lower bandwidth chirps with start frequencies spanning the wider bandwidth and randomly ordered in time to create a pseudo random chirp hopping sequence.”).
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the interference wave avoidance processor includes: a converter (Stettiner 0068 “mixer 35”; fig 10) to convert the first reception beat signal and the second reception beat signal into data representing a time and frequency characteristic of a noise signal derived from the interference wave received (Stettiner fig 10 [time-frequency graph of received signal]); and a received interference wave frequency estimator to estimate, based on the data representing the time and frequency characteristic of the noise signal, the frequency of the interference wave received (Stettiner Abstract “The chirp hopping sequence is altered so chirps do not interfere with the interfering radar's chirps. Offending chirps are re-randomized, dropped altogether or the starting frequency of another non-offending chirp is reused. Windowed blanking is used to zero the portion of the received chirp corrupted with the interfering radar's chirp signal.”; Abstract “A novel and useful radar sensor incorporating detection, mitigation and avoidance of mutual interference from nearby automotive radars. The normally constant start frequency sequence for linear large bandwidth FMCW chirps is replaced by a sequence of lower bandwidth chirps with start frequencies spanning the wider bandwidth and randomly ordered in time to create a pseudo random chirp hopping sequence.”).
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the interference wave avoidance processor includes: a converter (Stettiner 0068 “mixer 35”; fig 10) to convert the first reception beat signal and the second reception beat signal into data representing a time and frequency characteristic of a noise signal derived from the interference wave received (Stettiner fig 10 [time-frequency graph of received signal]); and a received interference wave frequency estimator to estimate, based on the data representing the time and frequency characteristic of the noise signal, the frequency of the interference wave received (Stettiner Abstract “The chirp hopping sequence is altered so chirps do not interfere with the interfering radar's chirps. Offending chirps are re-randomized, dropped altogether or the starting frequency of another non-offending chirp is reused. Windowed blanking is used to zero the portion of the received chirp corrupted with the interfering radar's chirp signal.”; Abstract “A novel and useful radar sensor incorporating detection, mitigation and avoidance of mutual interference from nearby automotive radars. The normally constant start frequency sequence for linear large bandwidth FMCW chirps is replaced by a sequence of lower bandwidth chirps with start frequencies spanning the wider bandwidth and randomly ordered in time to create a pseudo random chirp hopping sequence.”).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the converter includes: an instantaneous phase detector to detect, based on the first reception beat signal and the second reception beat signal (Kamimura 0006 “Thereafter, the FM-CW radar measures an instantaneous frequency with a microcomputer from instantaneous phase information of the IF signal according to a quadrature demodulation scheme.”), an instantaneous phase of the noise signal derived from the interference wave received; and an instantaneous frequency detector to detect an instantaneous frequency of the noise signal based on the instantaneous phase (Kamimura 0006 “Thereafter, the FM-CW radar measures an instantaneous frequency with a microcomputer from instantaneous phase information of the IF signal according to a quadrature demodulation scheme.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kamimura with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system performance (Kamimura 0071). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kamimura merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular phase features. Since both Kamimura and cited prior art disclose similar circuitry, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the converter includes: an instantaneous phase detector to detect, based on the first reception beat signal and the second reception beat signal, an instantaneous phase of the noise signal derived from the interference wave received (Kamimura 0053 “After an instantaneous phase difference ΔθTan.sup.−1(Q/I) of the IF signal is calculated from the I signal and the Q signal by the instantaneous-phase-difference calculating unit 10-8, an instantaneous frequency f=Δθ/Δt of the IF signal is calculated by the instantaneous-frequency calculating unit 10-9. Δt represents a time step.”); and an instantaneous frequency detector to detect an instantaneous frequency of the noise signal based on the instantaneous phase (Fermann 0100 “secondary beat signal comprising amplified phase noise from said micro-wave frequency generated by said controllable microwave generator; a servo loop using feedback from said secondary beat signal to reduce the phase noise of said micro-wave frequency.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kamimura with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system performance (Kamimura 0071). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kamimura merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular phase features. Since both Kamimura and cited prior art disclose similar circuitry, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the transmission wave is transmitted using a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) chirp signal or a Fast Chirp Modulation (FCM) chirp signal (Stettiner Abstract “FMCW chirps”), and the interference wave is different from the reflected wave in at least one of a modulation bandwidth, a start frequency that is a frequency at a start of a modulation cycle, a modulation slope that is a slope of a graph representing a waveform (Stettiner Abstract “To mitigate interference, the signal received is used to estimate collisions with other radar signals”; 0099 “the radar 30 functions to detect and estimate the other interfering radar's chirp parameters, such as bandwidth, duration, timing, etc.”), and a reception delay time that corresponds to a time from transmission of the transmission wave to reception of the interference wave (Stettiner 0077 “The beat frequency has a Doppler frequency component f.sub.D and a delay component f.sub.T. The Doppler component contains information about the velocity, and the delay component contains information about the range.”).
Regarding claim 15, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the transmission wave is transmitted using a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) chirp signal or a Fast Chirp Modulation (FCM) chirp signal (Stettiner Abstract “FMCW chirps”), and the interference wave is different from the reflected wave in at least one of a modulation bandwidth, a start frequency that is a frequency at a start of a modulation cycle, a modulation slope that is a slope of a graph representing a waveform (Stettiner Abstract “To mitigate interference, the signal received is used to estimate collisions with other radar signals”; 0099 “the radar 30 functions to detect and estimate the other interfering radar's chirp parameters, such as bandwidth, duration, timing, etc.”), and a reception delay time that corresponds to a time from transmission of the transmission wave to reception of the interference wave (Stettiner 0077 “The beat frequency has a Doppler frequency component f.sub.D and a delay component f.sub.T. The Doppler component contains information about the velocity, and the delay component contains information about the range.”).
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the transmission wave is transmitted using a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) chirp signal or a Fast Chirp Modulation (FCM) chirp signal (Stettiner Abstract “FMCW chirps”), and the interference wave is different from the reflected wave in at least one of a modulation bandwidth, a start frequency that is a frequency at a start of a modulation cycle, a modulation slope that is a slope of a graph representing a waveform (Stettiner Abstract “To mitigate interference, the signal received is used to estimate collisions with other radar signals”; 0099 “the radar 30 functions to detect and estimate the other interfering radar's chirp parameters, such as bandwidth, duration, timing, etc.”), and a reception delay time that corresponds to a time from transmission of the transmission wave to reception of the interference wave (Stettiner 0077 “The beat frequency has a Doppler frequency component f.sub.D and a delay component f.sub.T. The Doppler component contains information about the velocity, and the delay component contains information about the range.”).
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the transmission wave is transmitted using a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) chirp signal or a Fast Chirp Modulation (FCM) chirp signal (Stettiner Abstract “FMCW chirps”), and the interference wave is different from the reflected wave in at least one of a modulation bandwidth, a start frequency that is a frequency at a start of a modulation cycle, a modulation slope that is a slope of a graph representing a waveform (Stettiner Abstract “To mitigate interference, the signal received is used to estimate collisions with other radar signals”; 0099 “the radar 30 functions to detect and estimate the other interfering radar's chirp parameters, such as bandwidth, duration, timing, etc.”), and a reception delay time that corresponds to a time from transmission of the transmission wave to reception of the interference wave (Stettiner 0077 “The beat frequency has a Doppler frequency component f.sub.D and a delay component f.sub.T. The Doppler component contains information about the velocity, and the delay component contains information about the range.”).
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the transmission wave is transmitted using a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) chirp signal or a Fast Chirp Modulation (FCM) chirp signal (Stettiner Abstract “FMCW chirps”), and the interference wave is different from the reflected wave in at least one of a modulation bandwidth, a start frequency that is a frequency at a start of a modulation cycle, a modulation slope that is a slope of a graph representing a waveform (Stettiner Abstract “To mitigate interference, the signal received is used to estimate collisions with other radar signals”; 0099 “the radar 30 functions to detect and estimate the other interfering radar's chirp parameters, such as bandwidth, duration, timing, etc.”), and a reception delay time that corresponds to a time from transmission of the transmission wave to reception of the interference wave (Stettiner 0077 “The beat frequency has a Doppler frequency component f.sub.D and a delay component f.sub.T. The Doppler component contains information about the velocity, and the delay component contains information about the range.”).
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art teaches The radar apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the transmission wave is transmitted using a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) chirp signal or a Fast Chirp Modulation (FCM) chirp signal (Stettiner Abstract “FMCW chirps”), and the interference wave is different from the reflected wave in at least one of a modulation bandwidth, a start frequency that is a frequency at a start of a modulation cycle, a modulation slope that is a slope of a graph representing a waveform (Stettiner Abstract “To mitigate interference, the signal received is used to estimate collisions with other radar signals”; 0099 “the radar 30 functions to detect and estimate the other interfering radar's chirp parameters, such as bandwidth, duration, timing, etc.”), and a reception delay time that corresponds to a time from transmission of the transmission wave to reception of the interference wave (Stettiner 0077 “The beat frequency has a Doppler frequency component f.sub.D and a delay component f.sub.T. The Doppler component contains information about the velocity, and the delay component contains information about the range.”).
Regarding claim 20, Stettiner teaches An interference wave avoidance processor included in a radar apparatus to output a transmission wave that is a radio wave (title) converted from a local signal that is frequency-modulated and to receive a reflected wave propagated by reflection of the transmission wave from a target (0068 “The radar transceiver sensor, generally referenced 30, comprises a plurality of transmit circuits 38, a plurality of receive circuits 32, 40, local oscillator (LO) 34”), the interference wave avoidance processor comprising:
a converter to convert a reception signal in a case where the reflected wave and an interference wave are simultaneously received (0068 “mixer 35”; fig 10 [reflection and interference are simultaneously received]), into data representing a time and frequency characteristic of a noise signal derived from the interference wave (fig 10 [time-frequency graph of received signal]),
the interference wave being a radio wave other than the reflected wave and being frequency-modulated in a mode different from a mode of the transmission wave (Abstract “To mitigate interference, the signal received is used to estimate collisions with other radar signals”; 0099 “the radar 30 functions to detect and estimate the other interfering radar's chirp parameters, such as bandwidth, duration, timing, etc.”);
a received interference wave frequency estimator to estimate, based on the data representing the time and frequency characteristic of the noise signal (fig 10 [time-frequency graph of received signal]),
a frequency of the interference wave received; and a local frequency controller to control, based on a result of estimating the frequency of the interference wave received (0068 “local oscillator (LO) 34”), a frequency of the local signal such that a modulation frequency band of the local signal falls outside a frequency band of the interference wave (Abstract “The chirp hopping sequence is altered so chirps do not interfere with the interfering radar's chirps. Offending chirps are re-randomized, dropped altogether or the starting frequency of another non-offending chirp is reused. Windowed blanking is used to zero the portion of the received chirp corrupted with the interfering radar's chirp signal.”; Abstract “A novel and useful radar sensor incorporating detection, mitigation and avoidance of mutual interference from nearby automotive radars. The normally constant start frequency sequence for linear large bandwidth FMCW chirps is replaced by a sequence of lower bandwidth chirps with start frequencies spanning the wider bandwidth and randomly ordered in time to create a pseudo random chirp hopping sequence.”),
the first reception beat signal being generated by (0068 “Each receive block 32, 40 comprises an antenna 31, low noise amplifier (LNA) 33, mixer 35”; 0077 “two beat frequency measurements are needed to determine the desired parameters”),
the second reception beat signal being generated (0077 “two beat frequency measurements are needed to determine the desired parameters”)
Stettiner does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Fermann teaches
wherein the converter includes: an (Fermann 0100 “secondary beat signal comprising amplified phase noise from said micro-wave frequency generated by said controllable microwave generator; a servo loop using feedback from said secondary beat signal to reduce the phase noise of said micro-wave frequency.”).
the first and second beat signal is generated by down-conversion (0008 “The beat signal generated from the RF modulated cw laser with individual comb frequencies can then be used for feedback to reduce the noise of the VCO in the RF domain”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Fermann with the teachings of Stettiner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the SNR of the system (Fermann 0009). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Fermann merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular phase features. Since both Fermann and Stettiner disclose similar circuitry, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the remaining strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kamimura teaches using an instantaneous phase (Kamimura 0006 “Thereafter, the FM-CW radar measures an instantaneous frequency with a microcomputer from instantaneous phase information of the IF signal according to a quadrature demodulation scheme.”) and
changing a phase of the reception signal after down-conversion by 90 degrees (Abstract “quadrature demodulation”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kamimura with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system performance (Kamimura 0071). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kamimura merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular phase features. Since both Kamimura and cited prior art disclose similar circuitry, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Michaels et al. (US 20220075076) discloses “A light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system includes a LIDAR measurement unit, a reference measurement unit, and a phase cancellation unit. The LIDAR measurement unit estimates a time for which a laser beam travels. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648