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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2023 and 01/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4-5 disclose “the repair time of the crack predicted”, which Examiner suggests amending to “the repair time of the crack of the road surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 recites “an IRI, an MCI…and a BBI” which Examiner suggests amending to “an International Roughness Index (IRI), a Maintenance Control Index (MCI)…and a Boeing Bump Index (BBI)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 discloses “predicts the another road surface deterioration”, which Examiner suggests amending to “predict the another road surface deterioration”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-12 and 15 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the time series information about the crack width and the time series information about the crack rate" in Lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a time series information about the crack width or a time series information about the crack rate. Examiner suggests amending to "time series information about the crack width and time series information about the crack rate" (deleting “the”) and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claims 5-10 depend on claim 4 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the crack rate of each of first units" in Lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a crack rate of each of first units, only a crack rate of the detected crack. Examiner suggests amending to “a crack rate of each of first units” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the crack width of second units" in Lines 4-5 and “the crack rate” in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a crack width of second units (only a crack width of the detected crack) and it is unclear as to which crack rate is being referred to (the crack rate of the detected crack or the crack rate of each of first units). Examiner suggests amending the limitations to “a crack width of second units” and the crack rate of each of the first units” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "”the index value of the selected another road surface deterioration" in Lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of an index value of the selected another road surface deterioration. Examiner suggests amending to “an index value of the selected another road surface deterioration” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of detecting, based on an image of a road surface, a crack of the road surface and calculating a crack width and a crack rate of the detected crack which may be performed practically in the human mind as a mental process by observing the image and making a mental determination of a crack of the road surface in the image, and mentally performing an evaluation to determine the crack width and crack rate in the image. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of displaying the calculated crack width and the calculated crack rate over the road surface on a map in a superimposed manner amounts to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of a memory and a processor (claims 1 and 25) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of a memory and a processor (claims 1 and 25) are at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional element of displaying the calculated crack width and the calculated crack rate over the road surface on a map in a superimposed manner is recited at a high level of generality that amounts to obtaining and receiving data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 24, and 25 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-18 also do not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 2-18 are also not patent eligible.
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) 1-3, 11, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yonekawa et al. (US 2018/0195973).
With regards to Claim 1, Yonekawa et al. discloses an apparatus comprising:
a memory storing instructions (Para. 0313 lines 2-15, "memory"); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Para. 0313 lines 1-10, "CPU") to:
detect, based on an image of a road surface acquired from a mobile body, a crack of the road surface (Para. 0048 lines 1-3, 0062 lines 1-3, "images" "cracks");
calculate a crack width and a crack rate of the detected crack based on the image (Para. 0064 lines 1-3, 0065 lines 1-6, 0068 lines 1-8. 0071 lines 1-5, 0072 lines 1-13, "crack shape data" "width" "crack ratio"); and
display the calculated crack width and the calculated crack rate over the road surface on a map in a superimposed manner (Para. 0067 lines 1-6, 0081 lines 1-6 and 10-13, 0086 lines 1-7, "output").
With regards to Claim 2, Yonekawa et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: display at least one of time series information about the crack width and time series information about the crack rate, together with the map (Para. 0087 lines 1-9, 0088 lines 1-2, "different imaging dates and times").
With regards to Claim 3, Yonekawa et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: display any one of the time series information about the crack width and the time series information about the crack rate, according to selection by a user (Para. 0087 lines 1-9, 0088 lines 1-2, 0167 lines 1-4 and 6-9, 0168 lines 1-7, "different imaging dates and times" "operation by a user").
With regards to Claim 11, Yonekawa et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate the crack rate of each of first units obtained by dividing the road surface, and display the crack rate for each of the first units (Para. 0072 lines 1-13, "squares").
With regards to claim 24, it recites the functions of the apparatus of claim 1 as a process. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 24.
With regards to claim 25, it recites the apparatus of claim 1 as a recording medium non-transitorily storing a program for causing a computer to perform the functions. Yonekawa et al. discloses the recording medium (Para. 0313 lines 1-15, "computer-readable recording medium" “CPU”). Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekawa et al. (US 2018/0195973) in view of Cho et al. (KR 20080004737, see translated version).
With regards to Claim 4, Yonekawa et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: visualize a deterioration of the crack of the road surface based on at least one of the time series information about the crack width and the time series information about the crack rate (Para. 0172 lines 1-9, "deterioration").
Yonekawa et al. does not explicitly teach predicting deterioration of the crack of the road surface based on at least one of the time series information about the crack width and the time series information about the crack rate.
However, Cho et al. discloses the concept of predicting deterioration of a crack based on time series information about a crack width (Page 10: lines 7-9 and 18-21, Page 11: lines 7-10 and 15-19, "predicted state of the crack portion") in order to allow for more efficient observation of cracks and deterioration of a target from images to ensure safety of the target (Page 11: lines 20-21, Page 12: lines 1-5, "enabling simple observation" "reducing").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of predicting deterioration of a crack based on time series information about a crack width as taught by Cho et al. into the apparatus of Yonekawa et al. The motivation for this would be to allow for more efficient observation of cracks and deterioration of the road from images and thus ensure safety of the road.
With regards to Claim 5, the combination of Yonekawa et al. and Cho et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate a rate of change in an index value of at least one of the crack width and the crack rate in a predetermined period, and predicts the deterioration of the crack of the road surface based on the rate of change (Cho et al.: Page 10: lines 7-9 and 18-21, Page 11: lines 7-10 and 15-19, "crack growth rate" "predicted state of the crack portion").
With regards to Claim 7, the combination of Yonekawa et al. and Cho et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate time series information about the rate of change in an index value of at least one of the crack width and the crack rate (Cho et al.: Page 10: lines 7-9 and 18-21, Page 11: lines 7-19, "crack growth rate" "graph").
With regards to Claim 8, the combination of Yonekawa et al. and Cho et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: predict the deterioration of the crack of the road surface based on at least one of the time series information about the crack width and the time series information about the crack rate, and on time series information about ground surface displacement information (Cho et al.: Page 10: lines 7-9 and 18-21, Page 11: lines 7-19, "crack growth rate" "graph").
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekawa et al. (US 2018/0195973) in view of Cho et al. (KR 20080004737, see translated version) and further in view of Jido et al. (JP 2004-156417, see translated version).
With regards to Claim 9, the combination of Yonekawa et al. and Cho et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 4,
The combination of Yonekawa et al. and Cho et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising: the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: predict a repair time of the crack of the road surface based on the deterioration of the crack of the road surface predicted.
However, Jido et al. discloses the concept of predicting a repair time of the crack of the road surface based on a predicted deterioration of the crack of the road surface in order to determine the optimal timing for repairing the crack of the road surface (Page 5: lines 1-14, Page 18: lines 7-21, "timing of deterioration repair" "optimal timing" "minimize").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of predicting a repair time of the crack of the road surface based on a predicted deterioration of the crack of the road surface as taught by Jido et al. into the apparatus of the combination of Yonekawa et al. and Cho et al. The motivation for this would be to determine the optimal timing for repairing the crack of the road surface.
With regards to Claim 10, the combination of Yonekawa et al., Cho et al., and Jido et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: display the repair time of the crack predicted (Jido et al.: Page 6: lines 10-13, Page 18: lines 1-7, "output" "timing").
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekawa et al. (US 2018/0195973) in view of Cho et al. (KR 20080004737, see translated version) and further in view of Jumonji et al. (US 2023/0091376).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
With regards to Claim 9, the combination of Yonekawa et al. and Cho et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 4,
The combination of Yonekawa et al. and Cho et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising: the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: predict a repair time of the crack of the road surface based on the deterioration of the crack of the road surface predicted.
However, Jumonji et al. discloses the concept of predicting a repair time of the crack of the road surface based on a predicted deterioration of the crack of the road surface in order to efficiently visualize an area and time to repair a road (Para. 0079 lines 1-6, 0080 lines 1-6, 0083 lines 1-12, 0084 lines 1-5, 0091 lines 1-4, 0093 lines 1-6, Fig. 10, "deterioration level" "repair time" "efficiently grasped").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of predicting a repair time of the crack of the road surface based on a predicted deterioration of the crack of the road surface as taught by Jumonji et al. into the apparatus of the combination of Yonekawa et al. and Cho et al. The motivation for this would be to efficiently visualize an area and time to repair a road.
With regards to Claim 10, the combination of Yonekawa et al., Cho et al., and Jumonji et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: display the repair time of the crack predicted (Jumonji et al.: Para. 0083 lines 4-12, 0084 lines 1-5, Fig. 11, "short dash line").
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekawa et al. (US 2018/0195973) in view of Kumakura et al. (JP 2019-100136, see translated version).
With regards to Claim 13, Yonekawa et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Yonekawa et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: detect another road surface deterioration other than the crack, the another road surface deterioration including at least one of rutting, a pot hole, an IRI, an MCI, flatness and a BBI, based on at least one of the image and an acceleration of the mobile body acquired from the mobile body, calculate an index value indicating a state of the another road surface deterioration, and display the another road surface deterioration on the map in a display mode according to the index value.
However, Kumakura et al. discloses the concept of detecting another road surface deterioration other than a crack, including rutting, flatness, and potholes based on an image, calculating an index value indicating a state of the another road surface deterioration and displaying the another road surface deterioration on the map in a display mode according to the index value (Para. 0047 lines 1-4, 0053 lines 1-10, 0055 lines 1-6, "image data" "amount" "rutting, flatness, etc.") in order to provide more information and allow for more efficient maintenance of the road (Para.0073 lines 1-10, 0074 lines 1-9, 0140 lines 1-8, "grasp the situation" "efficient road maintenance").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of detecting another road surface deterioration other than a crack, including rutting, flatness, and potholes based on an image, calculating an index value indicating a state of the another road surface deterioration and displaying the another road surface deterioration on the map in a display mode according to the index value as taught by Kumakura et al. into the apparatus of Yonekawa et al. The motivation for this would be to provide more information and allow for more efficient maintenance of the road.
With regards to Claim 14, the combination of Yonekawa et al. and Kumakura et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: display time series information about the index value of the another road surface deterioration, together with the map (Kumakura et al. : Para. 0047 lines 1-4, 0055 lines 1-8, "past inspection information" "current inspection information").
With regards to Claim 15, the combination of Yonekawa et al. and Kumakura et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: display, according to selection of a type of the another road surface deterioration by a user, time series information about the index value of the selected another road surface deterioration (Kumakura et al.: Para. 0047 lines 1-4, 0055 lines 1-8, 0062 lines 1-7, 0064 lines 1-11, 0065 lines 1-4, "past inspection information" "current inspection information" "display button").
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekawa et al. (US 2018/0195973) in view of Kumakura et al. (JP 2019-100136, see translated version) and further in view of Jumonji et al. (US 2023/0091376).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
With regards to Claim 16, the combination of Yonekawa et al. and Kumakura et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 13.
The combination of Yonekawa et al. and Kumakura et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: predict the index value of the another road surface deterioration based on time series information about the index value of the another road surface deterioration.
However, Jumonji et al. discloses predicting an index value of another road surface deterioration based on time series information about the index value of the another road surface deterioration in order to determine and visualize the road over time (Para. 0032 lines 1-12, 0042 lines 1-8, 0049 lines 1-6, 0056 lines 1-15, 0065 lines 1-8, 0066 lines 1-5, "deterioration degree" "deterioration types" "grasp").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of predicting an index value of another road surface deterioration based on time series information about the index value of the another road surface deterioration as taught by Jumonji et al. into the apparatus of the combination of Yonekawa et al. and Kumakura et al. The motivation for this would be to determine and visualize the road over time.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonekawa et al. (US 2018/0195973) in view of Kumakura et al. (JP 2019-100136, see translated version) and Jumonji et al. (US 2023/0091376) and further in view of Jumonji et al. (US 2021/0303883), herein Jumonji-2.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
With regards to Claim 17, the combination of Yonekawa et al., Kumakura et al., and Jumonji et al. discloses the apparatus according to claim 16.
The combination of Yonekawa et al., Kumakura et al., and Jumonji et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate a rate of change in the index value of the another road surface deterioration in a predetermined period, and predicts the another road surface deterioration based on the rate of change.
However, Jumonji-2 discloses the concept of calculating a rate of change in a value of a road surface deterioration in a period, and predicting the road surface deterioration based on the rate of change in order to more accurately predict the road surface deterioration (Para. 0037 lines 1-3, 0042 lines 1-8, 0106 lines 1-6, 0107 lines 1-6, 0110 lines 1-8, 0111 lines 1-13, "change over time" "deterioration degree" "erroneously").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of calculating a rate of change in a value of a road surface deterioration in a period, and predicting the road surface deterioration based on the rate of change as taught by Jumonji-2 into the apparatus of the combination of Yonekawa et al., Kumakura et al., and Jumonji et al. The motivation for this would be to more accurately predict the another road surface deterioration.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12 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, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 6, Cho et al. (KR 20080004737) discloses calculating a rate of change in an index value, however, there is no mention of calculating the rate of change by excluding or correcting an outlier by a statistical process. Jumonji et al. (US 2021/0303883) discloses the concept of calculating a rate of change of an index value by a statistical process, however, there is no mention of calculating the rate of change by excluding or correcting an outlier by the statistical process. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
With regards to claim 12, Yonekawa et al. (US 2018/0195973) discloses calculating a crack width and crack rate and calculating the crack rate of each of first units obtained by dividing the road surface, however, there is no mention of calculating a crack width of second units obtained by dividing the road surface by an area smaller than an area of each of the first units, and displaying the crack width for each of the second units together with the crack rate. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claim 18, Jumonji et al. (US 2021/0303883) discloses the concept of calculating a rate of change of an index value by a statistical process, however, there is no mention of calculating the rate of change by excluding or correcting an outlier by the statistical process. Cho et al. (KR 20080004737) discloses calculating a rate of change in an index value, however, there is no mention of calculating the rate of change by excluding or correcting an outlier by a statistical process. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672