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
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of DE10 2021 117 909.2 filed 7/12/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 1/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 12: at least one assignment means
Claim 12: means for determining
A specialized function must be supported in the specification by the computer and the algorithm that the computer uses to perform the claimed specialized function.
The following have been identified as the structure for at least one assignment means and means for determining:
The published specification describes at least one sensor structure and/or the comparison of at least one sensor structure and at least one position structure can be implemented using at least one control device of the detection device…means present in the control device, in particular processors or the like, can be used. Figures 1-2 shows the control and evaluation device 24. Therefore, there is sufficient structure for at least one assignment means and means for determining.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 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.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dijk et al. (US 2019/0077412 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Van Dijk et al. (‘412) anticipates “a method for assigning information channels of at least two sensors to a detection device on the part of at least one control device of the detection device (paragraph 2: a processing module for an object-detection system for a vehicle that comprises object-detection sensors; paragraph 3: receive, from each of a plurality of the object-detection sensors, a value associated with the detection of a marker)
wherein each sensor is mounted in defined mounting positions relative to one another (paragraph 73: the vehicle may provide a number of pre-designated possible physical locations, or bays, for installing an object-detection sensor; paragraph 4: determine a position of each of the object-detection sensors with respect to the vehicle),
wherein the detection device is provided for monitoring at least one monitoring area in connection with at least one vehicle (paragraph 56: Figure 4: an object-detection system 402 is installed in the vehicle 400; paragraph 57: Detecting the marker 412 using a particular object-detection sensor 404 may comprise determining a distance between that object-detection sensor 404 and the marker 412),
the method comprising: emitting at least one scanning signal into at least one monitoring area using at least one of the sensors (paragraph 57: each object detection sensor 404-407 is configured to detect a marker using, for example, optical acoustic or radio (such as RADAR) signals),
receiving at least one echo signal of at least one scanning signal reflected on at least one object target of at least one object in at least one monitoring area using at least two of the sensors (paragraph 57: each object-detection sensor is configured to detect a marker using, for example, optical, acoustic or radio (such as RADAR) signals),
determining at least one direction variable using at least one echo signal, wherein the direction variable characterizes a respective direction of a reflecting object target relative to at least one reference area of the detection device (paragraph 57: detecting the marker using a particular object-detection sensor may comprise determining a vector by the object-detection sensor with respect to the marker),
assigning at least one information channel of at least one of the mounting positions of the sensors using at least one direction variable (paragraph 62: to obtain the pre-assigned, unique identifier associated with each object-detection sensor),
wherein for at least two of the sensors and their respective information channels, at least one respective sensor direction variable is determined in each case by the respective received echo signals (paragraph 57: detecting the marker using a particular object-detection sensor may comprise determining a vector by the object-detection sensor with respect to the marker),
wherein the sensor direction variable characterizes at least one direction of at least one object target detected using the respective sensor relative to a sensor reference area of the respective sensor, by at least one sensor direction variable in each case (paragraph 57: each object-detection sensor is configured to detect a marker…detecting the marker using a particular object-detection sensor may comprise determining a vector by the object-detection sensor with respect to the marker),
determining at least one sensor structure for at least a part of the information channels of the at least two sensors, which characterizes the relative positions of the at least two sensors to one another (paragraph 71: the determined position of each object-detection sensor may then be associated with that particular object-detection sensor…the position of the object-detection sensors 404-407 may be used when calculating the relative position of an object of interest that is detected by the object-detection sensors 404-407 during the standard sensing mode),
comparing at least one sensor structure and at least one position structure (paragraph 73: the vehicle 400 may provide a number of pre-designated possible physical locations, or bays, for installing an object-detection sensor 404-407. The pre-designated possible physical locations may be known to the system 402 (and, in particular, to the processing module 410). The processing module 410 may determine which object-detection sensor 404-407 is provided in each pre-designated possible physical location based on the detection of the marker 412 by the object-detection sensors 404-407),
wherein the at least one position structure characterizes relative positions of at least a part of the defined mounting positions to one another (paragraph 73: the pre-designated possible physical locations may be known to the system), and
from the comparison of the at least one sensor structure and the at least one position structure, assigning at least one information channel to at least one of the mounting positions of the sensors (paragraph 76: the identifier of one or more of the object-detection units may be reassigned based on the detection of the marker by the object detection sensor).”
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Van Dijk et al. (‘412) anticipates the method of claim 1. Van Dijk et al. (‘412) further anticipates “carrying out multiple assignment sequences, and implementing an assignment of the information channels of the at least two sensors and the defined mounting positions from the results of at least a part of the assignment sequences, wherein scanning signals are emitted using the same at least one sensor in at least two assignment sequences or scanning signals are emitted using different sensors in at least two assignment sequences (paragraph 57: Each object-detection sensor 404-407 is configured to detect a marker 412 using, for example, optical, acoustic or radio (such as RADAR) signals. Each object-detection sensor 404-407 may comprise an imaging system for generating an image of a field of view in which the marker can be placed. The marker 412, which may be considered to act as a fiducial marker, may be provided by any object or image that is machine-recognisable in a conventional manner. Detecting the marker using a particular object-detection sensor 404 may comprise generating a detection timestamp associated with the instant at which the marker 412 was first detected by that object-detection sensor 404. Detecting the marker 412 using a particular object-detection sensor 404 may comprise determining a distance between that object-detection sensor 404 and the marker 412. The distance may be a scalar quantity. Detecting the marker 412 using a particular object-detection sensor 404 may comprise determining a vector by the object-detection sensor 404 with respect to the marker 412).”
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Van Dijk et al. (‘412) anticipates the method of claim 1. Van Dijk et al. (‘412) further anticipates “determining at least one direction angle as the sensor direction variable of at least one sensor, determining at least one sensor direction variable of at least one sensor relative to at least one reference axis and/or at least one reference surface of the at least one sensor, and implementing at least one sensor direction variable as the average of at least one object direction variable, wherein the at least one object direction variable characterizes the respective direction of a detected object target relative to the corresponding at least one sensor (paragraph 57: Each object-detection sensor 404-407 is configured to detect a marker 412 using, for example, optical, acoustic or radio (such as RADAR) signals. Each object-detection sensor 404-407 may comprise an imaging system for generating an image of a field of view in which the marker can be placed. The marker 412, which may be considered to act as a fiducial marker, may be provided by any object or image that is machine-recognisable in a conventional manner. Detecting the marker using a particular object-detection sensor 404 may comprise generating a detection timestamp associated with the instant at which the marker 412 was first detected by that object-detection sensor 404. Detecting the marker 412 using a particular object-detection sensor 404 may comprise determining a distance between that object-detection sensor 404 and the marker 412. The distance may be a scalar quantity. Detecting the marker 412 using a particular object-detection sensor 404 may comprise determining a vector by the object-detection sensor 404 with respect to the marker 412).”
Regarding claim 6 which is dependent on independent claim 1, Van Dijk et al. (‘412) anticipates the method of claim 1. Van Dijk et al. (‘412) further anticipates “determining, the sensor direction angles of the at least two sensors as at least one sensor structure, specifying a sequence of the spatial arrangement of the defined mounting position as the position structure and upon the comparison of the at least one sensor structure and the at least one position structure, assigning the information channels of the sensors in the size-related sequence of their respective sensor direction variables in accordance with the sequence of the spatial arrangement of the defined mounting position of the sensors to the mounting positions (paragraph 73: The vehicle 400 may provide a number of pre-designated possible physical locations, or bays, for installing an object-detection sensor 404-407. The pre-designated possible physical locations may be known to the system 402 (and, in particular, to the processing module 410). The processing module 410 may determine which object-detection sensor 404-407 is provided in each pre-designated possible physical location based on the detection of the marker 412 by the object-detection sensors 404-407; Figure 4: 404-407).”
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Van Dijk et al. (‘412) anticipates the method of claim 1. Van Dijk et al. (‘412) further anticipates “assigning information channels between the sensors and at least one control device of the detection device to the respective mounting positions, at least partially determining sensor direction variables using the respective sensors,at least partially determining sensor direction variables using at least one control device of the detection device from information obtained using the sensors and/or at least one sensor structure, and implementing the comparison of at least one sensor structure, and at least one position structure using at least one control device of the detection device (paragraph 76: Each of the object-detection sensors is individually addressable within the system using a pre-assigned unique identifier that is stored in the memory of the respective object-detection sensors. The identifier may be a machine address for identifying a particular object-detection sensor during machine communications. The identifier of one or more of the object-detection units may be reassigned based on the detection of the marker by the object-detection sensors. The reassigned address may be simplified compared to the pre-assigned address and so reduce the bandwidth needed for machine addressing in subsequent data packet transmission during the sensing mode. For example, the bit length of the reassigned address may be less than the bit length of the pre-assigned address. The reassigned address may also be determined to correspond with a logical sequence of the object-detection sensors based on their physical location (for example, sequentially numbered from near-side to off-side of the vehicle) in order to assist in identifying components to a user during future diagnostic testing).”
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Van Dijk et al. (‘412) anticipates the method of claim 1. Van Dijk et al. (‘412) further anticipates “implementing at least a part of the information channels as physical connections or virtual connections between the sensors and at least one control device [[(24)]] of the detection device (paragraph 73: The vehicle 400 may provide a number of pre-designated possible physical locations, or bays, for installing an object-detection sensor 404-407. The pre-designated possible physical locations may be known to the system 402 (and, in particular, to the processing module 410). The processing module 410 may determine which object-detection sensor 404-407 is provided in each pre-designated possible physical location based on the detection of the marker 412 by the object-detection sensors 404-407; Figure 4: 408).”
Regarding independent claim 9, which is a corresponding device claim of independent method claim 1, Van Dijk et al. (‘412) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on independent claim 9, Van Dijk et al. (‘412) anticipates the method of claim 9. Van Dijk et al. (‘412) further anticipates “at least a part of the information channels is implemented as physical lines, and at least a part of the information channels is implemented as virtual connections, by coding of transmitted information (paragraph 73: The vehicle 400 may provide a number of pre-designated possible physical locations, or bays, for installing an object-detection sensor 404-407. The pre-designated possible physical locations may be known to the system 402 (and, in particular, to the processing module 410). The processing module 410 may determine which object-detection sensor 404-407 is provided in each pre-designated possible physical location based on the detection of the marker 412 by the object-detection sensors 404-407; Figure 4: 408).”
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on independent claim 9, Van Dijk et al. (‘412) anticipates the method of claim 9. Van Dijk et al. (‘412) further anticipates “the at least two mounting positions are arranged along a line. (Figure 4).”
Regarding independent claim 12, which is a corresponding system claim of independent method claim 1, Van Dijk et al. (‘412) anticipates all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1. Van Dijk et al. (‘412) further anticipates “a vehicle (paragraph 56: Figure 4: vehicle 400) comprising at least one detection device (paragraph 56; Figure 4: an object-detection system 402 is installed in the vehicle 400)”, “at least one control device, which is able to communicate via respective information channels with the sensors (paragraph 56: Figure 4: the object-detection system 402 has a plurality of object-detection sensors 404-407 and a processing module 410)”, “at least one assignment means (paragraph 89: processing module).”
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on claim 12, Van Dijk et al. (‘412) anticipates the vehicle of claim 12. Van Dijk et al. (‘412) further anticipates “the vehicle comprises at least one driver assistance system (paragraph 40: Object-detection systems for vehicles are used in order to provide advanced safety features such as automatic braking and lane recognition, for example…a typical object-detection system comprises a plurality of object-detection sensors. Each object-detection sensor may have a similar object-detection functionality. Radar units are a common example of object-detection sensors).”
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dijk et al. (US 2019/0077412 A1), and further in view of Brosche (US 2007/0241955 A1).
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Dijk et al. (‘412) discloses the method of claim 1. Dijk et al. (‘412) does not explicitly disclose “a scanning signal is emitted using only one of the sensors in at least one assignment sequence, or no scanning signal is emitted using at least one of the sensors in at least one assignment sequence and at least one of the non-emitting sensors, is operated in reception readiness for echo signals in at least one assignment sequence.”
Brosche (‘955) relates to sensors. Brosche (‘955) teaches “a scanning signal is emitted using only one of the sensors in at least one assignment sequence, or no scanning signal is emitted using at least one of the sensors in at least one assignment sequence and at least one of the non-emitting sensors, is operated in reception readiness for echo signals in at least one assignment sequence (paragraph 8: a plurality of communicating sensors is used, the transmission and reception operation is tuned and timed to one another in such a way that each of the sensors of a system or of the particular assigned receiver receives or evaluates self-echo or cross echo signals only for specific intervals, the intervals of the time delay of the reception signal in relation to the associated transmission signal…the different time intervals should not mutually overlap.; paragraph 11: when a plurality of communicating radar sensors is used, the transmission and reception operation is tuned and timed to one another in such a way that each of the radar sensors of a radar system or of the particular assigned receiver or evaluates self-echo or cross echo signals only for specific intervals, the intervals of the time delay of the reception signal in relation to the associated transmission signal… the different time intervals should not mutually overlap; paragraph 12: his ensures that only one of the radar sensors ever receives the reflected radar signals of the associated transmitter in a specific interval for the delay; paragraph 21: If, accordingly, the maximum range of all communicating radar sensors is set to R.sub.max=200 m, it is possible in this example for up to three radar sensors to be operated decoupled from one another since the self-echoes are visible in the interval [0 m; R.sub.max]; the cross echo signals of the particular other radar sensors appear at distances> Rmax corresponding to the code delays of the transmission signals…the time synchronization of the code shift between the radar sensors may ensure that the particular delay intervals do not overlap).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dijk et al. (‘412) with the teaching of Brosche (‘955) for more reliable sensor measurements (Brosche (‘955) – paragraph 7). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Dijk et al. (‘412) and Brosche (‘955)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, using two or more sensors for target detection.
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 2, Dijk et al. (‘412)/Brosche (‘955) discloses the method of claim 2. Dijk et al. (‘412) does not explicitly disclose “the echo signals received using the respective sensors for assignment to the information channels are not brought into correlation with the at least one emitted scanning signal in at least one assignment sequence and wherein the at least one emitting sensor and the at least one reception-ready sensor are not operated in a synchronized manner in at least one assignment sequence.”
Brosche (‘955) relates to sensors. Brosche (‘955) teaches “the echo signals received using the respective sensors for assignment to the information channels are not brought into correlation with the at least one emitted scanning signal in at least one assignment sequence and wherein the at least one emitting sensor and the at least one reception-ready sensor are not operated in a synchronized manner in at least one assignment sequence (paragraph 8: a plurality of communicating sensors is used, the transmission and reception operation is tuned and timed to one another in such a way that each of the sensors of a system or of the particular assigned receiver receives or evaluates self-echo or cross echo signals only for specific intervals, the intervals of the time delay of the reception signal in relation to the associated transmission signal…the different time intervals should not mutually overlap.; paragraph 11: when a plurality of communicating radar sensors is used, the transmission and reception operation is tuned and timed to one another in such a way that each of the radar sensors of a radar system or of the particular assigned receiver or evaluates self-echo or cross echo signals only for specific intervals, the intervals of the time delay of the reception signal in relation to the associated transmission signal… the different time intervals should not mutually overlap; paragraph 12: his ensures that only one of the radar sensors ever receives the reflected radar signals of the associated transmitter in a specific interval for the delay; paragraph 21: If, accordingly, the maximum range of all communicating radar sensors is set to R.sub.max=200 m, it is possible in this example for up to three radar sensors to be operated decoupled from one another since the self-echoes are visible in the interval [0 m; R.sub.max]; the cross echo signals of the particular other radar sensors appear at distances>R.sub.max corresponding to the code delays of the transmission signals…the time synchronization of the code shift between the radar sensors may ensure that the particular delay intervals do not overlap).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dijk et al. (‘412) with the teaching of Brosche (‘955) for more reliable sensor measurements (Brosche (‘955) – paragraph 7). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Dijk et al. (‘412) and Brosche (‘955)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, using two or more sensors for target detection.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(DE 10116278 A1) [English Translation] describes a vehicle (1) shown in FIG. 1 is equipped with three distance sensors (3, 4, 5) of the laser scanner type. The distance sensor (3) is arranged on the front left, the distance sensor (4) is arranged on the front right and the distance sensor (5) is arranged approximately in the center of the rear of the vehicle. The distance sensor (4) detects the angular range covered by the lines (15, 16) on the right and front of the vehicle (1) …the distance sensor (5) detects the rear vehicle area between the lines (21, 22) …the distance sensor (3) detects the left and front area of the vehicle, which is not shown in FIG. 1 for the sake of clarity (page 2).
Li et al. (US 12,013,464 B2) describes that sensing system includes a laser detection module, the laser detection module including a first laser module, a second laser module, a third laser module, and a fourth laser module, a field of view (FOV) angle of each laser module being less than or equal to 120°…the first laser module and the second laser module are disposed on a front side of a movable platform to detect an area in front of the movable platform, the FOVs of the first laser module and the second laser module partially overlap…the third laser module and the fourth laser module are respectively disposed on both sides of the movable platform to detect a front left area and a front right area of the movable platform (column 1 line 58-column 2 line 3).
Tohya et al. (US 5,933,109) describes radar circuit including a channel controller for selecting sets of m (m is a natural number smaller than n) transmitting receiving channels, having separate transmit only and receive only antennas, sequentially to transmit said high-frequency signals and receive said echo signals (claim 5).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 J Kelleher can be reached at 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 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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648