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 .
Drawings
The drawings as submitted by Applicant on 02/22/2024 have been accepted.
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 1-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under 2106.03 Eligibility step 1, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-17 are directed to a method, and claim 20 is directed towards a non transitory computer storage medium, each of which falls within one of the four statutory categories of inventions (process/apparatus). Accordingly, the claims will be further analyzed under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A:
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception by referring to the groupings of subject matter. 2106.04, certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Regarding representative independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a method for goods sorting in a warehouse environment, in the following limitations:
determining to-be-delivered goods in a target order, wherein the target order is an order that is to be fulfilled within a predetermined time in the future;
determining a target warehouse position of a piece of to-be-delivered goods according to a target operating workstation corresponding to the target order; and
when the target warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods and a storage warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods meet a transfer condition, controlling a robot to transport the piece of to-be-delivered goods to the target warehouse position, wherein the storage warehouse position is a warehouse position at which the piece of to-be-delivered goods is currently stored.
The above-recited limitations set forth an arrangement to determine optimal item positioning in a warehouse environment. This arrangement amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity associated with sales activities and commercial interactions. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance).
Under 2106.04 Eligibility step 2A (prong 2), the next step in the eligibility analysis looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
A robot (claim 1)
However, this element does not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations above are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Independent claim 20 and dependent claims 2-17 also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, independent claims and dependent claims are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A robot (claim 1)
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the independent claims and dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (US 2020/0302391).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art discloses a goods sorting method, comprising: determining to-be-delivered goods in a target order, wherein the target order is an order that is to be fulfilled within a predetermined time in the future (see at least paragraph [0068] to Li et al, wherein the staff can customize the order classifications dimensions, such as the owner, the warehouse area, the outbound type, the shipper, the cut-off time, and the order priority. The configuration of cut-off time allows the staff to select a certain period of time for picking the pending orders in the period of time). With the order priority, the pending order with higher order priority is preferentially processed according to the preset order priority; determining a target warehouse position of a piece of to-be-delivered goods according to a target operating workstation corresponding to the target order (see at least paragraph [0117] to Li et al, wherein the robot scheduling module 330 is configured to schedule the target robot at least partly according to the position information of the target workstation to control the target robot to carry the target inventory container matching the order item to the target workstation); and when the target warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods and a storage warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods meet a transfer condition (see at least paragraph [0199] to Li et al, target condition), controlling a robot to transport the piece of to-be-delivered goods to the target warehouse position, wherein the storage warehouse position is a warehouse position at which the piece of to-be-delivered goods is currently stored (see at least paragraph [0203] to Li et al, wherein the picking order group processing module 1320 is further configured to determine a target inventory container at least partly according to target order information, inventory information, and an inventory container selection strategy; determine a first target robot according to the target inventory container and the optimal path for a robot to reach the target inventory container, and control the first target robot to carry the target inventory container).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the sequentially determining, in descending order of roadway scores, first warehouse positions in the roadway as the target warehouse positions of the to-be-delivered goods in the target order comprises: sequentially determining, in descending order of roadway scores and descending order of the first scores in the roadways, a corresponding quantity of first warehouse positions as the target warehouse positions of the to-be-delivered goods in the target order, and ignoring a roadway whose quantity of the first warehouse positions is 0 (see at least paragraph [0163] to Li et al).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: for each of the to-be-delivered goods, determining a warehouse-position type of each of the to-be-delivered goods; and correspondingly, the determining a target warehouse position of a piece of to-be-delivered goods according to a target operating workstation corresponding to the target order comprises: determining, according to the target operating workstation corresponding to the target order and the warehouse-position type of the piece of to-be-delivered goods, the target warehouse position matching the warehouse-position type of the piece of to-be-delivered goods (see at least paragraph [0270] to Li et al, wherein each inventory container corresponds to an order item type, and has an inventory container identification (ID) and an order item type identification of the order item stored in the inventory container. The order item type identification and the inventory container ID are stored in an ID memory of the inventory container, and can be synchronized to a server through a communication module on the inventory container).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining an allocation sequence of the to-be-delivered goods in the target order, so as to sequentially allocate target warehouse positions to the to-be-delivered goods in the target order based on the allocation sequence (see at least paragraph [0122] to Li et al, wherein the workstation allocating and matching module 320 is further configured to sequentially match, according to parameters of the order items in the pending orders in each batch of task).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein that the target warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods and a storage warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods meet a transfer condition comprises: the target warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods and the storage warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods are not in a same roadway; or the target warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods exceed a preset range of the storage warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods; or the target warehouse position of a piece of to-be-delivered goods and the storage warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods are not a same warehouse position (see at least paragraph [0122] to Li et al, wherein the workstation allocating and matching module 320 is further configured to sequentially match, according to parameters of the order items in the pending orders in each batch of task, a target inventory container pool corresponding to the target workstation and a target inventory container other than the inventory container pool in the inventory container area, and take the inventory container with the quantity of order items in each batch of task exceeding a second threshold as the target inventory container).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining to-be-delivered goods in a target order comprises: determining the to-be-delivered goods in the target order according to an order requirement of the target order and the target operating workstation corresponding to the target order (see at least paragraph [0017] to Li et al, wherein The allocating and selecting module is configured to allocate the batch of task to a corresponding target workstation for any of the at least one batch task, select a target inventory container matching an order item for a pending order in the batch of task, and select a target robot for transferring the target inventory container for the batch of task).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining the target operating workstation of the target order according to a production line corresponding to the target order (see at least paragraph [0017] to Li et al, wherein The allocating and selecting module is configured to allocate the batch of task to a corresponding target workstation for any of the at least one batch task, select a target inventory container matching an order item for a pending order in the batch of task, and select a target robot for transferring the target inventory container for the batch of task).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein when the target warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods is occupied by a piece of occupying goods, the method further comprises: controlling the robot to take out the piece of occupying goods from the target warehouse position; and correspondingly, the controlling a robot to transport the piece of to-be-delivered goods to the target warehouse position comprises: after the piece of occupying goods is taken out, controlling the robot to store the piece of to-be-delivered goods at the target warehouse position (see at least paragraph [0018] to Li et al, wherein The robot controlling module is configured to control the target robot to transfer the target inventory container matching the order item to the target workstation corresponding to the batch of task).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2020/0302391) in view of Wintz et al (US 2022/0388783).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art references in combination disclose the method according to claim 1, with Wintz et al further disclosing wherein the determining a target warehouse position of a piece to-be-delivered goods according to a target operating workstation corresponding to the target order comprises: determining a warehouse position score of each warehouse position of a warehouse system according to the target operating workstation; and determining the target warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods according to the warehouse position score of each warehouse position (see at least paragraph [0007] to Wintz et al, wherein a set of available storage locations from among a plurality of storage locations in the warehouse; determining, by the computing system, a score for each respective storage location of the set of available storage locations based on multiple sub-scores specific to the respective storage location, to generate a set of scores corresponding to the set of available storage locations).
The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the order processing system and method, as disclosed by Li et al and the system and method for determining locations at which to store items in a storage facility, as taught by Wintz et al, in order to improve order fulfillment times and efficiency, and reduce bottlenecks, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art references in combination disclose the method according to claim 2, with Wintz et al further disclosing wherein the determining a warehouse position score of each warehouse position of a warehouse system according to the target operating workstation comprises: for each warehouse position, calculating a first distance between the warehouse position of the warehouse system and the target operating workstation; and determining the warehouse position score of the warehouse position according to the first distance (see at least paragraph [0014] to Wintz et al, wherein there is a subscore based on the distance and travel time).
The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the order processing system and method, as disclosed by Li et al and the system and method for determining locations at which to store items in a storage facility, as taught by Wintz et al, in order to improve order fulfillment times and efficiency, and reduce bottlenecks, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art references in combination disclose the method according to claim 3, with Wintz et al further disclosing wherein the determining the warehouse position score of the warehouse position according to the first distance comprises: determining the warehouse position score of the warehouse position according to the first distance and a warehouse position height of the warehouse position (see at least paragraph [0046] to Wintz et al, wherein Some of the parameters that are weighted in the favorability score include height of the location, height of the item, maximum weight the location can carry, weight of the item, picking rate or velocity of the location, picking rate or velocity of the item, distance from a current location of the item to the location).
The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the order processing system and method, as disclosed by Li et al and the system and method for determining locations at which to store items in a storage facility, as taught by Wintz et al, in order to improve order fulfillment times and efficiency, and reduce bottlenecks, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art references in combination disclose the method according to claim 2, with Wintz et al further disclosing wherein the determining a warehouse position score of each warehouse position of a warehouse system according to the target operating workstation comprises: for each roadway of the warehouse system, calculating a second distance between a roadway exit of a roadway and the target operating workstation, wherein the roadway is a passage that is between two adjacent storage shelving units and is used for a robot to walk, and each storage shelving unit comprises one or more warehouse positions configured to store goods; acquiring a first quantity, wherein the first quantity is the number of the target warehouse position in the roadway; determining a roadway score of the roadway according to the second distance and the first quantity; and for each warehouse position, determining a warehouse position score of the warehouse position according to the roadway score of the roadway corresponding to the warehouse position and a distance between the warehouse position and the roadway exit of the roadway (see at least paragraph [0063] to Wintz et al, wherein the item 112 can be routed along three paths 119, 118, and 120. The route 120 can take the most amount of time to reach destination 110C, so destination 110C can be assigned a least favorable score of 5. Travel times for destinations 110A and 110B can therefore be compared (202). Destination 110A can be assigned the most favorable score for one or more reasons, as described in reference to FIGS. 4C and 4H. For example, the route 119 may not have any traffic, may have minimal traffic in comparison to the routes 118 and 120, may be a less frequented route for movement throughout the storage facility, the destination 110A may be closer to a current location of the item 112 than destinations 110B and 110C, and/or few or no items may currently be routed along the route 119).
The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the order processing system and method, as disclosed by Li et al and the system and method for determining locations at which to store items in a storage facility, as taught by Wintz et al, in order to improve order fulfillment times and efficiency, and reduce bottlenecks, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art references in combination disclose the method according to claim 1, with Wintz et al further disclosing wherein the determining a target warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods according to a target operating workstation in the target order comprises: for each roadway of the warehouse system in the roadway, calculating a second distance between a roadway exit of a roadway and the target operating workstation (see at least paragraph [0103] to Wintz et al); for each warehouse position in the roadway, determining a first score of a warehouse position in the roadway according to a third distance between the warehouse position in the roadway and the roadway exit of the roadway (see at least paragraph [0104] to Wintz et al); and repeating the following steps, until the target warehouse positions of all the to-be-delivered goods in the target order are determined: acquiring a first quantity, wherein the first quantity is the number of target warehouse positions in the roadway (see at least paragraph [0107] to Wintz et al); determining a roadway score of the roadway according to the second distance and the first quantity; and for a current target roadway with the highest roadway score (see at least paragraph [0052] to Li et al), determining, from warehouse positions in the target roadway that are not determined as target warehouse positions in a descending order of the first scores, a preset quantity of warehouse positions as a preset quantity of target warehouse positions of the to-be-delivered goods, and updating the first quantity for the target roadway according to the preset quantity, wherein the preset quantity is a quantity of layers of temporary storage shelving units of a robot (see at least paragraph [0070] to Wintz et al).
The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the order processing system and method, as disclosed by Li et al and the system and method for determining locations at which to store items in a storage facility, as taught by Wintz et al, in order to improve order fulfillment times and efficiency, and reduce bottlenecks, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art references in combination disclose the method according to claim 1, with Wintz et al further disclosing wherein the determining a target warehouse position of a piece of to-be-delivered goods according to a target operating workstation corresponding to the target order comprises: for each roadway of the warehouse system, calculating a second distance between a roadway exit of a roadway and the target operating workstation; determining a congestion coefficient of the roadway; determining a roadway score of the roadway according to the second distance and the congestion coefficient; for each warehouse position in the roadway, determining a first score of a warehouse position in the roadway according to a third distance between the warehouse position in the roadway and the roadway exit of the roadway; and determining the target warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods in the target order according to the first score of the warehouse position and the roadway score of the roadway (see at least paragraph [0114] to Wintz et al).
The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the order processing system and method, as disclosed by Li et al and the system and method for determining locations at which to store items in a storage facility, as taught by Wintz et al, in order to improve order fulfillment times and efficiency, and reduce bottlenecks, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art references in combination disclose the method according to claim 7, with Wintz et al further disclosing wherein the determining the target warehouse position of the piece of to-be-delivered goods in the target order according to the first score of the warehouse position and the roadway score of the roadway comprises: sequentially determining, in descending order of roadway scores, first warehouse positions in the roadway as the target warehouse positions of the to-be-delivered goods in the target order, wherein each first warehouse position is a warehouse position whose first score is greater than a preset score (see at least paragraph [0079] to Wintz et al).
The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the order processing system and method, as disclosed by Li et al and the system and method for determining locations at which to store items in a storage facility, as taught by Wintz et al, in order to improve order fulfillment times and efficiency, and reduce bottlenecks, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art references in combination disclose the method according to claim 8, with Wintz et al further disclosing wherein after the sequentially determining, in descending order of roadway scores, first warehouse positions in the roadway as the target warehouse positions of the to-be-delivered goods in the target order, the method further comprises: acquiring to-be-delivered goods in a next target order (see at least paragraph [0134] to Wintz et al); updating the congestion coefficient of the first roadway according to quantities of target warehouse positions in a first roadway, wherein the first roadway is a roadway that is among the roadways and in which at least one warehouse position is determined as a target warehouse position (see at least paragraph [0129] to Wintz et al); updating the roadway score of the first roadway according to the second distance and the updated congestion coefficient of the first roadway (see at least paragraph [0129] to Wintz et al); and sequentially determining, in descending order of roadway scores, the first warehouse positions in the roadway as the target warehouse positions of the to-be-delivered goods corresponding to the next target order (see at least paragraph [0138] to Wintz et al).
The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the order processing system and method, as disclosed by Li et al and the system and method for determining locations at which to store items in a storage facility, as taught by Wintz et al, in order to improve order fulfillment times and efficiency, and reduce bottlenecks, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art references in combination disclose the method according to claim 11, with Wintz et al further disclosing wherein the determining, according to the target operating workstation corresponding to the target order and the warehouse-position type of the piece of to-be-delivered goods, the target warehouse position matching the warehouse- position type of the piece of to-be-delivered goods comprises: for to-be-delivered goods of a same warehouse-position type, determining candidate warehouse positions matching the warehouse-position type; determining warehouse position scores of the candidate warehouse positions according to the target operating workstation (see at least paragraph [0066] to Wintz et al); and sequentially determining, in descending order of the warehouse position scores, the candidate warehouse positions as the target warehouse positions of the to-be-delivered goods (see at least paragraph [0066] to Wintz et al).
The examiner submits that the combination of the teaching of the order processing system and method, as disclosed by Li et al and the system and method for determining locations at which to store items in a storage facility, as taught by Wintz et al, in order to improve order fulfillment times and efficiency, and reduce bottlenecks, could have been readily and easily implemented, with a reasonable expectation of success. As such, the aforementioned combination is found to be obvious to try, given the state of the art at the time of filing.
Claim 20 contains recitations substantially similar to those addressed above and, therefore, is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The examiner has considered all references listed on the Notice of References Cited, PTO-892.
The examiner has considered all references cited on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted by Applicant, PTO-1449.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TALIA F CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5397. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 8:30 AM-4:30 PM EST.
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, Fahd A Obeid can be reached on 571-270-3324. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
The following are suggested formats for either a Certificate of Mailing or Certificate of Transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). The certification may be included with all correspondence concerning this application or proceeding to establish a date of mailing or transmission under 37 CFR 1.8(a). Proper use of this procedure will result in such communication being considered as timely if the established date is within the required period for reply. The Certificate should be signed by the individual actually depositing or transmitting the correspondence or by an individual who, upon information and belief, expects the correspondence to be mailed or transmitted in the normal course of business by another no later than the date indicated.
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first class mail in an envelope addressed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
on __________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
________________________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Certificate of Transmission by Facsimile
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being facsimile transmitted to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Fax No. (___)_____ -_________ on _____________. (Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Certificate of Transmission via USPTO Patent Electronic Filing System
I hereby certify that this correspondence is being transmitted via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent electronic filing system to the USPTO
on _____________.
(Date)
Typed or printed name of person signing this certificate:
_________________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________
Please refer to 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4), 1.6(d) and 1.8(a)(2) for filing limitations concerning transmissions via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, facsimile transmissions and mailing, respectively.
/TALIA F CRAWLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights