DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 4 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, and 15-17 have been amended.
Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the originally filed specification, including the portions cited by applicant as containing support for the amended subject matter, does not appear to describe or even mention “raw AMDB data,” “algorithmically consolidate … aerodrome surface elements that are .. redundant,” or an aircraft surface movement guidance system “to provide high-fidelity path and area awareness to an aircraft operating at the airport.” Claim 11 recites similar language and is similarly rejected, as are the claims that depend from claims 1 and 11. Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 12, 13, and 15-17 also recite “raw” AMDB data and are rejected for reasons similar to claim 1.
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 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is a method claim. Claim 11 is a system claim. Therefore, these claims, as well as their dependent claims, are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
With respect to claims 1 and 11:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a controller having one or more processors, raw AMDB data from an airport mapping database (AMDB), wherein the raw AMDB data is indicative of aerodrome surface elements of an airport including guidance lines associated with regions of the airport;
preprocessing, by the controller with the one or more processors, the raw AMDB data to algorithmically consolidate at least some of the aerodrome surface elements that are at least one of redundant, aligned, and overlapping and thereby produce fused AMDB data indicative of fused aerodrome surface elements;
processing, by the controller with the one or more processors, the raw AMDB data and the fused AMDB data to determine geospatial guidance elements including one or more single paths or zones for at least some of the regions of the airport; and
storing, by the controller with the one or more processors, guidance element data indicative of geospatial guidance elements in a guidance element database, wherein the stored guidance element data are configured to be supplied to, processed by, and digitalized by an aircraft surface movement guidance system to provide high-fidelity path and area awareness to an aircraft operating at the airport.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, “preprocessing...” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at a map and determining which elements can be erased or merged on the map, i.e. performing an evaluation. “Processing...” in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining paths or zones, which is a person taking into account their observations and making a judgment. These constitute observations, evaluations, and judgements that are able to be performed by the human mind, perhaps aided by the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations,” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a controller having one or more processors, raw AMDB data from an airport mapping database (AMDB), wherein the raw AMDB data is indicative of aerodrome surface elements of an airport including guidance lines associated with regions of the airport;
preprocessing, by the controller with the one or more processors, the raw AMDB data to algorithmically consolidate at least some of the aerodrome surface elements that are at least one of redundant, aligned, and overlapping and thereby produce fused AMDB data indicative of fused aerodrome surface elements;
processing, by the controller with the one or more processors, the raw AMDB data and the fused AMDB data to determine geospatial guidance elements including one or more single paths or zones for at least some of the regions of the airport; and
storing, by the controller with the one or more processors, guidance element data indicative of geospatial guidance elements in a guidance element database, wherein the stored guidance element data are configured to be supplied to, processed by, and digitalized by an aircraft surface movement guidance system to provide high-fidelity path and area awareness to an aircraft operating at the airport.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving ... AMDB data…” and “storing … guidance element data...,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (controller with a processor) to perform the process. In particular, the “receiving” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering map data for use in the preprocessing and processing steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “storing” step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing the result from the processing step), and amounts to mere post solution storing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity as it does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of determining guidance elements (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Lastly, the use of a “controller with a processor” amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional limitations, considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “controller with a processor” to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner submits that the additional limitations of “receiving ... AMDB data…” and “storing … guidance element data...” are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving ... AMDB data…” and “storing … guidance element data...” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely “receiving or transmitting data over a network” and “storing and retrieving information in memory” are well-understood, routine, conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer.
Hence, the claim is ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim 11 is rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
With respect to claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-20:
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception, i.e. a mental process. They enumerate concepts that can reasonably be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.
Therefore, dependent claims 2, 3, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101 under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-11, 15, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramaiah et al. (US 7,567,187, hereinafter “Ramaiah”), cited by applicant.
In regards to claim 1, Ramaiah teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a controller having one or more processors, raw AMDB data from an airport mapping database (AMDB), wherein the raw AMDB data is indicative of aerodrome surface elements of an airport including guidance lines associated with regions of the airport (Ramaiah; col. 6, lines 27-46; col. 7, lines 1-31);
preprocessing, by the controller with the one or more processors, the raw AMDB data to algorithmically consolidate at least some of the aerodrome surface elements that are at least one of redundant, aligned, and overlapping and thereby produce fused AMDB data indicative of fused aerodrome surface elements (Ramaiah; col. 7, line 59-col. 8, line 5; Fig. 4 – taxiway segment can be made of many individual segments, considered fused);
processing, by the controller with the one or more processors, the raw AMDB data and the fused AMDB data to determine geospatial guidance elements including one or more single paths or zones for at least some of the regions of the airport (Ramaiah; col. 10, line 34-col. 11, line 21; Figs. 7-9 – shows single path, for example, E, in Fig. 9 rather than multiple individual segments); and
storing, by the controller with the one or more processors, guidance element data indicative of geospatial guidance elements in a guidance element database, wherein the stored guidance element data are configured to be supplied to, processed by, and digitalized by an aircraft surface movement guidance system to provide high-fidelity path and area awareness to an aircraft operating at the airport (Ramaiah; col. 4, lines 27-54, col. 11, lines 25-51 – setting segment bits to On or Off constitutes storing the guidance elements, in that the On/Off designations dictate the displayed guidance elements; col. 9, lines 13-30).
In regards to claim 5, Ramaiah teaches the method of claim 1, wherein preprocessing the raw AMDB data includes, by the controller with the one or more processors, segmenting at least a first guidance line and a second guidance line of the guidance lines that contact each other at an intersecting point therebetween (Ramaiah; col. 7, line 59-col. 8, line 5; col. 10, line 34-col. 11, line 21; Figs. 4, 8, and 9).
In regards to claim 6, Ramaiah teaches the method of claim 1, wherein preprocessing the raw AMDB data includes, by the controller with the one or more processors, fusing at least a first guidance line and a second guidance line of the guidance lines that are aligned but segmented due to a hold line of the airport (Ramaiah; col. 9, line 52-col. 11, line 21; Figs. 8 and 9).
In regards to claim 8, Ramaiah teaches the method of claim 1, wherein processing the fused AMDB data to determine the guidance elements includes, by the controller with the one or more processors, linking at least a first guidance line of the guidance lines with a boundary of a first region of the regions of the airport in which the first guidance line is disposed (Ramaiah; col. 7, line 59-col. 8, line 5; col. 10, line 34-col. 11, line 21; Figs. 4, 8, and 9).
In regards to claim 9, Ramaiah teaches the method of claim 1, wherein processing the fused AMDB data to determine the guidance elements includes, by the controller with the one or more processors, combining at least a first guidance line and a second guidance line of the guidance lines that are aligned within a non-intersection taxiway of the airport to define a first single path of the one or more single paths (Ramaiah; col. 7, line 59-col. 8, line 5; col. 10, line 34-col. 11, line 21; Figs. 4, 8, and 9).
In regards to claim 10, Ramaiah teaches the method of claim 1, wherein processing the fused AMDB data to determine the guidance elements includes, by the controller with the one or more processors, determining a first zone of the one or more zones for a taxiway of the airport having two or more non-aligned guidance lines therein, wherein the first zone includes common points between the two or more non-aligned guidance lines (Ramaiah; col. 10, line 34-col. 11, line 21; Figs. 8 and 9 – for example, guidance lines D, E, and H are non-aligned, but have common points between them; it is also noted that this limitation is not required by the claim language, as claim 10 is dependent upon claim 1, which states, “one or more single paths and/or zones,” rendering zones optional language).
In regards to claim 21, Ramaiah teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, with an aircraft controller having one or more processors onboard an aircraft, the guidance element data from the guidance element database (Ramaiah; col. 6, lines 27-46; col. 7, lines 1-31; col. 9, lines 13-30;);
processing and digitalizing, with the one or more processors of the aircraft controller, the guidance element data to produce an airport navigation network represented by a plurality of polygons associated with the regions of the airport and vector lines associated with the geospatial guidance elements (Ramaiah; col. 6, lines 27-46; col. 7, lines 1-31; Figs. 4, 7-9); and
generating and displaying, with the one or more processors of the aircraft controller, a taxi route for the aircraft using the airport navigation network (Ramaiah; Fig. 17, col. 17, lines 1-9).
Claims 11, 15, 16, 18-20, and 22 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 5, 6, 8-10, and 21, respectively.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 12, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaiah in view of Sasaki et al. (“Road Segment Interpolation for Incomplete Road Data”, published 2019, hereinafter “Sasaki”).
In regards to claim 2, Ramaiah teaches the method of claim 1.
Ramaiah does not explicitly teach modifying at least a first guidance line of the guidance lines disposed within a first region of the airport that includes an overshoot or an undershoot relative to an adjacent boundary of the first region by extending or shortening, respectively, the first guidance line to end at the adjacent boundary.
Sasaki teaches interpolating missing road segments or incomplete road data using vehicle trajectories (Sasaki; p.1, right column, last paragraph; p.4, left column, “Design Policy” – extending missing segments is equivalent to extending a guidance line to end at an adjacent boundary, and using trajectories is consistent with the manner described by applicant’s specification at par [0031] that would “continue a curvature or an adjacent portion of the guidance line”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Ramaiah by extending guidance lines, as taught by Sasaki, in order to maintain an accurate representation of the airport map (Sasaki; p. 1, left column, “Introduction”)
In regards to claim 3, Ramaiah teaches the method of claim 1.
Ramaiah does not explicitly teach removing at least a first guidance line of the guidance lines that extends onto an apron of the airport.
Sasaki teaches removing unnecessary road segments (Sasaki; p.1, right column, bullets – removing unnecessary road segments from a map is equivalent to removing a guidance line that extends onto an apron of the airport, as that is an unnecessary segment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Ramaiah by removing unnecessary guidance lines, as taught by Sasaki, in order to maintain an accurate and useful representation of the airport map (Sasaki; p. 1, left column, “Introduction”).
In regards to claim 7, Ramaiah teaches the method of claim 1.
Ramaiah does not explicitly teach removing at least a first guidance line and a second guidance line of the guidance lines that diverge from each other near a boundary of a first region of the regions of the airport.
Sasaki teaches removing map points based on their angles (Sasaki; p.4, right column, “Overview” and “Simplification” – removing points based on angles, i.e. divergence).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Ramaiah by removing guidance lines based on their angle of divergence in order to simplify the map and avoid lines that overcrowd the map unnecessarily (Sasaki; p. 2, left column, paragraph 1; p.4, right column, “Simplification”)
Claims 12, 13, and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2, 3, and 7, respectively.
Response to Arguments
The objection to claims 1 and 11 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s arguments.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at pp.9-10 of applicant’s remarks that the claimed steps of fusing and determining zones cannot be reasonably be performed by a human. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to observations, evaluations, and judgements that can indeed be performed by a human mind, perhaps aided by the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper.
Applicant argues at p.10 of applicant’s remarks that the claims recite elements that integrate the judicial exception into an a practical application. Specifically, applicant argues that the claims recite elements that limit the score of the claims relative to a generic computer that simply applies the judicial exception. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” Please see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant argues at p.11 of applicant’s remarks that the claims recite elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, applicant argues that the claims recite “specialized, non-conventional instructions for solving a technical problem” and “create a new data structure (the guidance elements) that is specifically tailored for a technical use (aircraft guidance).” The applicant also argues that “the guidance element data stored in the guidance element database provides improvements to the accuracy and aesthetics of generated taxi routes. In some examples, generation of the visual representation of the taxi path based on the guidance element data, rather than based on guidance lines digitalized from directly from the raw AMDB data, may avoid various topological errors.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner first asserts that the preprocessing and processing steps are part of the abstract idea itself and therefore cannot be the basis of the alleged technological improvement. Please see MPEP 2106.05(a). Secondly, the examiner asserts that the claim itself must reflect the alleged improvement in technology. In the present claims, the claims do not reflect the applicant’s alleged improvements, as explained in the rejection above.
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims, the examiner respectfully asserts that the limitations being argued are part of the abstract idea itself.
However, it is noted that newly added claims 21 and 22 are not subject to a 101 rejection as they appear to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at p.12 of applicant’s remarks that Ramiah does not teach fusing or combining individual segments into a single aerodrome surface element. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated by applicant himself, “the cited passage merely states that taxiways may be defined by many individual segments,” thereby combining or fusing individual segments into a single taxiway element. The examiner respectfully asserts that combining multiple individual segments into a single path does indeed constitute processing the data AMDB data and the fused AMDB data to determine geospatial guidance elements including one or more single paths or zones for at least some of the regions of the airport, as claimed (See Ramaiah, Figs. 7-9 – shows single path, for example, E, in Fig. 9 rather than multiple individual segments).
Applicant argues at p.13 of applicant’s remarks that Ramaiah does not teach storing guidance element data indicative of the geospatial guidance elements in a guidance element database and that "setting segment bits to On or Off” merely disclose the conditions under which the identifiers are displayed or hidden. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument. The examiner asserts that by setting segment bits to On or Off, the guidance element data indicative of geospatial guidance elements are being stored, in that the bits are indicative of the geospatial guidance elements that are displayed (See Ramaiah; col. 11, lines 25-51, Figs. 6, 7, 9).
Applicant also argues at p.13 of applicant’s remarks that claim 1 includes data generation, while Ramiah is limited to a method of data display. The examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Ramiah meets the language of the claim, as presently written.
Applicant argues at pp.13-14 of applicant’s remarks that Sasaki is directed to interpolating missing road segments in incomplete general road data using external vehicle trajectory data to complete the map, which addresses a different problem than applicant’s invention. Applicant further argues that equating fusing with interpolation/clustering is improper and that there is no motivation to use an algorithm for creating missing road data as in Sasaki to solve the problem of displaying taxiway identifiers, as in Ramiah. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. The examiner respectfully asserts that both Ramaiah and Sasaki, as well as the applicant’s invention, relate to processing map data and in fact both Sasaki and applicant’s invention deal address the problem of unnecessary road/taxiway segments (See Sasaki; p.1, right column). In response to applicant’s argument regarding fusing being equated with interpolation/clustering, it is unclear what specifically applicant is referring to, as none of the dependent claims for which Sasaki is relied upon recite fusing. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the method of Ramaiah using the various teachings of Sasaki in order to maintain an accurate and useful representation of the airport map (See Sasaki; p. 1, left column, “Introduction”) and to simplify the map and avoid lines that overcrowd the map unnecessarily (See Sasaki; p. 2, left column, paragraph 1; p.4, right column, “Simplification”), as suggested by Sasaki.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kavita Stanley whose telephone number is (571)272-8352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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, Cordelia (Dede) Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights