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 .
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “transmit … a command to one or more devices based on the weather characteristic” on in claims 1, 13 and 20 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with functional language “transmit” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In light of the specification, the claim limitation “one or more devices” is interpreted to cover the corresponding structure “user interfaces” as described in paragraph 0041.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 11,369,817 B1).
With regard to claim 1, Kim discloses a fire apparatus system (“watchtower vehicle 100”) comprising: a fire apparatus (Fig. 1) including: an aerial ladder (300); and an environment sensor (500/600) positioned along the aerial ladder (Fig. 1), the environment sensor (500) configured to collect data regarding a weather characteristic at a location (forest fire) of the fire apparatus (collection by weather sensor 520); and one or more processing circuits (transmitter and server, Col. 6 lines 24-29) configured to: acquire the data collected by the environment sensor; monitor the weather characteristic at the location based on the data (“The present disclosure relates to a watchtower vehicle; and more particularly, to the watchtower vehicle capable of monitoring a surrounding situation and measuring directions and strengths of wind from different heights.” Col. 1 lines 13-16); and transmit a notification or a command to one or more devices based on the weather characteristic (“In addition, the watchtower vehicle may further include a transmission device (not illustrated) for transmitting measured data to a server located outside, etc., and a signal amplifier (not illustrated) or a wireless communication repeater (not illustrated) for communicating smoothly with the server located outside.” Col. 6 lines 24-29).
With regard to claim 2, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits (transmitter) include at least one of a first processing circuit positioned on the fire apparatus or a second processing circuit positioned remote from the fire apparatus (“In addition, the watchtower vehicle may further include a transmission device (not illustrated) for transmitting measured data to a server located outside, etc., and a signal amplifier (not illustrated) or a wireless communication repeater (not illustrated) for communicating smoothly with the server located outside.” Col. 6 lines 24-29).
With regard to claim 3, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits include the first processing circuit (transmitter).
With regard to claim 4, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits include the second processing circuit (“server located outside”, see Col. 6 line 29).
With regard to claim 5, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kim further discloses that the weather characteristic includes a characteristic regarding at least one of wind speed, wind direction, temperature, humidity, precipitation, presence of lightning, or atmospheric or barometric pressure (see Col. 7 lines 31-32).
With regard to claim 7, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the command, wherein the one or more devices include the aerial ladder (300), and wherein the command limits an operation of the aerial ladder based on the weather characteristic (“the control module may control or support another module to control the extendable boom 300 to be inclined at a specific angle within the first angle range by referring to the wind direction and the wind speed measured by the first weather sensor 520. That is, there is a danger of the extendable boom 300 being overturned in an opposite direction of the wind because of significant wind load received when the extendable boom 300 is vertically erected and the wind is blowing strongly. Therefore, in order to reduce such a risk and measure the wind stably and continuously without changing a position of the first weather sensor 520 and the second weather sensor, the control module may incline the extendable boom 300 towards a direction of the wind blowing by referring to the wind direction and the wind speed, to thereby decrease the risk of the extendable boom 300 being overturned.” see Col. 9 lines 1-14).
With regard to claim 8, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Kim further discloses that the operation of the aerial ladder includes at least one of a horizontal reach, a vertical reach, or a payload capacity (“the control module may control or support another module to control the extendable boom 300 to be inclined at a specific angle within the first angle range by referring to the wind direction and the wind speed measured by the first weather sensor 520. That is, there is a danger of the extendable boom 300 being overturned in an opposite direction of the wind because of significant wind load received when the extendable boom 300 is vertically erected and the wind is blowing strongly. Therefore, in order to reduce such a risk and measure the wind stably and continuously without changing a position of the first weather sensor 520 and the second weather sensor, the control module may incline the extendable boom 300 towards a direction of the wind blowing by referring to the wind direction and the wind speed, to thereby decrease the risk of the extendable boom 300 being overturned.” see Col. 9 lines 1-14).
With regard to claim 11, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more devices include a device of a person or organization monitoring or containing a forest fire proximate the location of the fire apparatus (Col. 1 lines 36-42).
With regard to claim 12, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 11 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits are configured to provide a recommended course of action to mitigate further spread of the forest fire based on the weather characteristic (“The present disclosure has still yet another effect of transmitting the acquired images and the acquired meteorological data to a control room, etc. to better inform what is happening on-site, to thereby support decision in wildfire extinguishment, etc., and apply the decision to a predictive program such as a wildfire spread predictive program.” Col. 11 lines 23-28).
With regard to claim 13, Kim discloses fire apparatus system (“watchtower vehicle 100”) comprising: an environment sensor (500) configured to be coupled to an aerial ladder of a fire apparatus (300), the environment sensor (500) configured to collect data regarding a weather characteristic at a location of the fire apparatus (Collected by weather sensor 520); and one or more processing circuits (server and transmitter, Col. 6 lines 24-29) configured to: acquire the data collected by the environment sensor (500); monitor the weather characteristic at the location based on the data; and transmit a notification or a command to one or more devices based on the weather characteristic (“In addition, the watchtower vehicle may further include a transmission device (not illustrated) for transmitting measured data to a server located outside, etc., and a signal amplifier (not illustrated) or a wireless communication repeater (not illustrated) for communicating smoothly with the server located outside.” Col. 6 lines 24-29).
With regard to claim 14, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits (transmitter) include at least one of a first processing circuit configured to be positioned on the fire apparatus or a second processing circuit configured to be positioned remote from the fire apparatus (“In addition, the watchtower vehicle may further include a transmission device (not illustrated) for transmitting measured data to a server located outside, etc., and a signal amplifier (not illustrated) or a wireless communication repeater (not illustrated) for communicating smoothly with the server located outside.” Col. 6 lines 24-29).
With regard to claim 18, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the notification, wherein the one or more devices include a device of a person or organization monitoring or containing a forest fire proximate the location of the fire apparatus (Col. 11 lines 19-28).
With regard to claim 19, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 18 above. Kim further discloses that the one or more processing circuits are configured to provide a recommended course of action to mitigate further spread of the forest fire based on the weather characteristic (“The present disclosure has still yet another effect of transmitting the acquired images and the acquired meteorological data to a control room, etc. to better inform what is happening on-site, to thereby support decision in wildfire extinguishment, etc., and apply the decision to a predictive program such as a wildfire spread predictive program.” Col. 11 lines 23-28).
With regard to claim 20, Kim discloses a fire apparatus system (“watchtower vehicle 100”) comprising: one or more processing circuits (server and transmitter) configured to: acquire data collected by an environment sensor coupled to an aerial ladder of a fire apparatus, the data including a weather characteristic at a location of the fire apparatus; monitor the weather characteristic at the location based on the data; and transmit a notification or a command to one or more devices based on the weather characteristic (“In addition, the watchtower vehicle may further include a transmission device (not illustrated) for transmitting measured data to a server located outside, etc., and a signal amplifier (not illustrated) or a wireless communication repeater (not illustrated) for communicating smoothly with the server located outside.” Col. 6 lines 24-29).
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 6, 9, 10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Linsmeier et al. (US 2022/0024425 A1).
With regard to claim 6, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kim does not disclose that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the notification, wherein the one or more devices include a display of the fire apparatus or a user device associated with an operator of the fire apparatus, and wherein the notification includes a warning to limit an operation of the aerial ladder based on the weather characteristic.
Linsmeier teaches a fire apparatus comprising one or more processing circuits (controller) are configured to transmit the notification, wherein the one or more devices include a display of the fire apparatus (120) or a user device associated with an operator of the fire apparatus, and wherein the notification includes a warning to limit an operation of the aerial ladder based on characteristic (“The controller 110 may be configured to provide an indication (e.g., a notification, a warning, etc.) on the display of the user interface 120 that the stabilization system 50 of the fire apparatus 10 is capable of reconfiguring the fire apparatus 10 such that the fire apparatus 10 (e.g., the aerial ladder assembly 70, the implement 80, etc.) may be operated with at least partially restricted or limited operation. In one example, limiting the operation of the fire apparatus 10 may include indicating and/or actively preventing use of the aerial ladder assembly beyond various thresholds.” Col.16 lines 8-18).
It is noted by the Examiner that the prior art to Linsmeier and the instant invention are directed to provide warnings indicating unsafe operation and instruction to limit or avoid operation. In accordance with MPEP 2141.01(1), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In this instant case, the prior art to Linsmeier is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
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 fire apparatus system of Kim, by incorporating a display or a user device associated with an operator to provide a notification and a warning as taught by Linsmeier to monitor the weather characteristic, for the benefit of preventing use of the aerial ladder beyond safe thresholds (Col.16 line 18).
With regard to claim 9, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Kim does not disclose that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the notification, wherein the one or more devices include a user device of a person that will be affected by an incident proximate the location of the fire apparatus based on the weather characteristic, and wherein the notification includes a warning regarding the incident.
Linsmeier teaches a fire apparatus comprising one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the notification, wherein the one or more devices include a user device of a person that will be affected by an incident proximate the location of the fire apparatus based on characteristic, and wherein the notification includes a warning regarding the incident (“The controller 110 may be configured to provide an indication (e.g., a notification, a warning, etc.) on the display of the user interface 120 that the stabilization system 50 of the fire apparatus 10 is capable of reconfiguring the fire apparatus 10 such that the fire apparatus 10 (e.g., the aerial ladder assembly 70, the implement 80, etc.) may be operated with at least partially restricted or limited operation. In one example, limiting the operation of the fire apparatus 10 may include indicating and/or actively preventing use of the aerial ladder assembly beyond various thresholds.” Col. 16 lines 8-18).
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 fire apparatus system of Kim, by incorporating a display or a user device associated with an operator to provide a notification and a warning as taught by Linsmeier to monitor the weather characteristic, for the benefit of preventing use of the aerial ladder beyond safe thresholds (Col.16 line 18).
With regard to claim 10, the fire apparatus system of Kim as modified by Linsmeier discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Kim further discloses that the incident includes a fire or a chemical spill, and wherein the person is determined to be in the path of the fire, smoke from the fire, or chemical from the chemical spill based on the weather characteristic (the fire apparatus of Kim is capable of monitoring the recited incident).
With regard to claim 15, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Kim does not disclose that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the notification, wherein the one or more devices include a display of the fire apparatus or a user device associated with an operator of the fire apparatus, and wherein the notification includes a warning to limit an operation of the aerial ladder based on the weather characteristic.
Linsmeier teaches a fire apparatus comprising one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the notification, wherein the one or more devices include a display of the fire apparatus (120) or a user device associated with an operator of the fire apparatus, and wherein the notification includes a warning to limit an operation of the aerial ladder based on the characteristic (“The controller 110 may be configured to provide an indication (e.g., a notification, a warning, etc.) on the display of the user interface 120 that the stabilization system 50 of the fire apparatus 10 is capable of reconfiguring the fire apparatus 10 such that the fire apparatus 10 (e.g., the aerial ladder assembly 70, the implement 80, etc.) may be operated with at least partially restricted or limited operation. In one example, limiting the operation of the fire apparatus 10 may include indicating and/or actively preventing use of the aerial ladder assembly beyond various thresholds.” Col.16 lines 8-18).
It is noted by the Examiner that the prior art to Linsmeier and the instant invention are directed to provide warnings indicating unsafe operation and instruction to limit or avoid operation. In accordance with MPEP 2141.01(1), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In this instant case, the prior art to Linsmeier is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
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 fire apparatus system of Kim, by incorporating a display or a user device associated with an operator to provide a notification and a warning as taught by Linsmeier to monitor the weather characteristic, for the benefit of preventing use of the aerial ladder beyond safe thresholds (Col.16 line 18).
With regard to claim 16, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Kim does not disclose that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the command, wherein the one or more devices include the aerial ladder, and wherein the command limits an operation of the aerial ladder based on the weather characteristic.
Linsmeier teaches a fire apparatus comprising one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the command, wherein the one or more devices include the aerial ladder, and wherein the command limits an operation of the aerial ladder based on the characteristic (“The controller 110 may be configured to provide an indication (e.g., a notification, a warning, etc.) on the display of the user interface 120 that the stabilization system 50 of the fire apparatus 10 is capable of reconfiguring the fire apparatus 10 such that the fire apparatus 10 (e.g., the aerial ladder assembly 70, the implement 80, etc.) may be operated with at least partially restricted or limited operation. In one example, limiting the operation of the fire apparatus 10 may include indicating and/or actively preventing use of the aerial ladder assembly beyond various thresholds.” Col.16 lines 8-18).
It is noted by the Examiner that the prior art to Linsmeier and the instant invention are directed to provide warnings indicating unsafe operation and instruction to limit or avoid operation. In accordance with MPEP 2141.01(1), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In this instant case, the prior art to Linsmeier is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
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 fire apparatus system of Kim, by incorporating the command of limiting an operation of the aerial ladder based on the characteristic as taught by Linsmeier, for the benefit of preventing use of the aerial ladder beyond safe thresholds (Col. 16 line 18).
With regard to claim 17, the fire apparatus system of Kim discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 13 above. Kim does not disclose that the one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the notification, wherein the one or more devices include a user device of a person that will be affected by an incident proximate the location of the fire apparatus based on the weather characteristic, and wherein the notification includes a warning regarding the incident.
Linsmeier teaches a fire apparatus comprising one or more processing circuits are configured to transmit the notification, wherein the one or more devices include a user device of a person that will be affected by an incident proximate the location of the fire apparatus based on the characteristic, and wherein the notification includes a warning regarding the incident (“The controller 110 may be configured to provide an indication (e.g., a notification, a warning, etc.) on the display of the user interface 120 that the stabilization system 50 of the fire apparatus 10 is capable of reconfiguring the fire apparatus 10 such that the fire apparatus 10 (e.g., the aerial ladder assembly 70, the implement 80, etc.) may be operated with at least partially restricted or limited operation. In one example, limiting the operation of the fire apparatus 10 may include indicating and/or actively preventing use of the aerial ladder assembly beyond various thresholds.” Col.16 lines 8-18).
It is noted by the Examiner that the prior art to Linsmeier and the instant invention are directed to provide warnings indicating unsafe operation and instruction to limit or avoid operation. In accordance with MPEP 2141.01(1), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In this instant case, the prior art to Linsmeier is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
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 fire apparatus system of Kim, by incorporating a display or a user device associated with an operator to provide a notification and a warning as taught by Linsmeier to monitor the weather characteristic, for the benefit of preventing use of the aerial ladder beyond safe thresholds (Col.16 line 18).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR HALL can be reached at 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights