DETAILED ACTION
Reissue
The present reissue application is directed to US 8,619,241 B2 (“241 Patent’). 241 Patent issued on December 31, 2013 with claims 1-3 from application 13/632,191 filed on October 1, 2012, which is a division of parent application 12/809,235 (now US 8,310,655 B2), and claims priority to provisional application 61/015,738 filed on December 21, 2007.
This application was filed on March 19, 2024. Since this date is after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. Furthermore, the present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This application is a continuation reissue of reissue application 17/984,975 (now US RE49,950 E), which is a divisional reissue of reissue application 16/011,820 filed on June 19, 2018 (now US RE49,342 E), which is a divisional reissue of reissue application 14/984,704 filed on December 30, 2015 (now US RE46,930 E).
This application presents broadened claims, which are permitted because Applicant demonstrated an intent to broaden within two years of the issue date of 241 Patent (see claims filed in parent reissue application 14/984,704).
The most recent amendment was filed on March 19, 2024. The status of the claims is:
Claims 1-3: Canceled
Claims 4-23: New
This is a first, non-final action.
References and Documents Cited in this Action
241 Patent (US 8,619,241 B2)
Levesque (US 2009/0119044 A1)
Aebischer (US 6,516,286 B1)
Mori (US 2008/0068584 A1)
US RE49,342 E
US RE49,950 E
Summary of Rejections and Objections in this Action
Claims 4-23 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251.
Claims 4-8, 10-13, and 15-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Levesque.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Levesque in view of Aebischer.
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Levesque in view of Mori.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,342 E.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17 and 4, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. RE49,950 E.
Summary of the Claims
241 Patent is generally directed to a system and method for detecting a distance to an object by emitting a light signal and detecting a reflected signal. Claim 4 is representative:
4. A light detection and ranging (LIDAR) method, comprising:
executing an acquisition process based on a plurality of LIDAR parameters, the acquisition process comprising synchronizing emission of pulsed light towards a scene and acquiring data samples of at least one echo back signal from one or more objects in the scene;
extracting at least one LIDAR trace from the data samples;
computing an estimated distance to the one or more objects based on the at least one echo back signal; and
adjusting at least one of the LIDAR parameters based on (i) at least one of the data samples and (ii) the estimated distance.
PNG
media_image1.png
506
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4 and 17 are the independent claims. Claim 17 recites a system generally corresponding to the method recited in claim 4.
Oath/Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
37 CFR 1.175(c) states that the declaration in this broadening reissue can be made by the assignee only if the application for the original patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46 by the assignee of the entire interest. However, the box stating such has not been checked:
PNG
media_image2.png
203
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 4-23 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 4-8, 10-13, and 15-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Levesque.
Regarding independent claim 4, Levesque discloses a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) method (Figure 1), comprising:
executing an acquisition process based on a plurality of LIDAR parameters, the acquisition process comprising synchronizing emission of pulsed light towards a scene (i.e., using light source 26 in optical emitter module 12) and acquiring data samples of at least one echo back signal from one or more objects in the scene (i.e., using photodetector 32 and A/D converter 36 in optical receiver module 14 to obtain sampled data points as a raw signal waveform; paragraphs [0035]-[0041]; see also Figure 2);
extracting at least one LIDAR trace from the data samples (i.e., by averaging raw signal waveforms; paragraphs [0039]-[0041]);
computing an estimated distance to the one or more objects based on the at least one echo back signal (e.g., Figures 2D and 2E show an estimated distance of 300m; paragraph [0039]); and
adjusting at least one of the LIDAR parameters based on (i) at least one of the data samples and (ii) the estimated distance (i.e., Levesque discloses adjusting at least one LIDAR parameter to improve results, such as “data points sampled for the farther distances are more heavily averaged than those corresponding to shorter distances,” see paragraph [0041]; or “The procedure then consists in averaging the whole waveform set repeatedly, by using different values of the parameter that controls the range shift applied to each waveform. This parameter will be referred to as the range shift parameter (RSP),” see paragraph [0051]; or “the values of the four parameters V, θV, D1, t1 governing the regular motion of the object 58 in the subregion will need to be varied simultaneously within their specific intervals for searching the optimum combination that would lead to a reconstructed waveform that maximizes its SNR,” see paragraph [0069]). Examiner notes that claim 4 does not recite any particular details with respect to the “parameters.”
PNG
media_image3.png
476
622
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Levesque discloses that the LIDAR parameters include at least one of a number of shift delays by period of the data samples, a number of accumulations of the data samples, a refresh rate for each of the data samples, a resolution of the at least one LIDAR trace, and a signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio of the at least one LIDAR trace (i.e., a number of accumulations; paragraph [0041]; or a range shift parameter; paragraph [0051]; or SNR; paragraph [0069]) .
Regarding claim 6, Levesque discloses that adjusting the at least one of the LIDAR parameters comprises, in response to determining that the estimated distance is below a first threshold and that a strength of the at least one echo back signal is above a second threshold, increasing a number of shift delays by period of the data samples, increasing a refresh rate for each of the data samples, and reducing a number of accumulations of the data samples (i.e., when the object is considered “close range,” wherein its distance is inherently below a threshold and its signal amplitude is higher, shift delays and refresh rate are increased and number of accumulations are decreased, in order to enable faster response times; paragraphs [0020] and [0040]-[0060]; Figures 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, Levesque discloses that adjusting the at least one of the LIDAR parameters comprises, in response to determining that the estimated distance is above a first threshold and that a strength of the at least one echo back signal is below a second threshold, increasing a number of accumulations of the data samples, reducing a number of shift delays by period of the data samples, and reducing a refresh rate for each of the data samples (i.e., when the object is considered not “close range,” wherein its distance is inherently above a threshold and its signal amplitude is lower, shift delays and refresh rate are reduced and number of accumulations are increased, in order to maintain accuracy; paragraphs [0020] and [0040]-[0060]; Figures 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 8, Levesque discloses computing the estimated distance to the one or more objects comprises measuring a lapse of time between emission and reception of the at least one echo back signal. (i.e., measuring “time-of-flight”; paragraph [0003])
Regarding claim 10, Levesque discloses determining a level of noise in the data samples (paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 11, Levesque discloses that each of the LIDAR parameters is associated with a priority and wherein adjusting the at least one of the LIDAR parameters comprises adjusting the at least one of the LIDAR parameters based on the level of noise in the data samples and the priority associated with each of the plurality of LIDAR parameters (i.e., objects at “close range” return signals having lower noise than objects farther away, and based on whether the object is closer and therefore returns lower noise, a parameter such as a number of accumulations is reduced; paragraphs [0020] and [0040]-[0060]; Figures 3 and 6). Examiner notes that claim 11 does not recite any particular details with respect to the “parameters”; a parameter having “priority” may be simply a parameter that Levesque discloses is adjusted, such as number of accumulations, as opposed to some other parameter that is not adjusted.
Regarding claim 12, Levesque discloses that adjusting the at least one of the LIDAR parameters further comprises:
determining that the level of noise in the data samples is lower than an expected level of noise (i.e., objects at “close range” return signals having lower noise than objects farther away; paragraphs [0020] and [0040]); and
increasing a resolution in the LIDAR parameters in response to the determining that the level of noise in the data samples is lower than the expected level of noise (i.e., based on whether the object is closer and therefore returns lower noise, a parameter such as a number of accumulations is reduced and shift delays are increased, in order to enable faster response times; paragraphs [0020] and [0040]-[0060]; Figures 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 13, Levesque discloses that increasing the resolution of the at least one LIDAR trace in the LIDAR parameters comprises reducing a number of accumulations of the data samples and increasing a number of shift delays by period of the data samples in the LIDAR parameters (paragraphs [0040]-[0060]; Figures 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, Levesque discloses that adjusting the at least one of the LIDAR parameters further comprises improving at least one of the LIDAR parameters relative to at least one other of the LIDAR parameters as a function of the estimated distance (i.e., when the object is considered “close range,” shift delays and refresh rate are increased and number of accumulations are decreased, in order to enable faster response times; paragraphs [0040]-[0060]; Figures 3 and 6). Examiner notes that claim 15 does not recite any particular details with respect to the “parameters.”
Regarding claim 16, Levesque discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the method of claim 4 (i.e., control and processing unit 20; Figure 1; paragraphs [0006] and [0035]-[0038]).
Regarding independent claim 17, Levesque discloses a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) system (Figure 1), comprising:
at least one light source for illumination of a field of view and emission of pulsed light in the field of view (i.e., light source 26, in optical emitter module 12);
an optical detector for detecting at least one echo back signal of the pulsed light from one or more objects in the field of view (i.e., photodetector 32 in optical receiver module 14);
an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) for acquiring data samples of the at least one echo back signal from the one or more objects in the field of view (i.e., A/D converter 36 in optical receiver module 14 obtains sampled data points as a raw signal waveform; paragraphs [0035]-[0041]; see also Figure 2);
a processor (i.e., control and processing unit 20) configured to:
execute an acquisition process based on a plurality of LIDAR parameters, the acquisition process comprising synchronizing the emission of the pulsed light by the at least one light source and the acquiring of the data samples of the at least one echo back signal using the ADC (i.e., “the control process synchronizes the emission of each individual optical pulse with the start of the sampling and A/D data conversion of the return signal collected by the receiver module 14”; paragraph [0035]),
extract at least one LIDAR trace from the data samples (i.e., by averaging raw signal waveforms; paragraphs [0039]-[0041]);
compute an estimated distance to the one or more objects based on the at least one echo back signal (e.g., Figures 2D and 2E show an estimated distance of 300m; paragraph [0039]); and
adjust at least one of the LIDAR parameters based on (1) at least one of the data samples and (ii) the estimated distance (i.e., Levesque discloses adjusting at least one LIDAR parameter to improve results, such as “data points sampled for the farther distances are more heavily averaged than those corresponding to shorter distances,” see paragraph [0041]; or “The procedure then consists in averaging the whole waveform set repeatedly, by using different values of the parameter that controls the range shift applied to each waveform. This parameter will be referred to as the range shift parameter (RSP),” see paragraph [0051]; or “the values of the four parameters V, θV, D1, t1 governing the regular motion of the object 58 in the subregion will need to be varied simultaneously within their specific intervals for searching the optimum combination that would lead to a reconstructed waveform that maximizes its SNR,” see paragraph [0069]). Examiner notes that claim 17 does not recite any particular details with respect to the “parameters.”
Regarding claim 18, Levesque discloses that the LIDAR parameters include at least one of a number of shift delays by period of the data samples, a number of accumulations of the data samples, a refresh rate for each of the data samples, a resolution of the at least one LIDAR trace, and a signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio of the at least one LIDAR trace (i.e., a number of accumulations; paragraph [0041]; or a range shift parameter; paragraph [0051]; or SNR; paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 19, Levesque discloses that adjusting the at least one of the LIDAR parameters further comprises: in response to determining that the estimated distance is below a first threshold and that a strength of the at least one echo back signal is above a second threshold, increasing a number of shift delays by period of the data samples, increasing a refresh rate for each of the data samples, and reducing a number of accumulations of the data samples (i.e., when the object is considered “close range,” wherein its distance is inherently below a threshold and its signal amplitude is higher, shift delays and refresh rate are increased and number of accumulations are decreased, in order to enable faster response times; paragraphs [0020] and [0040]-[0060]; Figures 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 20, Levesque discloses that adjusting the at least one of the LIDAR parameters further comprises: in response to determining that the estimated distance is above a first threshold and that a strength of the at least one echo back signal is below a second threshold, increasing a number of accumulations of the data samples, reducing a number of shift delays by period of the data samples, and reducing a refresh rate for each of the data samples (i.e., when the object is considered not “close range,” wherein its distance is inherently above a threshold and its signal amplitude is lower, shift delays and refresh rate are reduced and number of accumulations are increased, in order to maintain accuracy; paragraphs [0020] and [0040]-[0060]; Figures 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 21, Levesque discloses that the processor is further configured to determine a level of noise in the data samples (paragraphs [0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claim 22, Levesque discloses that each of the LIDAR parameters is associated with a priority and wherein adjusting the at least one of the LIDAR parameters further comprises: adjusting the at least one of the LIDAR parameters based on the level of noise in the data samples and the priority associated with each of the plurality of LIDAR parameters (i.e., objects at “close range” return signals having lower noise than objects farther away, and based on whether the object is closer and therefore returns lower noise, a parameter such as a number of accumulations is reduced; paragraphs [0020] and [0040]-[0060]; Figures 3 and 6). Examiner notes that claim 22 does not recite any particular details with respect to the “parameters”; a parameter having “priority” may be simply a parameter that Levesque discloses is adjusted, such as number of accumulations, as opposed to some other parameter that is not adjusted.
Regarding claim 23, Levesque discloses that the processor is further configured to adjust the at least one of the LIDAR parameters comprising:
determining that the level of noise in the data samples is lower than an expected level of noise (i.e., objects at “close range” return signals having lower noise than objects farther away; paragraphs [0020] and [0040]); and
increasing a resolution in the LIDAR parameters in response to determining that the level of noise in the data samples is lower than the expected level of noise (i.e., based on whether the object is closer and therefore returns lower noise, a parameter such as a number of accumulations is reduced and shift delays are increased, in order to enable faster response times; paragraphs [0020] and [0040]-[0060]; Figures 3 and 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Levesque in view of Aebischer.
Regarding claim 9, Levesque discloses a method as discussed above with regard to claim 4, and further generally discloses “correlating the received signal waveforms with a reference profile or function” (paragraph [0012]) but does not specifically disclose further details of the reference signal. However, Aebischer teaches a method that is related to the one disclosed by Levesque, including computing an estimated distance to an object (Aebischer, Abstract; column 2, lines 8-39). Aebischer further teaches:
emitting a reference signal towards the scene (column 5, lines 20-33);
receiving a reference echo back signal associated with the reference signal (column 5, lines 33-37);
generating a reference LIDAR trace from the reference echo back signal (column 5, lines 37-67); and
comparing the reference LIDAR trace to the at least one LIDAR trace to compute the estimated distance to the one or more objects (column 2, lines 40-67; column 3, lines 1-27).
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a reference signal as taught by Aebischer in the method disclosed by Levesque in order to further improve detecting the received signal and thereby the determination of the distance of the object (Aebischer, column 1, lines 36-56; Levesque, paragraph [0012]).
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Levesque in view of Mori.
Regarding claim 14, Levesque discloses a method as discussed above with regard to claim 4, but does not specifically disclose digitally filtering the data samples of the at least one echo back signal. However, Mori teaches a method that is related to the one disclosed by Levesque, including computing an estimated distance to an object based on at least one echo back signal (Mori, Figures 3 and 6; paragraph [0060]). Mori further teaches digitally filtering the data samples of the at least one echo back signal (i.e., low pass filter 722 in signal processor 72; paragraphs [0086]-[0090] and [0098]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include digital filtering as taught by Mori in the method disclosed by Levesque in order to further improve detecting the received signal and thereby the determination of the distance of the object (Mori, paragraph [0087]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,342 E.
Regarding reissue claims 4 and 17, although the recited method steps and system elements are not identical to the steps of method claim 4 of US RE49,342 E, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are of a similar scope of invention with claim 4 of US RE49,342 E anticipating the reissue claims. Reissue claims 4 and 17 and claim 4 of US RE49,342 E recite similar steps, elements, and limitations including a light source emitting pulsed light toward an object; an optical detector detecting at least one echo back (back-scattered) signal of the pulsed light from the object; and signal processing elements for acquiring data samples of the at least one echo back signal from the object, extracting at least one LIDAR trace from the data samples (e.g., by accumulating the samples), and computing an estimated distance to the object. Reissue claims 4 and 17 and claim 4 of US RE49,342 E also recite similar steps of adjusting at least one parameter based on (1) at least one of the data samples and (ii) the estimated distance (i.e., claim 4 of US RE49,342 E recites “varying the number of accumulated sampled acquisitions,” which is varying at least one “parameter”). Given claim 4 of US RE49,342 E, it would have been obvious to create reissue claims 4 and 17 by broadening “varying the number of accumulated sampled acquisitions” to simply adjusting at least one “parameter.”
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17 and 4, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. RE49,950 E.
Regarding reissue claims 4 and 17, although the recited method steps and system elements are not identical to the steps of method claim 17 of US RE49,950 E or the elements of system of claim 4 of US RE49,950 E, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are of a similar scope of invention with claims 17 and 4 of US RE49,950 E anticipating the reissue claims. Reissue claims 4 and 17 and claims 17 and 4 of US RE49,950 E recite similar steps, elements, and limitations including a light source emitting pulsed light toward an object; an optical detector detecting at least one echo back (back-scattered) signal of the pulsed light from the object; and signal processing elements for acquiring data samples of the at least one echo back signal from the object, extracting at least one LIDAR trace from the data samples (e.g., by accumulating the samples), and computing an estimated distance to the object. Reissue claims 4 and 17 and claims 17 and 4 of US RE49,950 E also recite similar steps of adjusting at least one parameter based on (1) at least one of the data samples and (ii) the estimated distance (i.e., claims 17 and 4 of US RE49,342 E recite “varying an intensity of the light source,” which is varying at least one “parameter”). Given claims 17 and 4 of US RE49,342 E, it would have been obvious to create reissue claims 4 and 17 by broadening “varying an intensity of the light source” to simply adjusting at least one “parameter.”
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which this reissue application is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to Examiner Christina Leung at telephone number (571) 272-3023; the Examiner’s supervisor, SPE Timothy Speer at (313) 446-4825; or the Central Reexamination Unit at (571) 272-7705.
/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/DEANDRA M HUGHES/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/T.M.S/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3991