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 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite the first alternative recited by depending claims 3 and 13, such that the scope of the independent claims is not further limited by depending claims 3 and 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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 1-3, 6, 9-13, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0390758 A1 (hereinafter Muthler).
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “A method of operating a data processing system when performing processing relating to a scene [representing a volume], the data processing system comprising: a data processor, the data processor comprising an execution unit operable to execute instructions to perform data processing operations; and a traversal unit, for use when performing processing relating to a scene [representing a volume], the traversal unit configured to traverse a hierarchical data structure [representing a volume] representing a scene, to access data relating to [volume portions] representing the scene” are taught by Muthler (Muthler, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 56-262, describes a ray tracing system using a graphics processing unit comprising one or more streaming multiprocessors (SMs) and one or more tree traversal units (TTUs) which render images of a scene represented using an acceleration structure comprising a plurality of nodes, where the nodes respectively correspond to a volume portion of the scene. More particularly, Muthler, e.g. paragraphs 110-124, describes details of the graphics processor, where the claimed data processor corresponds to Muthler’s graphics processor 730, comprising the SMs 732, corresponding to the claimed execution unit operable to execute instructions to perform data processing operations, and TTUs 738 corresponding to the claimed traversal unit for traversing the hierarchical data structure representing the scene while rendering the scene represented by the nodes corresponding to volume portion(s) of the scene. It is additionally noted, with respect to claim 21, Muthler, e.g. paragraphs 112-114 indicates that the GPU is issued instructions by executing an application program, where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the application program executed by the CPU is stored in the memory 730, i.e. the application program is stored on a non-transitory medium.)
The limitations “a scene represented by a set of one or more voxels … a traversal unit, for use when performing processing relating to a scene represented by a set of one or more voxels, the hierarchical data structure representing a set of one or more voxels representing a scene, to access data relating to one or more voxels representing the scene, the hierarchical data structure comprising a plurality of nodes each associated with a respective volume within the scene, with one or more leaf nodes of the hierarchical data structure comprising data relating to one or more voxels that occupy the volume associated with the respective leaf node, the one or more voxels each representing at least part of one or more elements within the scene, the one or more voxels each representing a volume in space and having one or more associated properties comprising a colour and/or texture” are taught by Muthler (It is noted that Applicant’s disclosure, e.g. paragraph 25, indicates that voxels are not necessarily uniform in size, i.e. as discussed below, each of Muthler’s BVH nodes, bounding some portion of the scene volume, corresponding to the claimed voxel(s), and interior nodes, comprising one or more leaf nodes, further comprise the one or more leaf node voxels within the interior node bounding volume. Muthler, e.g. paragraphs 60-66, 89-109, describes details of the hierarchical acceleration structure(s) which are traversed by the TTUs to perform intersection testing for rays to render the scene, wherein the hierarchical acceleration structure comprises a tree of nodes each bounding a volume portion of at least one of the objects in the scene, e.g. paragraphs 60, 90-95, where the nodes may be either interior nodes or leaf nodes, e.g. paragraphs 96, 98, 137, i.e. the interior and leaf nodes are each associated with one or more voxels representing a part of one or more elements in a volume portion of the scene. Muthler, e.g. paragraphs 68-82, 119-131, teaches that the TTUs operate by repeatedly identifying a node to test for intersection, and in response accessing data for said node in order to perform the intersection test, where the result of the intersection test may be a decision to perform further traversal/intersections and/or return an intersection result to the SMs for processing the intersection as part of rendering the image, i.e. as claimed the traversal units traverse the hierarchical data structure in order to access data relating to one or more voxels representing the scene. Finally, as discussed further below, Muthler, e.g. paragraphs 118, 186, 196, teaches that depending on the type of intersection, e.g. hit, miss, and the type of leaf node being tested for intersection, e.g. geometry, instance, the TTU/traversal unit will inform the SMs/execution unit/data processor whether or not the leaf/voxel data should be further processed using a hit shader, which uses the surface texture of intersected primitives for determining pixel color values for the ray, i.e. the primitives contained within each BVH node comprise color and/or texture properties of scene elements within the volume of the node. That is, the BVH nodes are the claimed voxels, each node representing part of one or more elements within the scene, representing a volume in space, and having one or more associated color and/or texture properties, i.e. the volume within each node comprises at least one leaf node in the top or bottom level hierarchy comprising primitive data regarding primitives that may be intersected by a ray, where the hit shader processing the intersection of the ray with the primitive uses the primitive data contained within said at least one leaf node in the top or bottom level hierarchy indicating the surface texture of the primitive to determine a pixel color.)
The limitations “the method comprising: the execution unit, in response to executing an instruction indicating that a hierarchical data structure representing a set of one or more voxels representing a scene is to be traversed, causing the traversal unit to traverse the hierarchical data structure; and the traversal unit, when traversing the hierarchical data structure, when a leaf node is encountered containing data relating to one or more voxels comprising voxel data or a pointer to a region of storage storing voxel data, informs the data processor whether said one or more voxels should be processed” are taught by Muthler (Muthler, e.g. paragraphs 68-82, 119-131, describes how the graphics processor performs ray tracing for an application, including the SMs/execution units issuing ray query commands to the TTU/traversal unit, e.g. paragraphs 70, 120, 121, 126, i.e. the ray queries are issued in response to executing an application performing rendering using ray tracing, causing the TTU/traversal unit to traverse the BVH/hierarchal data structure, including leaf nodes thereof, until an intersection test is performed with a node bounding volume or node geometry in order to trigger processing of the intersection test result by the SMs/execution units, e.g. paragraphs 121-131. More specifically, Muthler, e.g. paragraphs 186, 196, 207-215, teaches that depending on the type of intersection, e.g. hit, miss, and the type of leaf node being tested for intersection, e.g. geometry, instance, the TTU/traversal unit will inform the SMs/execution unit/data processor whether or not the leaf/voxel data should be further processed using a hit shader. Further, Muthler, e.g. paragraph 131, 186, 196, 247, 251, teaches that leaf nodes may include primitive or item ranges, where the primitives/item ranges correspond to the claimed voxel data or a pointer to a region of storage storing voxel data, i.e. the range, per se, is voxel data, and also points to a contiguous set of primitives/triangles/items stored in a respective triangle/primitive/item buffer.)
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the hierarchical data structure is permitted to comprise plural types of leaf node, comprising different types of information relating to one or more voxels” is taught by Muthler (Muthler, e.g. paragraph 131, 186, 196, teaches that leaf nodes may have different types, including primitive ranges, instance nodes, or item ranges.)
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the data relating to one or more voxels which is provided in a leaf node comprises one or more of: voxel data or a pointer to a region of storage storing voxel data; an indication that a further data structure is to be traversed to obtain voxel data; hash data; or an indication of a program to be executed” is taught by Muthler (Muthler, e.g. paragraph 131, 186, 196, teaches that leaf nodes may have different types, including primitive ranges, instance nodes, or item ranges. Muthler, e.g. paragraphs 247, 251, indicates that the primitives/item ranges correspond to the claimed voxel data or a pointer to a region of storage storing voxel data, i.e. the range, per se, is voxel data, and also points to a contiguous set of primitives/triangles/items stored in a respective triangle/primitive/item buffer. Further, Muthler, e.g. paragraph 60, 105-108, indicates that instance nodes correspond to instances defined using bottom level acceleration structures (BLAS), i.e. instance nodes comprise an indication that a further data structure is to be traversed to obtain voxel data.)
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “wherein the traversal unit, in response to encountering a leaf node indicating that a further data structure is to be traversed, traverses a further data structure until a leaf node of the further data structure is encountered, and informs the data processor whether one or more voxels for which data is provided in the leaf node which should be processed” (As discussed in the claim 3 rejection, Muthler, e.g. paragraph 60, 105-108, 131, 186, 196, teaches that leaf nodes may be instance nodes, where instance nodes correspond to instances defined using bottom level acceleration structures (BLAS), i.e. instance nodes comprise an indication that a further data structure is to be traversed to obtain voxel data. Further, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection, Muthler teaches that the TTU/traversal unit traverses the BVH/hierarchal data structure, including leaf nodes thereof, until an intersection test is performed with a node bounding volume or node geometry in order to trigger processing of the intersection test result by the SMs/execution units, e.g. paragraphs 121-131, wherein Muthler further indicates, e.g. paragraphs 124, 131, 135, 136, 169, that depending on the ray query, the TTU/traversal unit may transform the ray from world space to object space in order to further traverse the BLAS of an intersected instance leaf node. It is noted that Muthler, e.g. paragraph 129, also teaches that the TTU/traversal unit can return a miss result to the SM/execution unit, i.e. the results indicate whether to perform further processing on the BLAS leaf node/voxel data in case of a hit, or to not perform further processing in case of a miss.)
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the limitations “wherein the traversal unit is formed at least in part of a ray tracing unit of a graphics processor of the data processing system”, “wherein the processing performed for the one or more voxels by the data processor comprises rendering” are taught by Muthler (Muthler, e.g. paragraphs 111-119 teaches that the SMs and TTUs are used to perform ray tracing for a graphics processor in the computing system, where the purpose of ray tracing is rendering images of the scene represented by the BVH, i.e. the TTU/traversal unit is part of a ray tracing unit of a graphics processor, and the processing performed by the data processor is rendering.)
Regarding claims 11 and 21, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “wherein the one or more voxels each correspond to a cuboid or cube-shaped volume” is taught by Muthler (Muthler, e.g. figures 1A-1C, teaches that the BVH nodes correspond to cuboid shaped volumes, i.e. hexahedrons with quadrilateral faces at orthogonal angles to one another.)
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 4, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0390758 A1 (hereinafter Muthler) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2024/0412445 A1 (hereinafter Pankratz).
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the traversal unit, in response to encountering a leaf node comprising an indication of a program to be executed, informs the data processor of the program or part of the program to be executed” is not explicitly taught by Muthler (While Muthler, e.g. paragraph 131, addresses leaf types including primitive ranges and instances/BLASes, Muthler does not explicitly discuss a leaf type comprising an indication of a program to be executed, where the SM/execution unit or data processor is informed of the program to be executed. It is noted that Muthler does teach that each node may include a FRA flag used to indicate whether a programmable ray operation should be performed for the respective node, e.g. paragraphs 66-88, but this does not necessarily correspond to a indication of the program to be executed for the leaf node. In the interest of compact prosecution, Pankratz is cited for teaching a ray tracing system using bounding volume hierarchies comprising procedural leaf nodes which comprise an indication of a procedural shader to be executed in order to evaluate a ray intersection test with the procedural leaf node.) However, this limitation is taught by Pankratz (Pankratz, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 11-64, describes a ray tracing system which renders a scene by tracing rays against a bounding volume hierarchy used to accelerate ray tracing processing, e.g. paragraphs 24-34. Pankratz, e.g. paragraphs 33, 34, 40-53, further teaches that leaf nodes can be procedural nodes, which are used to trigger execution of a procedural shader program to determine intersections between a ray and the procedural leaf node geometry, and include an indication of the associated procedural shader program as in paragraphs 40, 46. Pankratz, e.g. paragraphs 41-45, teaches that one advantage of using procedural leaf nodes is that a well-fit bounding volume may be used instead of an axis aligned bounding volume, which may result in fewer false positive intersection results associated with the procedural leaf node, and by extension, fewer executions of the procedural shader for false positive intersections, and with respect to compatibility with Muthler’s BVHs, Muthler, e.g. paragraph 92, indicates that using axis aligned bounding boxes are beneficial for performance reasons, but indicates that the system is compatible with non axis aligned bounding volumes such as oriented bounding boxes.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muthler’s ray tracing system to include Pankratz’s procedural leaf nodes with well-fit bounding volumes as an additional alternative leaf node type because Pankratz indicates that procedural leaf nodes allow the geometry associated with a leaf node to be defined procedurally, as opposed to being predefined as in Muthler’s primitive/instance nodes, thereby expanding the geometry representations available for defining scene geometry in the BVH. In Muthler’s modified system, Pankratz’s procedural leaf nodes would rely on well-fit bounding volumes rather than axis aligned bounding volumes for the reasons noted by Pankratz, e.g. paragraphs 41-45, in view of Muthler, e.g. paragraph 92, indicating compatibility with the use of non axis-aligned bounding box leaf nodes.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 8 above, i.e. although claim 4 instead recites the limitation “wherein a leaf node is permitted to comprise data relating to one or more voxels which are not axis aligned”, as noted above, in Muthler’s modified ray tracing system using Pankratz’s procedural leaf nodes with well-fit bounding volumes, the procedural leaf nodes would use well-fit bounding volumes rather than axis-aligned bounding boxes, corresponding to the claim 4 requirement that the leaf node is permitted to comprise non axis aligned data.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 8 above.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0390758 A1 (hereinafter Muthler) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of “Multi-Level Grid Strategies for Ray Tracing - Improving Render Time Performance for Row Displacement Compressed Grids” by Vasco Costa, et al. (hereinafter Costa).
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the traversal unit, in response to encountering a leaf node comprising hash data, solves one or more hash functions to determine a region of storage from which to access voxel data” is not explicitly taught by Muthler (Muthler does not discuss leaf nodes comprising hash data, per se.) However, this limitation is taught by Costa (Costa, e.g. abstract, sections 1-5, describes a multi-level hashed grid representation of triangle data representing a scene, used for performing ray tracing. Costa, e.g. sections 1, 2, 2.1, 3.2, teaches that the multi-level grid is a form of bounding volume hierarchy, i.e. bottom level cells, corresponding to leaf nodes, are grouped into macrocells using a coarser grid size than the bottom level/leaf cells, where the bottom level/leaf cells, e.g. sections 1, 3.1, 3.2, are accessed using a hash table which is indexed using the bottom level/leaf cell x, y, and z coordinates as input to the function d(x,y,z), i.e. when a ray being traversed against the multi-level hashed grid is intersection tested against a bottom level/leaf cell, comprising x, y, z, coordinates, the coordinates are used to solve a hash function to determine the index in the one dimensional array D in order to access the bottom level/leaf cell data. Finally, Costa, e.g. sections 1, 3.2, indicates that one advantage of a hash based representation is avoiding storing empty cells.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Muthler’s ray tracing system to include Costa’ multi-level hashed grid representation as an alternative leaf node type in order to avoid storing data for empty leaf nodes as taught by Costa, e.g. for sparse scenes with large amounts of empty space. In Muthler’s modified system, a ray determined to intersect a leaf node represented using the hashed grid would use the leaf node coordinates to solve the hash function and identify the corresponding location storing the leaf node/voxel data, as taught by Costa.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 7 above.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0390758 A1 (hereinafter Muthler) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0057539 A1 (hereinafter Stanard).
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “wherein the one or more voxels represent one or more elements based on the real world, as identified based on data obtained by one or more sensors” is implicitly taught by Muthler (Muthler does not discuss how the scenes represented by the acceleration structure(s) are generated, i.e. Muthler does not explicitly exclude or include any particular technique for generating a scene description which can be represented by the acceleration structure(s) for use in performing the ray tracing, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it implicit that the scene descriptions used in Muthler’s system could be generated using sensor data of real world scenes, i.e. it is well known that one common technique for generating scene representations of real world scenes is to use sensor data for reconstruction of a scene model. However, because Muthler does not explicitly recite the use of sensor data of a real world scene for generating the scene description used in Muthler’s ray tracing system, in the interest of compact prosecution Stanard is cited for teaching this limitation.) However, this limitation is taught by Stanard (Stanard, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 21-182, describes a ray tracing system using a bounding volume hierarchy to accelerate ray traversal operations, analogous to Muthler’s ray tracing system. Further, Stanard, e.g. paragraph 23, indicates that the scene description used by the ray tracing system may be constructed from imaging/scanning of a real-world scene, and/or created through virtual modeling means, i.e. Stanard teaches what one of ordinary skill in the art would have found implicit regarding Muthler’s scene representations, as noted above, which is that the scene descriptions used in Muthler’s system could be generated using sensor data of real world scenes.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Muthler’s ray tracing system to use Stanard’s ray tracing scene descriptions constructed from imaging/scanning of a real-world scene, and/or created through virtual modeling means, because as discussed above, Muthler does not exclude any particular technique for generating a scene description, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it implicit, as explicitly taught by Stanard, that Muthler’s ray tracing system could be used with scene descriptions constructed from sensor data of a real-world scene. It is noted that this does not necessarily require any modification of Muthler’s system, per se, i.e. the system is ignorant of the source of the scene description.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 12/10/25, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) rejections of claim 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) rejections of claim 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the equating of Muthler’s BVH nodes with Applicant’s claimed voxels is not consistent with the meaning of voxel in amended claim 1, but Applicant’s remarks fail to actually identify the supposed distinction between Muthler’s BVH nodes and Applicant’s amended claim. That is, as noted by Applicant, Muthler’s BVH nodes bound a volume in space, such that they correspond to the claim requirement to represent a volume in space. Further, all of Muthler’s BVH nodes contain primitives representing one or more elements of the scene, e.g. Muthler, paragraph 95, indicates that the subdivision is only performed for bounding volume nodes containing geometry, such that all BVH nodes, interior or leaf, comprise primitives of the scene, i.e. the at least part of one or more elements within the scene. Finally, Muthler’s primitives contain surface color/texture data, e.g. as in paragraph 118, pixel values are determined based on surface texture of the primitives intersected by a ray. Applicant’s remarks do not offer any rationale contradicting this mapping, and instead simply conclude without explanation that Muthler’s BVH nodes do not correspond to the amended claim language. As Applicant’s remarks are conclusory and do not actually identify the supposed distinction, these remarks cannot be considered persuasive.
It is additionally noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that subdivision into BVH nodes corresponds to a type of “voxelisation”, e.g. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0019325 A1, describes an analogous ray tracing system having a two level acceleration structure, wherein paragraph 83 describes the process of constructing the bounding volume structure, “the acceleration structure may be built in a top-down manner, e.g. the building of the acceleration structure may entail conservatively voxelising primitives into grid voxels (i.e. according to the spatial subdivision structure) and then constructing leaf hierarchies (according to the bounding volume structure).” That is, the term voxel, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, describes the nodes of a bounding volume hierarchy as in Muthler’s system
Finally, it is noted that even if, hypothetically, Applicant were to amend the claims in a way that excluded Muthler’s BVH nodes from the scope of the claimed voxels, one of ordinary skill in the art would still have found it obvious to use conventional volumetrically scanned voxels, such as medical scan data, as a primitive type used in the scene description of Muthler’s system, e.g. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0211267 A1, paragraphs 332, 347-357, describes an analogous ray tracing system having a two level acceleration structure, where unstructured volumes may be represented by voxels, and the primitives within each leaf node are voxels.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT BADER whose telephone number is (571)270-3335. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7 m-f.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at 571-272-7773. 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.
/ROBERT BADER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611