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 .
This is the first office action on the merits and is responsive to the papers filed 03/28/2024. Claims 1-16 are currently pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted by Applicant is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0046] states that “the track is positioned next to the track,” which is internally inconsistent and appears to contain a typographical error. Applicant is required to clarify the identity of each referenced track.
[0048]: “foreign object detection (FOB) system” should read “foreign object detection (FOD) system”.
The disclosure is further objected to because paragraph numbering is not sequential and appears to restart in the Summary section. Applicant should renumber the paragraphs sequentially.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms WI-FI, BLUETOOTH, FORMULA 1, NASCAR which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, “the debris,” “the LIDAR scan,” and “the runway” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, “the wireless communication system” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 10 contains the trademark/trade names WI-FI, BLUETOOTH. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name are used to define wireless communication protocols and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 14 contains the trademark/trade names FORMULA 1, NASCAR. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name are used to identify racetrack categories and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 14 is further indefinite because the term “moto” does not clearly define the type of racetrack. Although the specification appears to associate “moto” with motorcycle racing, it is unclear whether the term refers to a motorcycle road-racing circuit, motocross track, speedway track, or another motorcycle-racing facility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Steine et al. (US 20230368155 A1, “Steine”).
Regarding claim 1, Steine teaches a monitoring system comprising:
a track (Steine’s rail 2 / one or more rails. Steine states the apparatus is mounted on one or more rails. See Steine Figs. 3-5 and [0063], [0089]- [0090].);
a cart (Steine’s apparatus 1, more specifically the movable apparatus including drive unit 10, wheels 11, motors 12, and support/mounting structure. See [0063]- [0066], Fig. 1.) carrying at least one monitoring device (Apparatus 1 carries detection unit 20, including terrain sensor 21, FOD sensor 22, friction meter 23, LiDAR/camera/sensors. See [0063], [0067]- [0068], [0074].) and a power supply (Steine teaches a power unit / power module 60, including rechargeable power source, rail power, electrical contact, or inductive charging. See [0036], [0091]- [0093].);
a propulsion system for moving the cart along the track (Steine’s drive unit 10, with wheels 11, motors 12, and processor 13, moves apparatus 1 along rail 2. See [0064]- [0066].);
the monitoring system scanning an area alongside the track (Steine’s detection unit/terrain sensor, including LiDAR, scans terrain/surroundings and generates a 2D/3D map/representation. See [0013], [0067]- [0068], [0080].).
Regarding claim 4, Steine teaches the monitoring system of claim 1 wherein the at least one monitoring device is a LIDAR (Steine teaches that the terrain sensor 21 may comprise a LiDAR module having a laser source arranged to output a rotating laser beam. The LiDAR receives reflected light and calculates distance to terrain/obstacles to generate a 2D or 3D representation of the surroundings. See Steine [0013], [0067]- [0068], [0080]; Fig. 1.).
Regarding claim 6, Steine teaches the monitoring system of claim 4 for monitoring an airport runway and detecting debris on the runway (Steine is directed to an aerodrome/runway maintenance apparatus for monitoring runway and taxiway conditions. Steine specifically identifies foreign object debris (FOD) on runway/taxiway surfaces as a safety issue and teaches a FOD sensor 22 configured to detect foreign objects/debris on the runway or taxiway. See Steine [0005], [0022], [0074], [0096]; Figs. 1-4.).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steine in view of Wentworth (US 20050237387 A1,” Wentworth”).
Regarding claim 2, Steine fails to explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 1 wherein the propulsion system is constructed and arranged to allow the cart to move forwards and backwards along the track.
Steine teaches that the apparatus 1 includes a drive unit 10 for moving the apparatus along rail 2. The drive unit includes wheels 11, motors 12, and drive processor 13. Steine further teaches that the apparatus may be remotely or autonomously controlled to move along the rail and may travel to selected positions and return for repeated monitoring. See Steine [0064]- [0066], [0073]; Figs. 3-5. See also, [0070].
However, Steine does not explicitly disclose that the propulsion system is constructed and arranged to move the cart both forward and backward along the track.
Wentworth discloses an elevated monorail track 11 and a self-propelled trolley 13 carrying surveillance cameras 15. Wentworth further discloses that trolley 13 moves continuously backward and forward along monorail track 11 to monitor the surrounding perimeter (Wentworth, [0005]- [0006], [0015] and claim 1; Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Steine’s drive unit 10 according to Wentworth so that apparatus 1 is capable of moving forward and backward along rail 2. Such bidirectional movement would have allowed the monitoring apparatus to reverse its direction of travel and access monitoring locations in either direction without requiring the apparatus to be physically turned around or requiring a separate return path.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steine in view of King et al. (US 20190062062 A1, “King”).
Regarding claim 3, Steine fails to explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 1 wherein the propulsion system is magnetic.
Steine teaches that the drive unit may comprise a maglev module arranged to provide magnetic levitation of the apparatus against the rails. See Steine [0010]. Steine also states that rail 2 may allow movement by contact or non-contact movement, e.g., maglev. See [0089].).
Steine, however, does not explicitly disclose that magnetic forces provide the propulsive force that moves apparatus 1 along rail 2.
King discloses a transport system powered by linear synchronous motors. King discloses vehicle 21 movable along a guideway and permanent magnets 33 and 34 mounted near the bottom of vehicle 21 that provide the magnetic flux source for linear synchronous motor propulsion (King, [0045]; Fig. 3). King further discloses propulsion coils arranged along the guideway and energizable to produce magnetic flux that interacts with the magnetic flux source carried by the vehicle to propel the vehicle along the track (King, Abstract and claim 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Steine’s rail-mounted monitoring apparatus to employ King’s linear synchronous motor propulsion arrangement, in which magnetic forces between the vehicle-mounted permanent magnets and the guideway-mounted propulsion coils move the apparatus along the rail. Such a modification would have provided precise, automated, and position-responsive propulsion of the monitoring apparatus while reducing reliance on mechanical traction between driven wheels and the rail.
Regarding claim 5, Steine, in view of King, teaches the monitoring system of claim 3 wherein the magnetic propulsion system is further comprised of permanent magnets positioned underneath the cart and a plurality of stator sections extending along the track, each sequentially powered by a power system as the cart moves over them.
King discloses a linear synchronous motor transport system having a vehicle 21 movable along a guideway. King discloses permanent magnets 33 and 34 mounted near the bottom of vehicle 21 and providing the magnetic flux source for linear synchronous motor propulsion (King, [0045] and FIG. 3).
King further discloses that the guideway is formed from a plurality of interconnected motor or guideway modules that function as track sections and contain propulsion coils, power electronics, position sensors, and microprocessors (King, [0010], [0014]- [0015], [0036]- [0040], and [0065]- [0066]). The guideway-mounted propulsion coils constitute the stationary or stator portions of the linear synchronous motor and are positioned along the guideway in proximity to the permanent magnets carried by the vehicle.
King additionally discloses controlling current through the propulsion coils in coordination with movement of the vehicle. In particular, Hall-effect devices sense the magnetic field produced by the vehicle, and the propulsion coils are supplied with controlled current as the vehicle moves past the coils, with multiple propulsion coils operating in coordination to provide continuous propulsive force (King, [0063]- [0064] and FIG. 7). King further recites controlling currents through the propulsion coils synchronized to vehicle motion and energizing successive subsets of propulsion coils based on the monitored position of the vehicle (King, claims 60, 68, and 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Steine’s magnetic rail-mounted monitoring apparatus to employ King’s linear synchronous motor arrangement, including permanent magnets mounted beneath the movable apparatus and selectively energized propulsion-coil or stator sections extending along the rail. Such a modification would have provided precise, automated, and position-responsive movement of the monitoring apparatus along the rail while energizing only the propulsion coils needed to propel the apparatus at its current position, thereby improving motion control and reducing unnecessary power consumption.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steine in view of King and Tasli et al. (US 20190354772 A1, “Tasli”).
Regarding claim 7, Steine in view of King, fails to explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 5 wherein the debris is detected by comparing the LIDAR scan of the runway to a reference scan.
Steine discloses a monitoring system having a LIDAR terrain sensor configured to scan the surroundings of an airport runway and generate a two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of the surroundings (Steine, [0013] and [0067]- [0068]). Steine further discloses detecting foreign object debris on a runway or taxiway using FOD sensor 22 (Steine, [0022] and [0074]).
Steine, however, does not explicitly disclose detecting the debris by comparing the current LIDAR scan of the runway to a reference scan.
Tasli discloses detecting foreign object debris on airport runways by comparing a current captured representation with a reference background representation. In particular, Tasli discloses aligning succeeding images with a background image to perform FOD detection ([0016]); capturing a previous frame and a current frame ([0033]); aligning the current frame with a background image that may be a first captured image or an image stored in a database ([0035]); and analyzing the current and background images to detect a foreign object based on changes in the scene ([0036]). Tasli further states that the current image is aligned with a previously stored or accumulated background image and that the background image may be an image stored in a database or an initial image captured by the sensors ([0056] and [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Steine’s runway FOD detection system to compare the current LIDAR-generated runway representation with a previously captured or stored reference representation, as taught by Tasli, in order to identify newly appearing foreign objects, distinguish such objects from stationary runway features, compensate for differences between successive scans, and improve the accuracy of foreign object debris detection.
Claims 8, 10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steine in view of Fox et al. (US 20160097839 A1, “Fox”).
Regarding claim 8, Steine fails to explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 4 for monitoring a section of border of a country.
Fox teaches a real-time border-surveillance system configured to detect, track, and classify people and vehicles attempting to cross a country border. Fox discloses both tower-based and mobile surveillance architectures. See Fox [0006], [0025]- [0028], [0149]- [0151], and Figs. 9-13. Fox specifically describes surveillance along the southern border of the United States and an impermeable sensor barrier extending along the border.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Steine’s rail-mounted LIDAR monitoring system for deployment along a section of a country border, as taught by Fox, in order to provide automated, continuous, and mobile surveillance of people and vehicles approaching or crossing the border.
Regarding claim 10, Steine, in view of Fox, teaches the monitoring system of claim 8 wherein the wireless communication system is selected from the group consisting of cellular, wifi and Bluetooth (Steine discloses that communications unit 30 may communicate wirelessly. See [0085], [0094] and claim 6).
Regarding claim 15, Steine fails to explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 1 for monitoring a pipeline.
However, Fox [0006] discloses that its surveillance system may be used to monitor a petroleum facility or pipeline and to detect, track, and classify people and vehicles approaching the monitored facility.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Steine’s movable rail-mounted monitoring system for deployment along a pipeline, as taught by Fox, in order to provide automated surveillance along the pipeline route and detect people, vehicles, objects, or other activity occurring near the pipeline. Such deployment would have predictably allowed repeated monitoring of different locations along an extended linear infrastructure while reducing the need for manual inspection.
Furthermore, the phrase “for monitoring a pipeline” identifies the intended use of the apparatus and does not require a particular pipeline-specific structural modification. The monitoring system of Steine, as applied in accordance with Fox, is reasonably capable of performing the recited pipeline-monitoring use.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steine in view of Fox and Avery (US 20100214085 A1, “Avery”).
Regarding claim 9, Steine, in view of Fox, fails to explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 8 wherein the cart includes a GPS and a wireless communication system and the LIDAR detects people and reports their GPS coordinates along with the date and time to the authorities using the wireless communication system.
Steine discloses movable apparatus 1 corresponding to the claimed cart, which moves along rail 2 and carries detection unit 20 (Steine, [0063]- [0066]). Steine further discloses terrain sensor 21 comprising a LIDAR module configured to scan the surroundings, determine distances to terrain or obstacles, and generate a two-dimensional or three-dimensional representation of the surroundings (Steine, [0013] and [0067]- [0068]). Steine also discloses communications unit 30, including transceiver 31, configured to wirelessly transfer collected sensor data to a remote server or other remote system (Steine, [0015] and [0083]- [0086]).
Fox discloses a country-border surveillance system configured to automatically detect, track, and classify people and vehicles approaching, attempting to cross, or having crossed a border in real time (Fox, [0003]- [0006]). Fox further discloses that, after a target has been classified, target track and discrimination information may be provided to an operator so that border patrol agents can be dispatched to a precomputed intercept point for apprehension (Fox, [0123]- [0124]). Fox additionally discloses wideband wireless reporting of actionable target information directly to agents in the field using wireless handheld devices and the transmission of near-real-time sensor data and alerts to those agents (Fox, [0151] and [0154]- [0155]).
Steine in view of Fox, however, does not explicitly disclose that the cart includes a GPS or that a person detected by the LIDAR is assigned GPS coordinates and that those coordinates are reported with date-and-time information to the authorities.
Avery discloses a detecting vehicle equipped with GPS unit 14, communications unit 12, and sensor unit 11, wherein the sensor unit may comprise LIDAR and the communications unit may use Wi-Fi, cellular, or DSRC communication (Avery, [0013] and [0016]; Fig. 1). Avery further discloses detecting pedestrian 31 using the LIDAR sensor, transforming the pedestrian’s position relative to the detecting vehicle into a global GPS location, and transmitting the GPS location of the pedestrian using communications unit 12 together with a data timestamp ([0019]- [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Steine to include an onboard GPS and location-processing functionality configured to determine the GPS coordinates of a person detected by the existing LIDAR and to transmit the coordinates with date-and-time information to the appropriate authorities. Such a modification would have provided border personnel with actionable location and timing information identifying where and when the person was detected, thereby facilitating tracking, dispatch, interception, and response.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steine in view of Fox and Wentworth.
Regarding claim 11, Steine, in view of Fox, fails to explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 8 wherein the track is elevated at least 20 feet above the ground.
Steine discloses a movable monitoring apparatus operating along a rail, and Fox discloses elevated border-surveillance installations. Fox specifically teaches evaluating surveillance towers having heights between 40 and 100 feet for detecting walking humans and explains that sensor height affects detection range and line of sight (Fox, [0168]- [0169]; Fig. 14A).
However, Steine, in view of Fox, does not explicitly disclose that the movable apparatus travels on an elevated track.
Wentworth discloses an elevated monorail track 11 extending along a monitored perimeter and one or more self-propelled trolleys 13 configured to move continuously backward and forward along the elevated monorail track while carrying surveillance cameras 15 (Wentworth, [0005]- [0006] and [0015]; Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Steine’s rail-mounted monitoring system by positioning the rail on an elevated support structure as taught by Wentworth, and at a height of at least 20 feet, such as the 40-foot surveillance elevation taught by Fox. The modification would have improved line of sight over fences, terrain, vegetation, and other ground-level obstructions; increased surveillance coverage; reduced blind spots; and protected the movable monitoring apparatus from unauthorized access or interference.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steine in view of Min et al. (CN 103412345 A, “Min”).
Regarding claim 12, Steine fails to explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 1 for monitoring a runway on an aircraft carrier.
However, Min discloses an automatic detection and recognition system for monitoring the flight deck and deck runway of an aircraft carrier. Min explains that small foreign objects on the aircraft-carrier deck runway threaten aircraft during takeoff and landing and that manual inspection of the flight deck is time consuming, labor intensive, and susceptible to missed detections. Min therefore teaches automatically scanning and monitoring an aircraft-carrier runway using powered detection, processing, and target-recognition equipment (Abstract, [0020]-[0022], claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to deploy Steine’s movable rail-mounted runway-monitoring system along the flight-deck runway of an aircraft carrier, as taught by Min, in order to provide automated and repeated monitoring of the carrier runway, reduce the time and labor required for manual deck inspection, and improve detection of conditions or foreign objects that could endanger carrier aircraft during takeoff and landing.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steine in view of Spriggs et al. (US 20050046569 A1, “Spriggs”)
Regarding claim 13, Steine fails to explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 1 for monitoring a race track.
However, Spriggs discloses similar mobile sensor vehicles arranged to run on a rail at the track side of a motor racing circuit. Spriggs further discloses using sensors carried by the vehicles to detect debris and other potential hazards, including car parts, misplaced tools, and displaced masonry, to prevent accidents to racing cars and bystanders (Spriggs, [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to deploy Steine’s movable rail-mounted monitoring apparatus along a motor racing circuit, as taught by Spriggs, in order to provide automated monitoring of the racing surface and identify debris or other hazards before they cause accidents.
Regarding claim 14, Steine, in view of Spriggs, fails to explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 13 wherein the race track is selected from the group consisting of formula 1, nascar and moto.
Steine, in view of Spriggs, does not explictly identify the motor racing circuit as a Formula One, NASCAR, or motorcycle racing circuit. However, these were known types of motor-racing circuits, and claim 14 does not require any different cart, rail, sensor, propulsion system, or scanning arrangement based on the selected type of racing activity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the trackside monitoring system of Steine and Spriggs at a Formula One, NASCAR, or motorcycle racing circuit because each includes a racing surface on which vehicle parts, tools, displaced material, and other debris present the same recognized safety hazard addressed by Spriggs. Applying the known monitoring system to any of these known racing environments would have involved the predictable use of the system for its established debris-monitoring purpose.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steine in view of McGugin et al. (US 6240783 B1, “McGugin”).
Regarding claim 16, Steine fails to explicitly teach the monitoring system of claim 1 for monitoring a bridge.
However, McGugin discloses a bridge monitoring system configured to monitor the structural condition of a bridge. McGugin teaches directing laser light toward structural members of a bridge, receiving reflected laser light to obtain noncontact velocity and displacement information, processing the sensed information to determine characteristics of the bridge, and transmitting the sensed information to a remote analysis system (Figs. 1-2, abstract, claim 1, Col 2: line 63 to col 3: line 21 and lines 22-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Steine’s movable rail-mounted monitoring system for deployment along a bridge, as taught by McGugin, so that the monitoring device could obtain measurements of the bridge from different positions along the bridge. Such a modification would have predictably provided automated and noncontact monitoring of the bridge, reduced the need for manual inspection and difficult physical access to bridge structural members, and allowed repeated monitoring of bridge conditions over time.
Furthermore, the recitation “for monitoring a bridge” states the intended use of the apparatus and does not require any particular bridge-specific structural modification. Steine’s monitoring system, as modified in view of McGugin, is reasonably capable of performing the recited bridge-monitoring use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steine et al. (WO 2022058562 A2), teaches runway maintenance apparatus
Segman et al. (US 20160059875 A1), teaches system of self-mobile carts with their own navigation system
Habel et al. (US 20140375770 A1), teaches method and apparatus for detection of foreign object debris
Floor et al. (US 20180341812 A1), teaches automatic determination and monitoring of vehicles on a racetrack with corresponding imagery data for broadcast
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEMPSON NOEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-3376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on (571) 270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEMPSON NOEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights