Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
During patent examination, pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” MPEP 2111; See also, MPEP 2173.02. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). See also, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“During patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”). The reason is simply that during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed. An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to consider fully the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN.
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 17 and 18 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. Evidence that claims 17, 18 fail(s) to correspond in scope with that which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA applications the applicant regards as the invention can be found in that claims appear to be dependent upon claim 15, not claim 18, as currently listed in claim 17.
Appropriate correction and or amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) an apparatus, and a method, and memory configured to determine and generate a photographic recording depicting a component, extracting primary coordinate data, integrating primary coordinate data into a photographic recording, by defining a reference plane, identifying one or more sub-components, and generating secondary data.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
• STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
• STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
o STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
o STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
o STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, and 11 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Claim(s) 1, and 11 are directed to an apparatus and memory, i.e. a system; and a method, i.e. process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
• Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
• Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
• Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claim 1, and system in claim 8, comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, method, and claim 8, system, recites the steps (functions) of:
An electronic device, comprising:
a Polygon Coordinate Interface;
a End User Interface;
at least one memory; and
at least one processor, configuring the at least processor to:
generate a photographic recording depicting a component (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; a person can look and data gather the first scan information);
extracting primary coordinate data for the component by analyzing oner or more technical documents (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; a person can look and data gather the first scan information);
integrating the primary coordinate data into the photographic recording (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; a person can look and data gather the first scan information);
defining a reference plane within the photographic recording (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind; a person can look and data gather the first scan information);
identifying one or more sub-components within the defined reference plane, and generating secondary coordinate data for each of the one or more sub-components (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; updating or changing a value can be done using a pen and a paper).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person could mentally analyze an image and determine a fill level, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a device/in a device (e.g. processing unit) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
• an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
• an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 1, and 8 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the further limitations of:
a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor to execute processing comprising: (instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
• adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 1, and 11 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer to “generate and identify, and configure, etc.”, as claimed in Claim(s) 1, and 8 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since Claim(s) 1, and 8 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1, and 11 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2-7, and 9-20, the additional limitations (including, executing and validation, determining, and labeling, using recognition algorithms, using detailed, using more sub-components, using 3D models, using enhanced photographic data) do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process and therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0118345-A1 to Scott et al. (hereinafter Scott).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With regard to claim 1, Scott discloses:
1. A method comprising:
generating a photographic recording depicting a component (see, detailed description, including, Fig. 2, and image 238 of region 240 of physical object 204 is displayed on display system 226 in portable computing device 214. In this illustrative example, image 238 of region 240 is a live view of physical object 204 as seen using portable computing device 214, para. 0054), Figs. 4 and 5, show live photographic recordings of flight deck 402 in aircraft 403 depicting various components;
extracting primary coordinate data for the component by analyzing one or more technical documents (see, detailed description, including, model 300 can be generated by extracting geometry and other information from the computer-aided design model of the aircraft. The portions of the computer-aided design model extracted from model 300 can be based on the point cloud representation of the aircraft. In this illustrative example, model 300 can also be a computer-aided design (CAD) model, para. 0088); and
integrating the primary coordinate data into the photographic recording (see, detailed description, including, as above, the portions of the computer-aided design model extracted from model 300 can be based on the point cloud representation of the aircraft. In this illustrative example, model 300 can also be a computer-aided design (CAD) model, para. 0088, and augmented reality application 224 is located in portable computing device 214. In this example, augmented reality application 224 plots points 234 in defined coordinate cube 246 corresponding to nonconformance locations 208 on physical object 204, para. 0066, and nonconformance data 210, augmented reality application 224 displays nonconformance data 210 for sub-set 254 of points 234 visible in image 238 in association with sub-set 256 of nonconformance locations 208 for physical object 204 in image 238 displayed on display system 226 in portable computing device 214 without displaying nonconformance data 210 for nonconformance locations 208, para. 0071, comprising:
defining a reference plane within the photographic recording based on the primary coordinate data (see, detailed description, including, modeling application 220 can generate model 244 of the region 240 of physical object 204 in defined coordinate cube 246 using point cloud representation 242 for region 240 of physical object 204, para. 0061,
identifying one or more sub-components within the defined reference plane (see, Fig. 9, and detailed description, including, a model of the region of the physical object in the defined coordinate cube (operation 902) and nonconformance locations are identified in image 400 by augmenting the live view of an image 400 with graphical indicators to identify the nonconformance locations, para. 0094), and
generating secondary coordinate data for each of the one or more sub-components (see, detailed description, including, determines sub-set 254 of points 234 plotted in defined coordinate cube 246 that are visible in image 238 of region 240 of physical object 204 acquired by portable computing device 214 at position 248 of portable computing device 214, and explains, nonconformance location 410 is indicated using starburst 430; nonconformance location 412 is indicated using starburst 432; nonconformance location 414 is indicated using starburst 434; and nonconformance location 416 is indicated using starburst 436, para. 0094, Each starburst represents secondary coordinate data for the specific sub-component locations within the flight deck).
With regard to claim 2, Scott discloses:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein integrating the primary coordinate data into the photographic recording further comprises executing a validation process to verify that the defined reference plane correctly aligns with visual features of the component depicted by the photographic recording (see, detailed description, including, localization application 222 in portable computing device 214 is software that localizes portable computing device 214 with model 244 generated from point cloud representation 242 of the surface profile of region 240 of physical object 204 in defined coordinate cube 246 based on location target 250, para 0062.
With regard to claim 3, Scott discloses:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein defining the reference plane within the photographic recording comprises:
determining a set of points depicting the component in the photographic recording, (see, detailed description, including, augmented reality application 224 plots points 234 in defined coordinate cube 246 corresponding to nonconformance locations 208 on physical object 204, para. 0066) and
labeling the set of points based on the primary coordinate data (see, as above, and points are determined and positioned based on the coordinate data, see, Fig. 4, and Fig. 5).
With regard to claim 4, Scott discloses:
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the set of points depicting the component in the photographic recording are determined using image recognition algorithms (see, detailed description, including, The localization can be performed using an identifiable reference point for fuselage section 102. This reference point can be a location target that is identified or recognized by the simultaneous location and mapping process. The location target can be in an object or structure on fuselage section 102, such as a reflective target disposed on a surface of fuselage section 102 that is identifiable via a camera image, a laser scan or other suitable detection means. For example, the target location can be a doorway, a monument, a window, an anchor plate, or some other structure or feature on fuselage section 102 with a known location with respect to a model of fuselage section 102. Para. 0039)
With regard to claim 5, Scott discloses:
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more technical documents comprises at least one of one or more three-dimensional (3D) models of a vehicle, one or more detailed 3D models focusing on the component on the vehicle, one or more engineering drawings related to the component or the vehicle, or one or more installation documents related to the component or the vehicle (see, detailed description, including, model 300 can be generated by extracting geometry and other information from the computer-aided design model of the aircraft. The portions of the computer-aided design model extracted from model 300 can be based on the point cloud representation of the aircraft. In this illustrative example, model 300 can also be a computer-aided design (CAD) model, para. 0088).
With regard to claim 6, Scott discloses:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the secondary coordinate data comprises coordinates for each of the one or more sub-components (see, detailed description, including, determines sub-set 254 of points 234 plotted in defined coordinate cube 246 that are visible in image 238, para. 0066, and nonconformance location 410 is indicated using starburst 430; nonconformance location 412 is indicated using starburst 432; para. 0094).
With regard to claim 7, Scott discloses:
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to integrating the primary coordinate data into the photographic recording, providing the photographic recording, enhanced with the primary and secondary coordinate data, for user interaction (see, detailed description, including, displaying the nonconformance data 210, augmented reality application 224 displays nonconformance data 210 for sub-set 254 of points 234 visible in image 238 in association with sub-set 256 of nonconformance locations 208 for physical object 204 in image 238 displayed on display system 226 in portable computing device 214, para. 0071).
With regard to claim 8, Scott discloses:
8. A system comprising:
a Polygon Coordinate Interface (PCI) (see, Summary, an augmented reality system for visualizing nonconformance data for a physical object in which the augmented reality system comprises a portable computing device, par. 0008);
an End User Interface (EUI) (see, detailed description, including, portable computing device 214 is a data processing system that includes display system 226 for use in visualizing nonconformance data 210, para. 0049);
one or more computer processors (see, Fig. 2, and a processor unit. When firmware is used, the operations performed by these components can be implemented in program code and data and stored in persistent memory to run on a processor unit. When hardware is employed, the hardware may include circuits that operate to perform the operations in these components, para. 0077); and
one or more memories collectively containing one or more programs, (see, detailed description, including, stored in persistent memory to run on a processor unit, para. 0077) which, when executed by the one or more computer processors, perform operations, the operations comprising:
generating a photographic recording depicting a component (see, detailed description, including, Fig. 2, and image 238 of region 240 of physical object 204 is displayed on display system 226 in portable computing device 214. In this illustrative example, image 238 of region 240 is a live view of physical object 204 as seen using portable computing device 214, para. 0054), Figs. 4 and 5, show live photographic recordings of flight deck 402 in aircraft 403 depicting various components;
extracting primary coordinate data for the component by analyzing one or more technical documents (see, detailed description, including, model 300 can be generated by extracting geometry and other information from the computer-aided design model of the aircraft. The portions of the computer-aided design model extracted from model 300 can be based on the point cloud representation of the aircraft. In this illustrative example, model 300 can also be a computer-aided design (CAD) model, para. 0088); and
integrating the primary coordinate data into the photographic recording (see, detailed description, including, as above, the portions of the computer-aided design model extracted from model 300 can be based on the point cloud representation of the aircraft. In this illustrative example, model 300 can also be a computer-aided design (CAD) model, para. 0088, and augmented reality application 224 is located in portable computing device 214. In this example, augmented reality application 224 plots points 234 in defined coordinate cube 246 corresponding to nonconformance locations 208 on physical object 204, para. 0066, and nonconformance data 210, augmented reality application 224 displays nonconformance data 210 for sub-set 254 of points 234 visible in image 238 in association with sub-set 256 of nonconformance locations 208 for physical object 204 in image 238 displayed on display system 226 in portable computing device 214 without displaying nonconformance data 210 for nonconformance locations 208, para. 0071, comprising:
defining a reference plane within the photographic recording based on the primary coordinate data (see, detailed description, including, modeling application 220 can generate model 244 of the region 240 of physical object 204 in defined coordinate cube 246 using point cloud representation 242 for region 240 of physical object 204, para. 0061,
identifying one or more sub-components within the defined reference plane (see, Fig. 9, and detailed description, including, a model of the region of the physical object in the defined coordinate cube (operation 902) and nonconformance locations are identified in image 400 by augmenting the live view of an image 400 with graphical indicators to identify the nonconformance locations, para. 0094), and
generating secondary coordinate data for each of the one or more sub-components (see, detailed description, including, determines sub-set 254 of points 234 plotted in defined coordinate cube 246 that are visible in image 238 of region 240 of physical object 204 acquired by portable computing device 214 at position 248 of portable computing device 214, and explains, nonconformance location 410 is indicated using starburst 430; nonconformance location 412 is indicated using starburst 432; nonconformance location 414 is indicated using starburst 434; and nonconformance location 416 is indicated using starburst 436, para. 0094, Each starburst represents secondary coordinate data for the specific sub-component locations within the flight deck).
With regard to claim 9, claim 9 (a system claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 10, claim 10 (a system claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 3 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 11, claim 11 (a system claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 4 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 12, claim 12 (a system claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 5 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 13, claim 13 (a system claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 6 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 14, claim 14 (a system claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 7 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 15, claim 15 (a non-transitory computer-readable media claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 16, claim 16 (a non-transitory computer-readable media claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 19, claim 19 (a non-transitory computer-readable media claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 5 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
With regard to claim 20, claim 20 (a non-transitory computer-readable media claim) recites substantially similar limitations to claim 7 (a method claim) and is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above.
A sampling of the prior art made of record and not relied upon and considered
pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure includes: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0157455 A1 to Troy et al. that discusses: Systems and methods for synchronized display of visualizations of three-dimensional (3-D) models and video images of aircraft for use in assembly of an aircraft. A video display process is configured to process the video image data so that the video images will have a user-selected viewpoint when displayed. In one embodiment, the user selects a virtual view direction and a smaller field-of-view from a full 360-degree field-of-view. A client request process is configured to construct and transmit a command data string containing encoded data specifying parameter values of the viewpoint representation formatted for 3-D model visualization. A server response process is configured to receive and decode the command data string into the specified parameter values representing the user-selected viewpoint for three-dimensional model visualization. A 3-D model visualization process is configured to process the 3-D model data so that 3-D model visualizations will have the user-selected viewpoint when displayed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D. TITCOMB whose telephone number is (571)270-5190. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (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, Stephen C. Hong can be reached at 571-272-4124. 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.
WILLIAM D. TITCOMB
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2178
/WILLIAM D TITCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178 4-15-2026
Prosecution Insights