DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following reasons.
Claim 7, dependent upon claim 6, recites “the multi-fork tree starting from the sub-node”. Both “the multi-fork tree” and “the sub-node” lack antecedent basis. Correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim no.
112(f) elements
Corresponding structure in the specification
Corresponding algorithm in the specification
8
an identification module, configured to identify …
FIG. 11; para. [0196]; para. [0211]; para. [0215] “processor”
Para. [0043], [0158]
8
a first extraction module, configured to select …extract … record …
FIG. 11; para. [0196]; para. [0211]; para. [0215] “processor”
FIG. 2-8; para. [0044], [0091]-[0156], [0159], [0162]-[0167], [0177]-[0178], [0187]-[0191]
8
a second extraction module, configured to identify … extract …
FIG. 11; para. [0196]; para. [0211]; para. [0215] “processor”
FIG. 2-8; para. [0045], [0091]-[0156], [0160], [0179],[0180], [0187]-[0191]
8
a match module, configured to find … calculate …
FIG. 11; para. [0196]; para. [0211]; para. [0215] “processor”
Para. [0046], [0161], [0173]-[0176]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1 is provided in the following. Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
1. An identifier positioning method, comprising:
(a) identifying a scene identifier of a scene area in a first scene image to obtain a scene identifier position of the scene identifier in the first scene image;
(b) selecting a plurality of coordinate points from the first scene image,
(c) extracting first feature information corresponding to each of the coordinate points according to image information of the first scene image, and
(d) recording a coordinate point position of each of the coordinate points in the first scene image relative to the scene identifier position;
(e) identifying an identifier to be measured in a second scene image of the scene area to obtain an identifier position to be measured, and
(f) extracting second feature information at the identifier position to be measured according to the identifier position to be measured; and
(g) finding a target coordinate point where the first feature information matches the second feature information from each of the coordinate points, and
(h) calculating a position of the identifier to be measured in the scene area according to a coordinate point position corresponding to the target coordinate point and the position of the scene identifier in the scene area.
Step 1: Evaluating whether the claim belongs to one of the statutory categories.
Claim 1 recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If no exception is recited, the claim is eligible. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If the claim recites an exception, go to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 1 steps (a)-(c) and (e)-(g) recite an abstract idea of mental processes and step (h) recites mathematical concepts of mathematical calculation. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, steps (a)-(c) and (e)-(g) can be practical performed in human mind or with simple tools, such as pen, ruler and paper. For example, extracting feature information, under broadest reasonable interpretation, could be simply regarded as extracting color or edge information, which can be practically performed mentally. See MPEP 2106.04 and the 2019 PEG. (Step 2A Prong One YES)
Step 2A Prong Two: Evaluating whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. If the answer to (a) is YES and (b) is NO, go to Step 2B; if the answer to (a) and (b) is YES, go to PATHWAY B, i.e., the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and the claim is eligible.
In claim 1, step (d) can be regarded as additional elements. Item (d), i.e., “recording a coordinate point position of each of the coordinate points in the first scene image relative to the scene identifier position”, belongs to data output, an insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A Prong Two NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
In claim 1, step (d) can be regarded as additional elements. Item (d), i.e., “recording a coordinate point position of each of the coordinate points in the first scene image relative to the scene identifier position”, belongs to data output, an insignificant extra-solution activity which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known to the industry. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. (Step 2B: NO). Claim 1 is not eligible.
Claim 2 recites (annotation added) The identifier positioning method of claim 1, wherein the scene identifier is arranged at each end point of the scene area, each of the end points are enclosed to form the scene area, and selecting the plurality of coordinate points from the first scene image comprises:
(a) extracting a feature point in the first scene image;
(b) determining a centroid of the first scene image, and
(c) dividing the first scene image into a plurality of first-level image areas according to a connecting line between each of the scene identifiers and the centroid; and
(d) selecting at least one feature point from the first-level image area as a coordinate point.
Claim 2 steps (a)-(d) recite mental processes. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, steps (a)-(d) can be practically performed in human mind with simple tools, such as pen, ruler and paper. The underlined limitation merely provides side information on how the identifiers are distributed. Claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 3 recites (annotation added) The identifier positioning method of claim 2, wherein after determining the centroid of the first scene image, and dividing the first scene image into the plurality of first-level image areas according to the connecting line between each of the scene identifiers and the centroid, the method further comprises:
(a) using the centroid as a root node of a multi-fork tree, using each of the first-level image areas as a sub-node of the root node in the multi-fork tree, and initializing a target node as the root node;
(b) determining whether a number of feature points in an image area of each sub-node of the target node is greater than a preset number; and
(c) in response to that the number of feature points in the image area of each sub-node of the target node is not greater than the preset number, determining one of the feature points from the image area of each sub-node of the target node as a coordinate point in a corresponding image area.
Claim 3 steps (a)-(c) recite mental processes. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, steps (a)-(c) can be practically performed in human mind with simple tools, such as pen, ruler and paper. Claim 3 is not eligible.
Claim 4 recites (annotation added) The identifier positioning method of claim 3, wherein after determining whether the number of feature points in the image area of each sub-node of the target node is greater than the preset number, the method further comprises:
(a) in response to that the number of feature points in the image area of each sub-node of the target node is greater than the preset number, dividing the image area of each sub-node of the target node into a plurality of image areas of secondary level,
(b) using each of the image areas of secondary level as a sub-node corresponding to the image area of first level, updating the target node to each sub-node of the target node in sequence, and
(c) determining whether the number of feature points in the image area of each sub-node of the target node is greater than the preset number.
Claim 4 steps (a)-(c) recite mental processes. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, steps (a)-(c) can be practically performed in human mind with simple tools, such as pen, ruler and paper. Claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 recites (annotation added) The identifier positioning method of claim 3, wherein determining one of the feature points from the image area of each sub-node of the target node as the coordinate point in the corresponding image area comprises:
(a) in response to that there are multiple feature points in the image area of the sub-node of the target node, selecting a feature point with a largest grayscale environment gradient value from the multiple feature points as the coordinate point in the image area.
Claim 5 step (a) recites mental processes. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, step (a) can be practically performed in human mind. Selecting a feature point with a largest grayscale environment gradient value from the multiple feature points can be practically performed in human mind since a feature point with a largest grayscale environment gradient value can be identified based on large color difference. Claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 recites (annotation added) The identifier positioning method of claim 2, wherein finding the target coordinate point where the first feature information matches the second feature information from each of the coordinate points comprises:
(a) using the first-level image area comprising the identifier to be measured as a target image area; and
(b) finding the target coordinate point where the first feature information matches the second feature information from each of the coordinate points in the target image area.
Claim 6 steps (a)-(b) recite mental processes. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, steps (a)-(b) can be practically performed in human mind with simple tools, such as pen, ruler and paper. Claim 6 is not eligible.
Claim 7 recites (annotation added) The identifier positioning method of claim 6, wherein finding the target coordinate point where the first feature information matches the second feature information from each of the coordinate points in the target image area comprises:
(a) performing a first order traversal in the multi-fork tree starting from the sub-node corresponding to the target image area, to
(b) find the target coordinate point where the first feature information matches the second feature information from each of the coordinate points.
Claim 7 steps (a)-(b) recite mental processes. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, steps (a)-(b) can be practically performed in human mind with simple tools, such as pen, ruler and paper. Claim 7 is not eligible.
Claim 8 recites (annotation added) An identifier positioning apparatus, comprising:
an identification module, configured to identify a scene identifier of a scene area in a first scene image to obtain a scene identifier position;
a first extraction module, configured to select a plurality of coordinate points from the first scene image, extract first feature information corresponding to each of the coordinate points according to image information of the first scene image, and respectively record a coordinate point position of each of the coordinate points relative to the scene identifier position in the first scene image;
a second extraction module, configured to identify an identifier to be measured in a second scene image of the scene area to obtain an identifier position to be measured, and extract second feature information at the identifier position to be measured according to the identifier position to be measured; and
a match module, configured to find a target coordinate point that the first feature information matches the second feature information from each of the coordinate points, and calculate a position of the identifier to be measured in the scene area according to a coordinate point position corresponding to the target coordinate point and the scene identifier position.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 8 performs the function corresponding to the function recited in method claim 1. However, under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation, the corresponding algorithms of the respective modules as described above are being read into the claim. As described above, in the specification, the following figures and paragraphs describe the algorithms: FIG. 2-8; para. [0044-0045], [0091-0156], [0159-0160], [0162-0167], [0177-0180], [0187-0191]. These figures and paragraphs describe specific algorithms the modules perform, therefore provide improvements to the functioning of a computer, and apply or use the judicial exception in a 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. Claim 8 is eligible.
Claim 9 recites: An electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor; and a memory communicated with the at least one processor, wherein an instruction executable by the at least one processor is stored in the memory, and the instruction is executed by the at least one processor to enable the at least one processor to perform the identifier positioning method of claim 1.
Beside the additional elements (d) as identified in claim 1. Claim 9 further recites additional elements of at least a processor and memory. These computer elements are merely recited as a tool to perform the mental processes and math calculations. These elements are specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 9 is not eligible.
Claim 10 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein a program for implementing an identifier positioning method is stored in the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and the program for implementing the identifier positioning method is executed by a processor to implement the identifier positioning method of claim 1.
Beside the additional elements (d) as identified in claim 1. Claim 10 further recites additional elements of a processor and computer-readable medium. These computer elements are merely recited as a tool to perform the mental processes and math calculations. These elements are specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 10 is not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20220327729 A1, hereafter Lee), in view of Cheng et al. (US 20200279397 A1, hereafter Cheng).
As per claim 1, Lee teaches an identifier positioning method (Abstract), comprising:
identifying a scene identifier of a scene area in a first scene image to obtain a scene identifier position of the scene identifier in the first scene image (Lee teaches an object positioning method (Abstract). As shown in FIG. 2, the method includes receiving a point cloud data obtained from a scene including a target object (S202), extracting the key point from the point cloud data (S204), inputting the surrounding area data centered on the key point and a preset feature descriptor of the target object to a neural network to calculate the scene feature descriptor of the scene (S206), performing feature matching between the scene feature descriptor and the preset feature descriptor (S208), and calculating the position of the target object in the actual space ( S210). The preset feature descriptor is obtained by performing key point and descriptor extraction from a standard template. The standard template is a pre-made pallet template. In order to reduce a calculation time, coordinate conversion and key point and descriptor extraction are first performed on the pallet template for storage (para. [0017]). In an example where the target object is a pallet, a TOF camera may be used to obtain clear and complete point cloud data at a preset distance (for example, 1 meter) from the pallet, and a front part of the pallet may be taken as a standard template after filtering out noises (para. [0017]). Therefore the pallet standard template can be regarded as a first scene image and the key point extracted from the pallet standard template is regarded as a scene identifier);
selecting a plurality of coordinate points from the first scene image, extracting first feature information corresponding to each of the coordinate points according to image information of the first scene image, and recording a coordinate point position of each of the coordinate points in the first scene image
identifying an identifier to be measured in a second scene image of the scene area to obtain an identifier position to be measured, and extracting second feature information at the identifier position to be measured according to the identifier position to be measured (FIG. 2 S202, “point cloud data obtained from a scene” is considered a second scene image; para. [0017] “In the embodiment, the sensing device 102 may be, for example, a time-of-flight (TOF) camera, which may use infrared or laser as a light source, and calculate a distance to an object by calculating a flight time of light reflected by the object, so as to derive 3D coordinates to generate 3D point cloud data of the scene including the target object, where the target object may be, for example, a pallet”; FIG. 2 S204 “extract a key point from the point cloud data”, the key point being an identifier to be measured; FIG. 2 S206 “input the surrounding area data centered on the key point and a preset feature descriptor of the target object to a neural network … to calculate a scene feature descriptor of the scene”); and
finding a target coordinate point where the first feature information matches the second feature information from each of the coordinate points (FIG. 2 S208 “perform feature matching between the scene feature descriptor and the preset feature descriptor”; para. [0021]); and
calculating a position of the identifier to be measured in the scene area according to a coordinate point position corresponding to the target coordinate point and the position of the scene identifier in the scene area (FIG. 2 S210 “calculate a position of the target object in an actual space; para. [0021]- [0022]).
Lee teaches every limitation in claim 1 except that coordinate point position of each of the coordinate points in the first scene image is a relative position relative to the scene identifier position.
Cheng in an analogous field discloses a method for determining position and orientation of a bucket of an excavator (Abstract). As shown in FIG. 3 a preset marker includes a preset QR code label. The feature point of the preset marker includes an angular point of the preset QR code label. The three-dimensional feature information of the preset marker includes spatial position information of the feature point of the preset marker. The spatial position information of the feature point of the preset marker maybe a relative position between feature points, for example, a relative position between four angular points and a center point of the QR code label (para. [0057]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Lee to incorporate the teaching of Cheng to consider representing coordinate point position of each of the coordinate points in the first scene image using a relative position relative to the scene identifier position. Doing so would allow relative position relationship between marker points in the preset marker to be used as three-dimensional feature information of the preset marker as recognized by Cheng (para. [0043], [0057]).
As per claim 9, Lee in view of Cheng teaches an electronic device (Lee Abstract), comprising:
at least one processor (Lee FIG. 1; para. [0018]); and a memory communicated with the at least one processor, wherein an instruction executable by the at least one processor is stored in the memory, and the instruction is executed by the at least one processor to enable the at least one processor to perform the identifier positioning method of claim 1 (Lee and Cheng teaches a processor implemented method (Lee FIG. 1-2; para. [0018]). Therefore memory and instructions are inherently taught. Claim 9 recites a device for performing the method of claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to Lee and Cheng in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding method claim, claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Lee and Cheng presented in rejections of claim 1 apply to this claim).
As per claim 10, Lee in view of Cheng teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein a program for implementing an identifier positioning method is stored in the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and the program for implementing the identifier positioning method is executed by a processor to implement the identifier positioning method of claim 1 (Lee and Cheng teaches a processor implemented method (Lee FIG. 1-2; para. [0018]). Therefore computer-readable medium and program are inherently taught. Claim 10 recites a medium for performing the method of claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to Lee and Cheng in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding method claim, claim 1. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine Lee and Cheng presented in rejections of claim 1 apply to this claim).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 would be allowable if the 101 rejections applied above are overcome, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As per claim 2, Lee teaches dividing the point cloud into a plurality of point groups, and extracting key points from N largest point groups respectively (FIG. 3 S302, S304, para. [0023].
Further, Kudo et al. (US 9781393 B2, hereafter Kudo) discloses a method for dividing an image area. Specifically, boundary points of an image area are identified, and a line between each boundary point and the central point is connected, and the image area is divided into a plurality of partial regions by the lines (FIG. 14; col. 14 line 10-22). Kudo further teaches image data having different image effects are obtained in the respective partial regions of the image data that are divided by the lines (Abstract).
Either Lee, or Cheng, or Kudo, or the combination fails to teach the limitations recited in claim 2. Claims 3-7 contain allowable subject matter by the virtue of dependency on claim 2.
Claim 8 is allowed.
The following is Examiner’s reasons for identification of allowable subject matter.
In claim 8, elements of “an identification module, configured to identify …”, “a first extraction module, configured to select …extract…record…”, “a second extraction module, configured to identify … extract…“ and “a match module, configured to find …calculate…” are interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112 (f) claim interpretation. Since these modules are computer-implemented elements, the corresponding algorithms in the specification are being read into these elements as interpreted under 112(f) as identified above. Specifically, at least para. [0044-0045], [0091-0156], [0159-0160], [0162-0167], [0177-0180], [0187-0191] of the instant specification contain allowable subject matter when taken in combination with the entirety of the claim.
The closest prior art includes Lee, Cheng and Kudo as applied above under broadest reasonable interpretation. Lee, Cheng or Kudo, either applied alone, or in combination with, fails to teach or suggest the limitations recited in claim 8 when the above listed elements are interpreted under 112 (f).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI G CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, John M Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661