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 .
Priority
Current application, US Application No. 18/630,083 filed on 04/09/2024, claims foreign priority to JP 2023-071342 filed on 04/25/2023.
Examiner acknowledges that the certified copy of foreign priority document has been received. However, the certified English translation copy of the original foreign document, which is not written in English, has not been received. There is no requirement to submit certified English translation copy at this stage according to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3). However, should the need of certified English translated copy arise according to the cases mentioned in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3), submission may be requested in the future.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the application filed on 04/09/2024. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
Specification
The title of the invention, i.e. MONITORING SYSTEM, MONITORING APPARATUS, AND MONITORING METHOD, is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The title should be replaced with “SYSTEM, APPARTUS AND MEHTOD OF MONITORING OPTICAL FIBER VIBRATION” or with an appropriate tile which should appropriately describe the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claims 1 and 7, claims are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of each other. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, e.g. system and apparatus, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
As per claims 2-6 and 8-12, claims are also objected similarly as the base claims 1 and 7 are objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As per claims 6, 12 and 18, the limitation “specifying, from among at least one additional measurement point which is not on the optical fiber and vibration intensity of which is detected by a vibration sensor other than the optical fiber, an additional measurement point” lack description support from the specification because the specification merely recites the same phrase as claimed, (see specification – [0040, 0052 – pg. 15 supplementary note, pg. 17 supplementary note 12, pg. 18 supplementary note 18]), but fails to provide further details for the limitation.
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 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
“A monitoring system (1.A) comprising:
an optical fiber; (1.B.1)
at least one memory configured to store instructions; (1.B.2)
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions for transmitting pulsed light to the optical fiber, and receiving an optical signal from the optical fiber, (1.B.3)
detecting, for each of a plurality of measurement points in the optical fiber, vibration intensity of vibration generated at the measurement point, based on the optical signal received from the optical fiber, (1.C) and
specifying a measurement point having vibration intensity equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value from among the plurality of measurement points. (1.D)”.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Machine - System).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion).
For example, highlighted limitations/steps (1.A), and (1.C) - (1.D) are treated by the Examiner as belonging to Mathematical Concept grouping or Mental Process groupings as the limitations include Mathematical Calculations or show Mathematical Relationship, or the limitations can be interpreted as Mental evaluations/judgements.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements: (Side Note: duplicated elements are not repeated)
In Claim 1: “A monitoring system”, “an optical fiber”, “at least one memory configured to store instructions” “and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions” and “transmitting pulsed light to the optical fiber, and receiving an optical signal from the optical fiber”:
In Claim 7: “A monitoring apparatus”;
In Claim 13: “A monitoring method being performed by a monitoring apparatus”;
As per claim 1, the additional element in the preamble “A monitoring system” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links the system with the abstract idea, i.e. monitoring, and even fails to link with a particular operation or field of use. The limitations/elements “an optical fiber”, “at least one memory configured to store instructions” “and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions” are standard elements in the art and they are not particular. The limitations/steps “transmitting pulsed light to the optical fiber, and receiving an optical signal from the optical fiber” represent standard communication step for the optical fiber and only add insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
As per claim 7, the additional element in the preamble “A monitoring apparatus” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links the apparatus with the abstract idea, i.e. monitoring, and even fails to link with a particular operation or field of use.
As per claims 13, the additional element in the preamble “A monitoring method being performed by a monitoring apparatus” is not qualified as a meaningful limitation because the limitation simply links the method with the abstract idea, i.e. monitoring, and even fails to link with a particular operation or field of use. Although the monitoring apparatus is recited to perform the method, the limitation “being performed by a monitoring apparatus” can be interpreted as an abstract idea, e.g. mental observation, which describes which apparatus performs the method. Even if the limitation is not interpreted as an abstract idea, the limitation/element “a monitoring apparatus” is not particular and the limitation/step “performing the method” only adds insignificant extra solution to the judicial exception.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements as a whole do not reflect an improvement to the computer technology or other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. No particular machine or real-world transformation are claimed. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Under Step 2B analysis, the above claims fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as shown in the prior art of record.
The limitations/elements listed as additional elements above are well understood, routine and conventional steps/elements in the art according to the prior art of record. (See Kita, Zhang, Garcia, Iwano ‘029 and others in the list of prior art cited below)
Claims 1, 7 and 13, therefore, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitahara (US 20230061220 A1), hereinafter ‘Kita’.
As per claim 1, Kita discloses
A monitoring system (Monitoring system [title, abs, 0001]) comprising:
an optical fiber; (optical fiber [abs, 0004-0006])
at least one memory configured to store instructions; (storage stores programs [0107], programs described above may be stored using a variety of types of non-transitory computer readable medium and may be provided to computers [0108])
and at least one processor (processor [0107]) configured to execute the instructions (the processor 601 may execute the program after reading these programs into the memory 602 [0107]) for transmitting pulsed light to the optical fiber, (sends a pulsed light to the optical fiber, the pulsed light is transmitted through the optical [0044]) and receiving an optical signal from the optical fiber, (receives backscattered light, …, as an optical signal [0044], the optical signal received … sensed by the optical fiber [0045])
detecting, for each of a plurality of measurement points in the optical fiber, (optical fiber, positions in the optical fiber … sensing points [0065]) vibration intensity of vibration generated at the measurement point, based on the optical signal received from the optical fiber, (detecting … vibration pattern, pattern matching, threshold [0055], the detecting unit 32 derives the intensity difference … between the sounds of the acoustic pattern AP sensed at the two sensing points S1 and S2 based on the distribution ‘intensity …’ of the sounds of the acoustic pattern AP sensed at the two sensing points S1 and S2, and then estimates the position of a sound source of the sound of the acoustic pattern AP [0065])
and specifying a measurement point having vibration intensity equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value from among the plurality of measurement points. (and then estimates the position of a sound source of the sound of the acoustic pattern AP [0065], vibration pattern matching, threshold [0055], the optical fiber 10 is laid in a rectangular shape, and the detecting unit 32 specifies three points on the optical fiber 10 as the sensing points S1 to S3. In the example illustrated in FIG. 3 as well, the method of identifying the location of occurrence and the time of occurrence of an accident or an incident is the same as illustrated in FIG. 2 [0066]).
As per claim 7, Kita discloses
A monitoring apparatus (a monitoring device [title, abs, 0001, 0013, 0020])
Kita further discloses the remaining limitations as shown in claim 1 above.
As per claim 13, Kita discloses
A monitoring method ( [title, abs, 0001, 0013]) being performed by a monitoring apparatus, (a monitoring method by a monitoring system [0024, claim 13]) the monitoring method comprising:
a communication step of transmitting pulsed light to an optical fiber, and receiving an optical signal from the optical fiber; (communication and sensing [0043], sends a pulsed light to the optical fiber, the pulsed light is transmitted through the optical fiber [0044], step of receiving an optical signal from an optical fiber [0025, 0165])
a detection step of detecting, for each of a plurality of measurement points in the optical fiber, vibration intensity of vibration generated at the measurement point, based on the optical signal received from the optical fiber; (step of detecting at least one of ... an incident based on … information being contained in the optical signal [0026, 0166] positions in the optical fiber … sensing points [0065], detecting … vibration pattern, pattern matching, threshold [0055], the detecting unit 32 derives the intensity difference … between the sounds of the acoustic pattern AP sensed at the two sensing points S1 and S2 based on the distribution ‘intensity …’ of the sounds of the acoustic pattern AP sensed at the two sensing points S1 and S2, and then estimates the position of a sound source of the sound of the acoustic pattern AP [0065])
and a specification step of specifying a measurement point having vibration intensity equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value from among the plurality of measurement points. (and then estimates the position of a sound source of the sound of the acoustic pattern AP [0065], vibration pattern matching, threshold [0055], the optical fiber 10 is laid in a rectangular shape, and the detecting unit 32 specifies three points on the optical fiber 10 as the sensing points S1 to S3. In the example illustrated in FIG. 3 as well, the method of identifying the location of occurrence and the time of occurrence of an accident or an incident is the same as illustrated in FIG. 2 [0066]).
As per claims 2, 8 and 14, Kita discloses claims 1, 7 and 13 set forth above.
Kita further discloses
causing a display unit to display positions of the plurality of measurement points superimposed on a map and simultaneously causing the display unit to display the specified measurement point in such a way as to be differentiated from other measurement points (displays a GUI screen on the display unit with the location of occurrence of the accident or the incident superimposed on the map [0092-0093, Figs. 2 & 3, claim 5], specifies three positions on the optical fiber as sensing points S1 to S3 [0065-0066, Figs. 2 & 3]).
As per claims 3, 9 and 15, Kita discloses claims 2, 8 and 14 set forth above.
Kita further discloses
causing the display unit to display a position of a vibration generation source being superimposed on a map. (identifies the position of the identified sound source as a location of occurrence of the accident or the incident [0065, 0067, Fig. 2], displays a GUI screen on the display unit with location of occurrence of the accident or the incident superimposed on the map [0092-0093, Figs. 2 & 3, claim 5]).
As per claims 4, 10 and 16, Kita discloses claims 3, 9 and 15 set forth above.
Kita further discloses
causing the display unit to display operation information indicating whether or not the vibration generation source is in operation. (identifies the time of occurrence when the sound of the acoustic pattern AP is detected, identify the time when the acoustic pattern AP having the highest sound intensity among those sensed at the three sensing points S1 to S3 is sensed as the time of occurrence of the accident or the incident [0065, Fig. 2], identifying the location of occurrence and the time of occurrence of an accident [0066, Fig. 3], displays a GUI screen on the display unit with location of occurrence of the accident or the incident superimposed on the map [0092-0093, Figs. 2 & 3, claim 5], time of occurrence … and the type of the accident or the incident is superimposed on the map, indicated in a balloon extending from the icon. Note that the icon may be changed in shape, color, or the like according to the type of the accident or the incident. In the example illustrated in FIG. 8, [0095, Fig. 8])
As per claims 5, 11 and 17, Kita discloses claims 3, 9 and 15 set forth above.
Kita further discloses
learning in advance a feature value of vibration being generated due to the vibration generation source, and extracting, for each of the plurality of measurement points, vibration having the learned feature value from among vibration generated at the measurement point, and detecting vibration intensity of the extracted vibration. (stores a vibration pattern of the vibration that has been generated actually when the accidents or the incidents have occurred in a memory … in advance as patterns for matching [0053],
prepares a set of teacher data indicating the accident or incident and a vibration pattern of vibration generated actually when the accident or incident has occurred, construct a learning model … in advance [0056], acquires information indicating the environmental state in the periphery of the optical fiber 10, which is contained in the optical signal received by the receiving unit [0057], inputs the vibration pattern contained in the information acquired by the acquiring unit 31 into the learning model, 32 obtains information on the accident or the incident in the periphery of the optical fiber 10 as an output of the learning model [0058], also capable of identifying the type of the accident or the incident that has occurred [0059], identifies the type of an accident or an incident by using an acoustic pattern … “acoustic pattern AP” [0062], acoustic pattern … intensity and time, highest sound intensity among those sensed at the … sensing points … as time of occurrence [0065]).
Claims 6, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kita in view of Garcia (Garcia, Yoany Rodriguez, and et al. "Vibration detection using optical fiber sensors." Journal of Sensors 2010, no. 1 (2010): 936487), hereinafter ‘Garcia’.
As per claims, 6, 12 and 18, Kita discloses claims 2, 8 and 14 set forth above.
The set forth combined prior art is silent regrading specifying, from among at least one additional measurement point which is not on the optical fiber and vibration intensity of which is detected by a vibration sensor other than the optical fiber, an additional measurement point having vibration intensity with a follow on checking vibration intensity level and displaying of additional measurement points superimposed with a map although the combined prior art discloses specifying a measurement point having vibration intensity equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value, and causing the display unit to display a position of the at least one measurement point being superimposed on a map, and simultaneously causing the display unit to display the specified measurement point.
Garcia discloses specifying, from among at least one additional measurement point which is not on the optical fiber and vibration intensity of which is detected by a vibration sensor other than the optical fiber, an additional measurement point having vibration intensity (sensors … extrinsic … sensing takes place in a region outside the fiber [pg. 1 left col par. 2], a region outside the fiber [pg. 1 left col par. 2], intensity-based vibration sensors, sensors can be classified into two broad categories if physical contact with the vibrating object exists or not [pg. 1 right col par. 2-3], monitoring of the position of the resonance FBG wavelength allows measuring those vibrations [pg. 8 right col par. 1 from the bottom]).
Garcia is also concerned about the same vibration monitoring solution using optical fiber sensors similar to the combined prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the combined prior art in view of Garcia to specify, from among at least one additional measurement point which is not on the optical fiber and vibration intensity of which is detected by a vibration sensor other than the optical fiber, an additional measurement point having vibration intensity equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value, and cause the display unit to display a position of the at least one additional measurement point being superimposed on a map, and simultaneously causing the display unit to display the specified additional measurement point in such a way as to be differentiated from other measurement points and other additional measurement points with a rationale to identify a vibration source in a real-time (see Kita – real time [0003-0006]) with accuracy (measurement accuracy [pg. 2 right col par. 1, pg. 10 left col par. 2]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 1 and 17, respectively, of US Patent Publication No. US 2024/0118115 A1 (reference) in view of Kita.
As per claims 1, 7 and 13, claims 9, 1, and 17 of reference discloses the claims except the limitation “detecting, for each of a plurality of measurement points in the optical fiber, vibration intensity of vibration generated at the measurement point, based on the optical signal received from the optical fiber, and specifying a measurement point having vibration intensity equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value from among the plurality of measurement points”.
Kita discloses the above recited limitation as shown in claims 1, 7 and 13 under 35 USC 102 above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when invention is filed before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the reference claims in view of Kita to detect, for each of a plurality of measurement points in the optical fiber, vibration intensity of vibration generated at the measurement point, based on the optical signal received from the optical fiber, and specify a measurement point having vibration intensity equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value from among the plurality of measurement points
with a rationale to identify a vibration source in a real-time with accuracy.
As per claims 2-6, 8-12 and 14-18, claims are also rejected because base claims 1, 7 and 13 are rejected.
Notes with regard to Prior Art
The prior arts made of record below are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Zhang (CN 112461353 A) discloses
A monitoring system (sensing, optical fiber measuring system [pg. 2 line 22-26]) comprising:
an optical fiber; (optical fiber [pg. 2 line 4-6], optical fiber measuring system [pg. 2 line 22-26])
at least one memory configured to store instructions; (computer memory [pg. 5 line 1, claim 4]], computer executes the program [pg. 4 line 24, 31, pg. 7 line 31, claim 4])
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions for transmitting pulsed light to the optical fiber, and receiving an optical signal from the optical fiber, (computer executes the program … outputs … modulation laser pulse into the optical fiber amplifier, sensing optical fibre returns back scattering light [pg. 4 line 31 – 41])
detecting, for each of a plurality of measurement points in the optical fiber, vibration intensity of vibration generated at the measurement point, based on the optical signal received from the optical fiber, (distributed optical fiber vibration sensing [pg. 3 line 21-25], make … Rayleigh back scattering light signal and external vibration in the (0, 2 π) with linear relation [pg. 5 line 8-13])
and specifying a measurement point having vibration intensity equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value from among the plurality of measurement points. (make … Rayleigh back scattering light signal and external vibration in the (0, 2 π) with linear relation [pg. 5 line 8-13], setting the threshold value, exceeds the threshold value may have vibration at the time, then ordering the vibration points, analyzing the vibration structure of larger vibration amplitude; judging the vibration behaviour of these points [pg. 5 line 8-13, claims 4 and 6], the measured vibration point location [pg. 2 line 16], providing a … guarantee for the vibration … precise location in the optical fiber system [pg. 2 line 25-26]).
Melester (US 20140342674 A1) discloses the measurement point and the at least one additional measurement point are points along the signal path other than the optical fiber (see [claim 3]).
Iwano (US 20230070029 A1), hereinafter “Iwano ‘029” discloses
(measuring state intensity … vibration intensity [0004], in the portable base station area … vibration and sound are generated, and the vibration and sound are transmitted to the optical fiber, As a result, the optical signal transmitted through the optical fiber 10 changes in characteristics, Therefore, the optical fiber 10 is able to detect a state such as whether a destruction, a theft, or the like has occurred in the portable base station area [0045], vibration pattern … intensity of vibration, the vibration position, the variation transition of the frequency [0050], specify the position at which the optical signal is generated [0056], indicating the position of the portable base station area 45 and map information in association, When the detection unit 32 determines that a threat has occurred in the portable base station area 45, the report unit 33 may cause the display unit 61 of the report destination terminal 60 to display a graphical user interface (GUI) screen in which the position of the portable base station area 45 is superimposed on the map, the position of the portable base station area 45 where the threat has occurred is highlighted on the map by a circle including the position [0072, 0077, 0079, Fig. 6], indicating the positions of the portable base station areas 45, 45A, and 45B and map information in association with each other, the position of the portable base station area in which the threat has occurred is highlighted by a circle including the position [0086, claims 5, 10 and 15]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KAY, whose telephone number is (408) 918-7569. The examiner can normally be reached on M, Th & F 8-5, T 2-7, and W 8-1.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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.
/DOUGLAS KAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights