DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/502,099, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites the limitations:
“each of the two or more cameras include a stereoscopic camera; and
the image data includes at least two stereoscopic images”
While the application discloses the use of 3D cameras, for example in [0052] stating, “The cameras may each be a 3D camera (e.g., with multiple optical sensors lenses, etc., with a range finder, with a lidar device, etc.)”, the application does not state that the cameras may be stereoscopic cameras and the image data be stereoscopic images. More specifically stated, while a stereoscopic camera is a type of 3D camera, Applicant does not appear to be any more specific than what is provided in [0052] which is not inclusive of the type of 3D camera being that of a stereoscopic camera. A camera “with multiple optical sensors lenses” is not inherently a stereoscopic camera.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “through the chute to the item receiving area”. In other words, the claim appears to indicate that the chute is not a part of the item receiving area but an aperture separating the item receiving area from one or more other areas. However, the disclosure only appears to disclose the chute as part of the item receiving area. See [0049] which reads, “For instance, as illustrated in the example the receiving area may have sloped sides and an aperture forming a chute through which items may pass”. Therefore, Applicant only appears to disclose the chute as part of the item receiving area when described in terms of demarcated areas. If the titles/labels of particular areas are wholly arbitrary and hold no patentable significance, then this limitation appears sufficiently supported. However, Applicant’s use of various “area” terms in the claims indicate that Applicant considers them as holding some patentable significance.
Accordingly, Claims 12 and 15 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior application.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1 – 10 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/24/2026.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
General Notes:
The claims frequently use the term “defined”. The specification does not set forth a particular definition for the term. The context of the limitations is that of a system comprising “a robot arm”, or in other words a computer-implemented device/system. It is unclear what would not inherently be “defined” in such a system without further limitation to the term, which is not provided for in the claims. Particularly inasmuch as the subject which performed the defining such that it is now defined is unclaimed, let alone the manner by which it became such. Therefore, the term “defined” does not appear to impart any particular further meaning to the existing terms it modifies within the claims.
For example, there is no clear distinction between a scanning area and defined scanning area.
The claims recite different areas or regions. There is no requirement that they are distinct and separate, unless specifically claimed as such.
The adjectives “first”, “second”, “third”, etc. have been interpreted merely to indicate that two items might, but are not required to be, different. It is common claim construction practice to use these adjectives for ease of referring to items while maintaining a potential distinction which might be further claimed in further limitations and dependent claims. The adjectives, under the broadest reasonable interpretation do not require a particular chronological order, difference, etc. except where Applicant’s specification sets for such an explicit definition or the claim otherwise specifies as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim recites the limitation:
“the one or more items passing through the chute to the item receiving area responsive to the one or more processors determining that that the one or more items include a single item”
The claim is directed to the statutory category of an apparatus, or machine. MPEP 2106 relates. An apparatus, or machine, is claimed using limitations which are structural, or functional limitations of said structures. MPEP 2114 relates. The above limitation appears to be descriptive of actions to be taken under a particular condition (MPEP 2111.04(II) relates), and thus constructed as a conditional limitation in a form closest in form to a method claim (and even then, not properly constructed). Furthermore, while it appears constructed conditionally, the condition appears always fulfilled as the limitation is not “include only a single item” or “is just a single item” or similar but simply “includes a single item”, wherein a plurality of items always includes at least two single items and a single item is a single item, and therefore this condition is always met due to the preceding limitation of “one or more items”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted as instead reading:
“wherein the chute is part of the item receiving area; and
wherein the operations further include:
passing the one or more items to the item receiving area through the chute”
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites the limitation:
“wherein the operations further include:
determining, by the one or more processors, that the one or more items include the plurality of items based on the estimated one or more second dimensions and the one or more first dimensions”
It is unclear if this limitation is referring back to the limitation of Claim 11 of “performing … determining whether the one or more items include a plurality of items” such that this limitation of Claim 11 acts as antecedent basis, and the limitation of Claim 18 effectively limits this particular optional limitation in the manner of how it is determined that “the one or mor items include a plurality of items”. Examiner believes that is the intent. Therefore, in the interest of compact prosecution the limitation has been interpreted as instead reading: “wherein the determining whether the one or more items include a plurality of items comprises:
determining, by the one or more processors, that the one or more items include a plurality of items based on the estimated one or more second dimensions and the one or more first dimensions”
or similar.
Consequently, Claim 18 further defines an optional or alternative limitation, and is itself wholly optional or alternative in the same manner as the parent limitation in Claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Examiner notes that lack of a rejection of a dependent claim under a particular reference is not an indication that the Examiner does not consider the claim taught by said reference; multiple rejections of a claim are only provided where necessary to reject dependent claims.
Claims 11, 13 – 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mao et al. (US 11548739 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Mao teaches:
A system comprising:
a robotic arm adapted to hold one or more items at a defined scanning area (See at least robotic arm 210 or 310. Examiner notes that any robotic arm capable of manipulating objects is “adapted” as such.
See also, with respect to “scanning area”, Column 4, Lines 24 – 26, “The cameras may be used to generate a point cloud representation 230 that can be used to determine and/or track object location”);
a frame (See at least overhead assembly 220 or 340) holding two or more cameras at a defined angle to the defined scanning area (See at least Figure 3 and Column 4, Lines 21 – 22, “One or more cameras or camera systems may be mounted to the overhead assembly 220”); and
one or more processors (See at least processor 802) executing instructions that cause the one or more processors to perform operations including:
processing image data captured using the two or more cameras (See again Column 4, Lines 24 – 26 or below); and
performing one or more of (This indicates that only one of the following is required and thus to be taught by the prior art) determining an identity of the one or more items (See at least Column 4, Lines 40 – 43, “the camera(s) may be configured to not only generate the point cloud representation 230, but to also identify the object using computer vision and/or integrated hardware”) and determining whether the one or more items include a plurality of items (See at least Column 8, Lines 47 – 50, “In the first point cloud representation 520, a number of packages may be identified, such as a first package 522, a second package 524, a third package 524, a fourth package 526, and so forth”).
Regarding Claim 13, Mao teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the frame includes one or more horizontal members that allow the two or more cameras to be adjusted along two horizontal axes (See at least Figure 3. The claim does not describe or otherwise define “horizontal member”, the nature of “allow … to be adjusted”, “horizontal axes” etc. Consequently, two or more cameras which may be mounted to an overhead assembly having at least one member which may be considered horizontal, as illustrated in at least Figure 3, inherently meet this limitation).
Regarding Claim 14, Mao teaches:
The system of claim 11, further comprising:
a chute below the defined scanning area, the robotic arm being configured to drop the one or more items through the chute (See at least Column 9, Lines 56 – 60, “The robotic arms 620, 630, 640, 650 may be configured to move objects from the conveyor 610 to different destinations, such as into a container, into a chute, onto a robotic platform that is adjacent to the robotic arm, and/or other drop destinations”.
The geometric metes and bounds of the “scanning area” is not defined. Furthermore, the cameras are mounted “overhead” and thus the volume of their field of view inherently includes a portion above).
Regarding Claim 15, Mao teaches:
The system of claim 14, further comprising:
an item delivery area from which the robotic arm is configured to grasp the one or more items (See again Column 9, Lines 56 – 60); and
an item receiving area to which the robotic arm is configured to place the one or more items, the one or more items passing through the chute to the item receiving area responsive to the one or more processors determining that that the one or more items include a single item (See again Column 9, Lines 56 – 60).
Regarding Claim 19, Mao teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further include:
retrieving, by the one or more processors using the robotic arm, the one or more items from a mobile storage unit, the mobile storage unit holding a set of items (See at least Column 6, Lines 65 – 66, “a particular robotic arm may be configured to pick items off of a moving container”); and
positioning, by the one or more processors using the robotic arm, the one or more items at the defined scanning area (See at least Column 4, Lines 64 – 67, “Certain embodiments may identify objects while the object is in the grasp of a robotic arm” and Column 8, Lines 19 – 21, “The controller may identify the second object after the first robotic arm grasps the second object”).
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kanemoto et al. (US 20240316779 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Kanemoto teaches:
A system comprising:
a robotic arm (See at least conveyor arm or first segment 304 (“first segment”)) adapted to hold one or more items at a defined scanning area (See at least gripper 306);
a frame (See at least [0117] “The chassis 302 can include a frame structure that supports … one or more sensor arms 330”) holding two or more cameras (See at least [0117] “An upper sensor 324 (e.g., an upper vision sensor) and a lower sensor 325 (e.g., a lower vision sensor) are coupled to each sensor arm 330” and [0113] “For example, the vision sensors 222 can include one or more cameras”) at a defined angle to the defined scanning area (Inherent, but in the interest of compact prosecution see at least [0113] “For manipulating the target object 112, the robotic system 100 (via, e.g., the various circuits/devices described above) can capture and analyze image data of a designated area”); and
one or more processors (See at least one or more processors 202) executing instructions that cause the one or more processors to perform operations including:
processing image data captured using the two or more cameras; and
performing one or more of determining an identity of the one or more items (See at least [0250] “identify one or more target objects”. See [0126] for a more detailed example, “The robotic system 300 can compare the sensor outputs and/or the derived data to attributes of known or expected objects as listed in the master data 252 of FIG. 2. When the compared attributes match, the robotic system 300 can detect the object depicted in the image data by determining the type or the identifier for the object and the estimated real-world location of the objects (e.g., the peripheral edges of the object)”) and determining whether the one or more items include a plurality of items (See at least [0495] “the robotic system can monitor the weight and/or quantity of objects loaded on or lifted by the EOAT and/or other components of the robotic system”).
Regarding Claim 16, Kanemoto teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further include:
determining, by the one or more processors, one or more thresholds for the image data using one or more first dimensions of a defined set of items (See at least [0107] In some embodiments, the storage devices 204 can be used to further store and provide access to processing results and/or predetermined data/thresholds. For example, the storage devices 204 can store master data 252 that includes descriptions of objects (e.g., boxes, cases, and/or products) that may be manipulated by the robotic system 100. In one or more embodiments, the master data 252 can include a dimension, a shape (e.g., templates for potential poses and/or computer-generated models for recognizing the object in different poses), a color scheme, an image, identification information (e.g., bar codes, quick response (QR) codes, logos, etc., and/or expected locations thereof), an expected weight, other physical/visual characteristics, or a combination thereof for the objects expected to be manipulated by the robotic system 100” and
[0203] “In detecting the object, the robotic system can determine that depicted portions (e.g., an area bounded by sufficiently detected edges) of the image 1700 of FIG. 17A matches corresponding attributes (e.g., dimensions and/or surface image/texture) of registered objects in the master data 252 of FIG. 2”
Wherein the “threshold” may be defined by or as the dimension(s) themselves.
Alternatively, see [0352] “For example, the unrecognized region 5004 can have a top edge 5012 and a bottom edge 5006”
[0086] “Based on these sensor outputs, a side boundary of the object may be identified. The controller can update the dimensions (e.g., width and height) and/or actual edges of the previously unrecognized object using the identified boundaries, and the object may be removed from the plurality of objects. The controller may then subtract the MVR and/or the area defined by the updated edges from the previously obtained image (e.g., from a different system imager) and proceed to operate on a different/new target based on the remaining image. In this manner, operation of the robotic system may be based on capturing a single image from a first sensor of all objects to be removed, and operation may continue by subtracting regions from the original image without capturing and processing a new image for each removed object”
See at least [0353] “In some instances, the bottom edge 5006 can be identified as being within a threshold distance range from the top edge 5012. The threshold distance range can correspond to a maximum dimension (e.g., height) amongst the registered objects”
[0362] “Subsequent to the removal of object A, the robotic system can identify a portion of the unrecognized region 5004 that corresponds to the removed object, such as using a mask to overlay the portion of the unrecognized region 5004 previously depicting the removed object A. The robotic system can re-categorize the masked portion as an empty region 5102 as shown in Section II of FIG. 51”
Wherein the “set of items” may refer to those imaged rather than those in some memory); and
filtering, by the one or more processors, the image data using the one or more thresholds (See again [0203] or alternatively (see above) [0363] “Accordingly, the robotic system can update the unrecognized region 5004 to exclude the portion corresponding to the empty region 5102 or the portion corresponding to the transferred object (e.g., object A)”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanemoto et al. in view of Moroni et al. (US 20170349385 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Kanemoto teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein:
…
the image data includes at least two [stereoscopic] images (Appears inherent for various reasons. For example, Claim 11 recites “processing image data captured using the two or more cameras”. Both cameras therefore must provide at least one image. As another example, the disclosure of Mao does not state that it operates off of a single image, especially a single image over the course of continuous operation.
See also Column 5, Lines 50 – 54, “before and after images may be captured and used to determine which objects were retrieved by the robotic arm”).
Mao discloses that “the camera 330 may be a three-dimensional” (Column 5, Lines 24 – 25), but does not specifically disclose that the nature of three-dimensional cameras may be that of a stereoscopic camera. However, Moroni explicitly teaches:
…
stereoscopic [images]
…
each of the two or more cameras include a stereoscopic camera (See at least [0019] “The three-dimensional analysis may be performed based on several techniques of the known type, for example by means of stereoscopic cameras”); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize stereoscopic cameras as the 3D dimensional cameras as taught by Moroni in Mao with a reasonable expectation of success. Stereoscopic cameras are commonly used 3D cameras with known associated 3D analysis techniques as evidenced by Moroni. Stereoscopic cameras are one vision sensor which effectively mimics human binocular vision.
Claim 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanemoto et al. in view of Lee (US 20160132734 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Kanemoto teaches:
The system of claim 16, wherein the operations further include:
estimating, by the one or more processors, one or more second dimensions of the one or more items; and
identifying, by the one or more processors, a first item from among the one or more items by comparing the estimated one or more second dimensions of the one or more items with the one or more first dimensions of the defined set of items.
Examiner notes that while Kanemoto may be considered as disclosing all of the limitations due to high level of generality of the claim limitations and more specitically the claim terms, in the interest of compact prosecution Kanemoto clearly teaches the following in combination with Lee (recitations provided with respect to Lee):
… [estimating, by the one or more processors, one or more second dimensions of the one or more items] based on the filtered image data (See at least [0015] “outputting a filtered image by excluding an object having a height equal to or smaller than a threshold value from the extracted object candidate”) …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to filter the image data prior to object identification/recognition by filtering out objects not meeting a particular threshold, such as related to dimensions as taught by Lee in Kanemoto with a reasonable expectation of success.
Kanemoto already teaches a threshold for image filtering that is a registered object dimension (See [0353]). Furthermore, Kanemoto makes it clear that there is a database of known dimensions and similar geometric information which may be used as threshold information ([0107]). It is well-known and routine in the art of image processing and object identification to filter out background objects (objects not of interest) for at least the purposes of improved image processing speed and reduced image mis-identification/classification. The objects of interest in the case of Kanemoto are those “objects … that may be manipulated by the robotic system” ([0107]) and Kanemoto additionally contemplates “known/expected smallest object/SKU” ([0188]).
See the Conclusion section below for other prior art references which makes clear that filtering out objects outside of a range, above or below a threshold, or similar are well-known and routine.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Kanemoto and Lee teaches:
The system of claim 17,
In light of the 112(b) rejection above, this limitation need only be disclosed by the prior art if the prior art does not teach the limitation of “determining an identity …” of Claim 11 above.
wherein the operations further include:
determining, by the one or more processors, that the one or more items include the plurality of items based on the estimated one or more second dimensions and the one or more first dimensions (In the interest of compact prosecution, there is no requirement or other limitation other than being based on these features, which are already used as demonstrated above to identify objects. Therefore, the system need only to be capable of subsequently identifying an object after a first object rather than the potentially intended meaning of identifying a numerical quantity or similar in a single determination made at a single time/instance).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. in view of itself.
Regarding Claim 20, Mao teaches:
The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further include:
instructing, by the one or more processors, the robotic arm to retrieve a defined item of a set of items from a mobile storage unit (See at least Column 4, Lines 60 – 62, “Some embodiments may accurately identify objects in clutter while avoiding multi-picks (e.g., picking up more than a target object, etc.)”);
determining, by the one or more processors, that the one or more items do not match the defined item (See at least Colum 5, Lines 50 – 54, “In instances where the controller determines that a plurality of objects was grasped by the first robotic arm 310 instead of the intended target, the controller may cause the first robotic arm 310 to release the plurality of objects back onto the conveyor 350 or elsewhere”); and
Mao teaches as demonstrated above, the return of objects “back onto the conveyor 350 or elsewhere”. Consequently, Mao does not explicitly teach, but in combination with itself teaches:
instructing, by the one or more processors, the robotic arm to replace the one or more items in the mobile storage unit (Mao already discloses that the items may come from a mobile storage unit, therefore out of the finite options of “elsewhere”, this is an obvious choice alternative).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robotic system to return object(s) to a mobile container from which the object(s) were retrieved rather than the conveyer, with a reasonable expectation of success. A mobile container is an obvious substitute to the conveyer, and as it is typically mobile due to, and located on the conveyer, it may even be considered included in the intent of this statement “back onto the conveyor 350 or elsewhere”. Returning the object(s) back to the container would perform the same function of returning the object(s) back to where they were retrieved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
High et al. (US 20180215037 A1) which discloses e.g. [0040] “The robotic device 260 can capture an image of the set of like physical objects and extract a set of attributes using machine vision and/or video analytics. The robotic device 260 can compare the extracted set of attributes with the stored set of attributes to confirm the set of like physical objects are same as the ones included in the instructions”
Boroushaki et al. (US 20220168899 A1) which discloses “At 835, a determination is made as to whether or not the robot picked up the target object. If yes, then the grasping operation is deemed to have been successfully performed and the robot may deposit the target object at a designated location. If the robot picked up the wrong object, the object may be returned (e.g., dropped) back in the area of interest” ([0143]).
Preiswerk et al. (US 11893786 B1) which discloses scan-free barcode reading wherein images of an object are taken while it is moved through a scanning volume in order to identify the object.
Hegde et al. (US 20230321694 A1) which discloses various item pick and place sorting related operations including the use of chutes, computer vision object identification, etc.
Kalouche et al. (US 20210188554 A1) which discloses pick and place operations using computer vision object identification and chutes.
De La Rosa et al. (US 11628477 B1) which discloses camera-based tracking systems for item sortation systems. Various chutes are disclosed for item sortation purposes.
References which disclose filtering out objects outside of a range, above or below a threshold, or similar and demonstrate the feature/concept as well-known and routine to image processing in general:
Davis et al. (US 20210255639 A1)
Zilberstien et al. (US 20180005388 A1)
Avegliano et al. (US 20150235157 A1)
Amtrup et al. (US 20140270349 A1)
Rosenstein et al. (US 20120185094 A1)
Shuster et al. (US 20110301760 A1)
Yokochi et al. (US 20100283845 A1)
Shimodaira (US 20090208050 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights