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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1, 15 and 20 belong to a statutory categories of method, apparatus and apparatus respectively.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 and similarly 15 and 20 recite(s) “A method of linearizing an output representing a detected angle of a target, comprising: determining initial values of angles of rotation of the target based on received signal values representative of the target; determining speeds of rotation of the target corresponding to the initial values; extracting the speeds corresponding to a span of the initial values; identifying signals of different frequencies from the extracted speeds; determining angle error values based on the identified signals; and linearizing the output based on the determined angle error values” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes per applicant’s specification, for example Par. 73 recites “calculating the approximate rotation speed of a target” Par. 77 recites “extracting harmonic signals by calculating a FFT of the speed signal”, Par. 79 “values may be used to compute linear functions that may be used to adjust measured rotation angles” Par. 89 “calculating the approximate angle error values based on the data from the last two revolutions”.
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “received signal values representative of the target” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. In claims 15 and 20, the additional elements of “A device, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a controller that, when executing the instructions, is configured to:” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a controller, cause the controller to:” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “received signal values representative of the target” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (i or ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) as the courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). In claims 15 and 20, the additional elements of “A device, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a controller that, when executing the instructions, is configured to:” and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a controller, cause the controller to:” are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
In claim 2, “determining the speeds of rotation based on the initial values and the elapsed amount of time” further describes the abstract ideas cited above. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receiving the signal values representative of the target from sensing elements; measuring an elapsed amount of time during which the signal values are received;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (i or ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) as the courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-19 further describe the abstract ideas and/or the data gathered cited above.
Claims 8 and 9 are not integrated into a practical application and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
In claim 16, “determine the speeds of rotation based on the initial values and the elapsed amount of time” further describes the abstract ideas cited above. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “comprising sensing elements, wherein the controller, when executing the instructions, is further configured to: receive the signal values representative of the target from the sensing elements; measure an elapsed amount of time during which the signal values are received;” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity and are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g) (i or ii) and are well-understood, routine, conventional activities/elements previously known to the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d) as the courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 11-13, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kollmitzer (US 20210116264 A1).
In claim 1, Kollmitzer discloses a method of linearizing an output representing a detected angle (Par. 31 angle output signals) of a target (Par. 34 “target location”), comprising: determining initial values of angles of rotation of the target based on received signal values representative of the target (Par. Par. 31 “firstly a sequence 205 of angle output signals 502 of the angle sensor 201 is received, specifically during at least one time interval in which the angle sensor 201 is exposed to a rotating magnetic field 202”); determining speeds of rotation of the target corresponding to the initial values (Par. 52 “During the time interval Δt in which the angular velocity can be assumed to be substantially constant, local angular velocity can thus be determined”); extracting the speeds corresponding to a span of the initial values (Par. 52-54 “the local angular velocity can be estimated by the finite difference quotient of two successive angle values being formed”); identifying signals of different frequencies from the extracted speeds (See Fig. 6, Par. 50 “period of the angle output signal 502 being checked for fluctuations”, Par. 107 “some angle output signals 502 occur more frequently than others”, Par. 62 “binning, e.g. the assignment or classification, of individual samples (black points) into different registers”); determining angle error values based on the identified signals (Par. 43 “irregularities in the transfer function 207 of the angle sensor 201" Par. 59 “Any deviations of the angle output signal 502 vis-à-vis the true rotation angle 501 reflect the imperfect transfer function 207 of the angle sensor 201”); and linearizing the output based on the determined angle error values (Par. 59 “linearized as much as possible using compensating for the deviations”, Par. 80).
In claim 2, Kollmitzer further discloses receiving the signal values representative of the target from sensing elements (Fig. 2, 201 Par. 36 “sensing element”); measuring an elapsed amount of time during which the signal values are received (Par. 47 “time interval Δt"); and determining the speeds of rotation based on the initial values and the elapsed amount of time (Par. 52 “time interval Δt in which the angular velocity can be assumed to be substantially constant, the local angular velocity can thus be determined from the angle output signal”).
In claim 3, Kollmitzer further discloses wherein the span of the initial values corresponds to 360° of rotation (Par. 38 “360”).
In claim 4, Kollmitzer discloses all of claim 3. Kollmitzer further discloses wherein a first one of the signals identified from the extracted speeds includes a frequency having one period over the 360° (Fig. 5 501 Examiner notes that the signal has 1 period), and a second one of the signals identified from the extracted speeds includes a frequency having two periods over the 360° (Fig. 5, 502 Examiner notes that the signal has 2 periods).
In claim 5, Kollmitzer discloses all of claim 3. Kollmitzer further discloses wherein the signals identified from the extracted speeds do not include signals having frequencies with eight or more periods over the 360 (Fig. 5, neither signal has 8 or more periods).
In claim 7, Kollmitzer further discloses wherein the speeds of rotation are determined by numerically differentiating the initial values of angles of rotation with respect to time Par. 51 “differentiation of the angle output signal 502 with respect to time”.
In claim 8, Kollmitzer further discloses wherein the speeds of rotation are determined by differentiating the initial values of angles of rotation with respect to time using a differentiator circuit (Par. 51 “differentiation of the angle output signal 502 with respect to time”, Par. 154 ‘steps can be carried out by… electronic circuit’).
In claim 11, Kollmitzer further discloses wherein determining the angle error values further comprises integrating the identified signals of different frequencies to obtain the angle error values as a function of time (Fig. 5, Par. 61 “local angular velocity 504 and the mean value can be integrated” Examiner notes that Fig. 5 is a function of time).
In claim 12, Kollmitzer further discloses wherein the determined angle error values are utilized as an approximation of an error between an angle of the target sensed by sensing elements as compared to an actual angle of the target (Par. 108 “approximately 80°” “interpret values in the range of 80°±5° as 80°”).
In claim 13, Kollmitzer further discloses wherein linearizing the output further comprises applying the angle error values as linearization coefficients to calculate a detected angle of the target (Par. 41 “correction values”).
In claim 15, Kollmitzer discloses a device (Fig. 2), comprising: a memory storing instructions (Par. 155 “memory”); and a controller (Par. 93 “microcontroller”) that, when executing the instructions, is configured to: determine initial values of angles of rotation of the target based on received signal values representative of the target (Par. Par. 31 “firstly a sequence 205 of angle output signals 502 of the angle sensor 201 is received, specifically during at least one time interval in which the angle sensor 201 is exposed to a rotating magnetic field 202”); determine speeds of rotation of the target corresponding to the initial values (Par. 52 “During the time interval Δt in which the angular velocity can be assumed to be substantially constant, local angular velocity can thus be determined”); extract the speeds corresponding to a span of the initial values (Par. 52-54 “the local angular velocity can be estimated by the finite difference quotient of two successive angle values being formed”); identify signals of different frequencies from the extracted speeds (See Fig. 6, Par. 50 “period of the angle output signal 502 being checked for fluctuations”, Par. 107 “some angle output signals 502 occur more frequently than others”, Par. 62 “binning, e.g. the assignment or classification, of individual samples (black points) into different registers”); determine angle error values based on the identified signals (Par. 43 “irregularities in the transfer function 207 of the angle sensor 201" Par. 59 “Any deviations of the angle output signal 502 vis-à-vis the true rotation angle 501 reflect the imperfect transfer function 207 of the angle sensor 201”); and linearize the output based on the determined angle error values (Par. 59 “linearized as much as possible using compensating for the deviations”, Par. 80).
In claim 16, Kollmitzer further discloses receive the signal values representative of the target from sensing elements (Fig. 2, 201 Par. 36 “sensing element”); measure an elapsed amount of time during which the signal values are received (Par. 47 “time interval Δt"); and determine the speeds of rotation based on the initial values and the elapsed amount of time (Par. 52 “time interval Δt in which the angular velocity can be assumed to be substantially constant, the local angular velocity can thus be determined from the angle output signal”).
In claim 19, Kollmitzer further discloses wherein linearizing the output further comprises applying the angle error values as linearization coefficients to calculate a detected angle of the target (Par. 41 “correction values”).
In claim 20, Kollmitzer discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions (Par. 155 “memory”) that, when executed by a controller (Par. 93 “microcontroller”), cause the controller to: determine initial values of angles of rotation of the target based on received signal values representative of the target (Par. Par. 31 “firstly a sequence 205 of angle output signals 502 of the angle sensor 201 is received, specifically during at least one time interval in which the angle sensor 201 is exposed to a rotating magnetic field 202”); determine speeds of rotation of the target corresponding to the initial values (Par. 52 “During the time interval Δt in which the angular velocity can be assumed to be substantially constant, local angular velocity can thus be determined”); extract the speeds corresponding to a span of the initial values (Par. 52-54 “the local angular velocity can be estimated by the finite difference quotient of two successive angle values being formed”); identify signals of different frequencies from the extracted speeds (See Fig. 6, Par. 50 “period of the angle output signal 502 being checked for fluctuations”, Par. 107 “some angle output signals 502 occur more frequently than others”, Par. 62 “binning, e.g. the assignment or classification, of individual samples (black points) into different registers”); determine angle error values based on the identified signals (Par. 43 “irregularities in the transfer function 207 of the angle sensor 201" Par. 59 “Any deviations of the angle output signal 502 vis-à-vis the true rotation angle 501 reflect the imperfect transfer function 207 of the angle sensor 201”); and linearize the output based on the determined angle error values (Par. 59 “linearized as much as possible using compensating for the deviations”, Par. 80).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollmitzer in view of Park (US 20210356299 A1).
In claim 6, Kollmitzer discloses all of claim 2. Kollmitzer does disclose the sensing elements (Fig. 2, 201) is indicative of a sine function and the sensing elements is indicative of a cosine function (Par. 50 “zero crossings of the sine and cosine signal components”).
Kollmitzer is silent to the structure of the sensing elements and does not explicitly disclose wherein the signal values are received from two different sensing elements that are placed orthogonally with respect to each other so that sensing by a first one of the sensing elements is indicative of a sine function and sensing by a second one of the sensing elements is indicative of a cosine function when the two different sensing elements are aligned with the target, and wherein each of the initial values of angles of rotation is calculated as an arctangent of a first signal value received from one of the sensing elements and a second signal value received from the other sensing element, the first signal value and the second signal value being received at the same time.
Park teaches wherein the signal values are received from two different sensing elements that are placed orthogonally with respect to each other (Par. 7 “maximizing their orthogonality for a given number of Hall sensors” see Fig. 4a-d H1-15) so that sensing by a first one of the sensing elements is indicative of a sine function and sensing by a second one of the sensing elements is indicative of a cosine function (Par. 7 two orthogonal displacement signals, sin(θ) and cos(θ)) when the two different sensing elements are aligned with the target (Par. 7 “the moving object”), and wherein each of the initial values of angles of rotation is calculated as an arctangent of a first signal value received from one of the sensing elements and a second signal value received from the other sensing element (Par. 7 “displacement position (θ) of the moving object is determined by taking the arctangent of the two orthogonal displacement signals”), the first signal value and the second signal value being received at the same time (Fig. 3, “Hall sensors displacement positions”, Par. 91 “N position sensors will detect N sequentially phase-delayed sinusoidal displacement signals in accordance with their positioned electrical phase angles as the rotor moves”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the sensing element of Kollmitzer so that wherein the signal values are received from two different sensing elements that are placed orthogonally with respect to each other so that sensing by a first one of the sensing elements is indicative of a sine function and sensing by a second one of the sensing elements is indicative of a cosine function when the two different sensing elements are aligned with the target as taught by Park because Hall sensors are a durable sensor without much degradation in sensing performance over aging or usual temperature variations (Park Par. 85) leading to the obvious benefit of a more durable and accurate sensing element for a longer period of time. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to further modify Kollmitzer that wherein each of the initial values of angles of rotation is calculated as an arctangent of a first signal value received from one of the sensing elements and a second signal value received from the other sensing element, the first signal value and the second signal value being received at the same time as taught by Park to improve the resolution of the signals (Park Par. 7) thus leading to a more accurate signal determination.
In claim 9, Kollmitzer does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying the signals of different frequencies comprises extracting the signals with a multi-band pass filter circuit.
Park teaches wherein identifying the signals of different frequencies comprises extracting the signals with a multi-band pass filter circuit (Par. 135 “two orthogonal displacement signals can be fully reconstructed by an optimal band pass filtering of the two stepped orthogonal displacement signals” examiner considers the “optimal band pass filtering” to be said multi-band pass filter circuit as it is filtering multiple different signals i.e. sin and cos, Par. 142 “ZF equalization is implemented in analog circuits” examiner notes that the ZF equalization contains the bandpass filtering see Par. 134-135).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the identifying the signals of Kollmitzer that identifying the signals of different frequencies comprises extracting the signals with a multi-band pass filter circuit as taught by Park to perform optimal orthogonal signal conversion without any loss or distortion (Park Par. 136) leading to clearer thus higher accuracy signals.
In claim 14, Kollmitzer further discloses wherein the target is a magnet (Fig. 2, 203 Par. 36 “magnetic source”).
Kollmitzer does not explicitly disclose the signal values representative of the target are provided by one or more of a giant magnetoresistor (GMR) field sensing element, a tunnel magnetoresistor (TMR) field sensing element, a Hall effect field sensing element, or a receiving coil field sensing element.
Park teaches the signal values representative of the target are provided by one or more of a giant magnetoresistor (GMR) field sensing element, a tunnel magnetoresistor (TMR) field sensing element, a Hall effect field sensing element, or a receiving coil field sensing element (Par. 7 “hall sensor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have the signal values representative of the target of Kollmitzer be provided by one or more of a giant magnetoresistor (GMR) field sensing element, a tunnel magnetoresistor (TMR) field sensing element, a Hall effect field sensing element, or a receiving coil field sensing element as taught by Parker because Hall sensors are a durable sensor without much degradation in sensing performance over aging or usual temperature variations (Park Par. 85) leading to the obvious benefit of a more durable and accurate sensing element for a longer period of time.
In claim 17, Kollmitzer discloses all of claim 16. Kollmitzer does disclose wherein the signal values are received by the controller from sensing elements (Fig. 2, 201) is indicative of a sine function and the sensing elements is indicative of a cosine function (Par. 50 “zero crossings of the sine and cosine signal components”).
Kollmitzer is silent to the structure of the sensing elements and does not explicitly disclose wherein the signal values are received by the controller from two different sensing elements that are placed orthogonally with respect to each other so that sensing by a first one of the sensing elements is indicative of a sine function and sensing by a second one of the sensing elements is indicative of a cosine function when the two different sensing elements are aligned with the target, and wherein each of the initial values of angles of rotation is calculated as an arctangent of a first signal value received from one of the sensing elements and a second signal value received from the other sensing element, the first signal value and the second signal value being received at the same time.
Park teaches wherein the signal values are received by the controller from two different sensing elements that are placed orthogonally with respect to each other (Par. 7 “maximizing their orthogonality for a given number of Hall sensors” see Fig. 4a-d H1-15) so that sensing by a first one of the sensing elements is indicative of a sine function and sensing by a second one of the sensing elements is indicative of a cosine function (Par. 7 two orthogonal displacement signals, sin(θ) and cos(θ)) when the two different sensing elements are aligned with the target (Par. 7 “the moving object”), and wherein each of the initial values of angles of rotation is calculated as an arctangent of a first signal value received from one of the sensing elements and a second signal value received from the other sensing element (Par. 7 “displacement position (θ) of the moving object is determined by taking the arctangent of the two orthogonal displacement signals”), the first signal value and the second signal value being received at the same time (Fig. 3, “Hall sensors displacement positions”, Par. 91 “N position sensors will detect N sequentially phase-delayed sinusoidal displacement signals in accordance with their positioned electrical phase angles as the rotor moves”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify the sensing element of Kollmitzer so that wherein the signal values are received by the controller from two different sensing elements that are placed orthogonally with respect to each other so that sensing by a first one of the sensing elements is indicative of a sine function and sensing by a second one of the sensing elements is indicative of a cosine function when the two different sensing elements are aligned with the target as taught by Park because Hall sensors are a durable sensor without much degradation in sensing performance over aging or usual temperature variations (Park Par. 85) leading to the obvious benefit of a more durable and accurate sensing element for a longer period of time. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to further modify Kollmitzer that wherein each of the initial values of angles of rotation is calculated as an arctangent of a first signal value received from one of the sensing elements and a second signal value received from the other sensing element, the first signal value and the second signal value being received at the same time as taught by Park to improve the resolution of the signals (Park Par. 7) thus leading to a more accurate signal determination.
In claim 18, Kollmitzer does not explicitly disclose the signal values representative of the target are provided by one or more of a giant magnetoresistor (GMR) field sensing element, a tunnel magnetoresistor (TMR) field sensing element, a Hall effect field sensing element, or a receiving coil field sensing element.
Park teaches the signal values representative of the target are provided by one or more of a giant magnetoresistor (GMR) field sensing element, a tunnel magnetoresistor (TMR) field sensing element, a Hall effect field sensing element, or a receiving coil field sensing element (Par. 7 “hall sensor”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have the signal values representative of the target of Kollmitzer be provided by one or more of a giant magnetoresistor (GMR) field sensing element, a tunnel magnetoresistor (TMR) field sensing element, a Hall effect field sensing element, or a receiving coil field sensing element as taught by Parker because Hall sensors are a durable sensor without much degradation in sensing performance over aging or usual temperature variations (Park Par. 85) leading to the obvious benefit of a more durable and accurate sensing element for a longer period of time.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kollmitzer in view of Duret (US 7983875 B2).
In claim 10, Kollmitzer does not explicitly discloses wherein identifying the signals of different frequencies comprises: computing a Fourier transform of the extracted speeds; and identifying from the extracted speeds a first signal having one period over a span of 360° and a second signal having two periods over a span of 360° based on the Fourier transform.
Duret teaches wherein identifying the signals of different frequencies comprises: computing a Fourier transform of the extracted speeds (Fig. 1a-c and 2a-c, Column 2 Lines 36-60 “1b and 1c are respectively temporal and spatial Fourier transform spectra of the curves of FIG. 1a”); identifying from the extracted speeds a first signal (See Fig. 2 Column 2 Lines 36-60 “Fourier transform spectra showing the variation in the spectrum line corresponding to the first harmonic”) having one period (Column 6 Lines 26-40 “a phenomenon of a spatial period greater than 0.6 mm which would disturb the speed” Fig. 2 examiner considers the signal to be said period) over a span of 360° (Column 2 Lines 36-60 “per revolution”) and a second signal having two periods over a span of 360° based on the Fourier transform (Fig. 1c, Column 6 Lines 26-40 “a phenomenon of a spatial period greater than 0.6 mm which would disturb the speed” examiner considers Fig. 1c to have at least two periods, Column 2 Lines 36-60 “per revolution”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to modify Kollmitzer to perform computing a Fourier transform of the extracted speeds; and identifying from the extracted speeds a first signal having one period over a span of 360° and a second signal having two periods over a span of 360° based on the Fourier transform based on the teachings of Duret in order to makes it possible to extract the individual spatial frequencies from the speed signal and to assign a respective amplitude to each of them (Duret Column 3 Lines 50-55) in order to improve the determination strategy (Duret Column 1 Lines 39-46) thus leading to a more accurate method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/B.J.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
