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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the title of the invention, the Examiner discussed the reason why the current title is not descriptive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The claimed invention directed to more than a simple robot system and robot control device. Therefore, the present title of the invention merely describe the general field of the invention and is not descriptive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 15. A robot control device comprising:
at least one memory ;
at least one processor,
wherein the at least one memory stores a first reference load profile, and
the at least one processor is configured to
read the first reference load profile from the at least one memory when an execution instruction of a program is received,
acquire a load acting on a robot and detected by a sensor during the execution of the program,
determine a magnitude of an external force acting on the robot based on the first reference load profile and the load, and
store, in the at least one memory, the load as a second reference load profile in association with the progress of the program according to an external force determination result.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of determine a magnitude of an external force acting on the robot based on the first reference load profile and the load. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data obtained, analyzing the data and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a processor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of
at least one memory;
at least one processor,
wherein the at least one memory stores a first reference load profile, and
the at least one processor is configured to
read the first reference load profile from the at least one memory when an execution instruction of a program is received,
acquire a load acting on a robot and detected by a sensor during the execution of the program,
store, in the at least one memory, the load as a second reference load profile in association with the progress of the program according to an external force determination result.
The robot, robot control device and the sensor are merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose robotic control environment, i.e. a robot having generic control and sensor. The recording processing unit configured to store data, the storage unit, and the determination unit recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of processing and storing data obtained by a processor), merely storing and processing data. The memory merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments using a generic or general-purpose data storage medium, i.e. a computer readable data storage device. The specification does not provide any indication that the memory is anything other than a conventional computer readable data storage device within a robot. The read the profile from the memory and acquire a load detected by the sensor are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering related data for use in the determining step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, The robot, robot control device and the sensor are merely describe applying generic components and the recording processing unit, storage unit and determination unit are general processing and memory storage in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that a robot work environment that includes a robot, control, sensor that detect forces, the processing and storing of obtained data in memory are known, and the specification does not provide any indication that the robot, processing unit and storage unit is anything other than a conventional processor in a robotic environment. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere transmitting of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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(s) 1-6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotou (US 2016/0075031 A1) and Hamaya et al. (US 2024/0083023 A1).
For claims 1 and 13, Gotou discloses a robot system comprising:
a robot; a robot control device that controls the robot (Fig. 1, 2, where the robot system includes a robot and control device controlling the robot); and
a sensor capable of detecting information on a force acting on the robot (Fig. 2, 8, abstract, para. 0011, 0080),
wherein the robot control device includes a recording processing unit configured to store a first reference load profile in a storage unit (Para. 0044-0046, where the force and mass property of the robot is stored in advance, which is the reference load profile of the robot), and
a determination unit configured to determine at least a presence or absence of an external force acting on the robot based on the first reference load profile read from the storage unit when an execution instruction of a program is received and a load acting on the robot and detected by the sensor during the execution of the program (Para. 0015, 0016, 0075, 0076, 0079, where the external force and associate with type of article are received from storage information and it is determined the presence or absence of the external force acting on the robot by the article based on the reference data stored and the sensed data), and
the recording processing unit stores, in the storage unit, the load as a second reference load profile in association with the progress of the program according to a state of the external force (Para. 0015, 0016, 0079, where the storage unit store data indicative of the relationship of the article held by the robot and the external force acting on the robot, is storing the updated load data or profile to the storage unit). It is noted the present claimed limitations are very broad and have been given its BRI and read on by the same concept disclosed by Gotou.
Gotou does not specifically disclose wherein the robot is controlled by the robot control device according to temporal change based on the second reference load profile and the load acting on the robot detected by the sensor. Hamaya in the same field of the art discloses the robot is controlled by the robot control device according to temporal change based on the second reference load profile and the load acting on the robot detected by the sensor (Fig. 1, 9, abstract, para. 0006, 0012, 0021, 0092-0094, where the external force model is updated over temporal changes for robot operations). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Gotou to control by the robot control device according to temporal change based on the second reference load profile and the load acting on the robot detected by the sensor, as taught by Hamaya to update the force model to reduce difference between predicted and actual values.
For claim 2, Gotou discloses the robot system according to claim 1, wherein the second reference load profile is a total of the first reference load profile and the external force (Para. 0044, 0045, where though Gotou is not explicitly utilize the term total relate to the load profile, “the external force acting on the hand 21 is calculated by subtracting a force applied to the force sensor …” implies that the measured force acted and measured by the force sensor is the total force of the initial mass of the robot hand and the external force acting on the robot hand).
For claim 3, Gotou discloses the robot system according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the determination unit determines that the external force is a predetermined threshold or less, the recording processing unit stores the load as the second reference load profile in the storage unit (Para. 0015, 0075, 0076, 0079, where the storage unit store the measured external force detected by the force sensor together with other measured data, which includes external forces acted on the robot that are at or below predetermined threshold).
For claim 4, Gotou disclose the robot system according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the determination unit determines that the external force is greater than the predetermined threshold, operation of the robot is stopped (Para. 0058, 0061, 0069, where if force acting on the robot exceeds predetermined threshold, the operation of the robot is terminated, stopped, prevent overload situation).
For claim 5, Gotou discloses the robot system according to claim 1, wherein instead of the first reference load profile, the recording processing unit stores, as a new reference load profile, the second reference load profile in the storage unit (Para. 0015, 0075, 0076, 0079, where the storage unit continuously stores force and load data into the storage unit).
For claim 6, Gotou discloses the robot system according to claim 1, wherein the first reference load profile is a reference load profile storing a change in the load in association with a performed work after the robot has been operated in advance based on a work program in a state in which no unintended interference between the robot and a surrounding thereof is caused (Para. 0047, where the robot control unit operates predetermined program or detected information executing the holding and moving operations).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotou (US 2016/0075031 A1), Hamaya et al. (US 2024/0083023 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiltz et al. (US 2024/0017427 A1).
For claim 7, Gotou discloses the robot system according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein the first reference load profile is a reference load profile storing a change in a load acting on the robot and calculated in advance by execution of simulation of a work of the robot based on a work program. Hiltz in the same field of the art discloses the first reference load profile is a reference load profile storing a change in a load acting on the robot and calculated in advance by execution of simulation of a work of the robot based on a work program (Para. 0005, 0012, 0054, 0090, where simulation of the work of the robot are performed). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Gotou to include the first reference load profile being a reference load profile storing a change in a load acting on the robot and calculated in advance by execution of simulation of a work of the robot based on a work program, as taught by Hiltz to reduce cost and improve the safety of operating the robot with well known simulations and referenced operating parameters.
For claim 8, Gotou discloses the robot system according to claim 1, wherein the robot is stopped due to erroneous detection of unintended interference between the robot and a surrounding thereof after the robot has been operated based on a work program (Para. 0058, 0061, 0069), but does not specifically disclose the first reference load profile is a reference load profile storing a change in the load until the robot is stopped due to erroneous detection of unintended interference. Hiltz in the same field of the art discloses the first reference load profile is a reference load profile storing a change in the load until the robot is stopped due to erroneous detection of unintended interference (Abstract, para. 0005, 0008, 0124, where the reference trajectory is the reference load profile storing the change in the load relate to the robot). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Gotou to include the first reference load profile is a reference load profile storing a change in the load until the robot is stopped due to erroneous detection of unintended interference, as taught by Hiltz to monitor the robot operations and improve safety reacting when unexpected condition is met.
For claim 9, Gotou discloses the robot system according to claim 1, wherein the robot is stopped due to erroneous detection of unintended interference between the robot and a surrounding thereof after the robot has been operated based on a work program and a load acting on the robot at a time of the erroneous detection (Para. 0058, 0061, 0069), but does not specifically disclose the first reference load profile is a reference load profile storing a change in the load until the robot is stopped due to erroneous detection of unintended interference. Hiltz in the same field of the art discloses the first reference load profile is a reference load profile storing a change in the load until the robot is stopped due to erroneous detection of unintended interference (Abstract, para. 0005, 0008, 0124, where the reference trajectory is the reference load profile storing the change in the load relate to the robot). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Gotou to include the first reference load profile is a reference load profile storing a change in the load until the robot is stopped due to erroneous detection of unintended interference, as taught by Hiltz to monitor the robot operations and improve safety reacting when unexpected condition is met.
For claim 11, Gotou discloses the robot system according to claim 1, wherein the robot is stopped due to erroneous detection of unintended interference between the robot and a surrounding thereof after the robot has been operated based on a work program (Para. 0058, 0061, 0069), but does not specifically disclose the first reference load profile is a combination of any two or more of a reference load profile storing a change in the load in association with a performed work after the robot has been operated in advance based on a work program in a state in which no unintended interference between the robot and a surrounding thereof is caused, a reference load profile storing a change in a load acting on the robot and calculated in advance by execution of simulation of a work of the robot based on the work program, and a reference load profile storing a change in the load until the robot is stopped due to erroneous detection of the unintended interference. Hiltz in the same field of the art discloses a reference load profile storing a change in the load in association with a performed work after the robot has been operated in advance based on a work program in a state in which no unintended interference between the robot and a surrounding thereof is caused, a reference load profile storing a change in a load acting on the robot and calculated in advance by execution of simulation of a work of the robot based on the work program (Para. 0005, 0012, 0054, 0090, where simulation of the work of the robot are performed), and a reference load profile storing a change in the load until the robot is stopped due to erroneous detection of the unintended interference (Abstract, para. 0005, 0008, 0124, where the reference trajectory is the reference load profile storing the change in the load relate to the robot). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Gotou to include a reference load profile storing a change in the load in association with a performed work after the robot has been operated in advance based on a work program in a state in which no unintended interference between the robot and a surrounding thereof is caused, a reference load profile storing a change in a load acting on the robot and calculated in advance by execution of simulation of a work of the robot based on the work program, and a reference load profile storing a change in the load until the robot is stopped due to erroneous detection of the unintended interference, as taught by Hiltz to reduce cost and improve the safety of operating the robot with well-known simulations and referenced operating parameters and monitor the robot operations and improve safety reacting when unexpected condition is met.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotou (US 2016/0075031 A1), Hamaya et al. (US 2024/0083023 A1) and Hiltz et al. (US 2024/0017427 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Nagasaki (US 2021/0302940 A1).
For claim 10, Gotou, as modified, discloses the robot system according to claim 8, but does not specifically disclose an input unit, wherein in a case where after stop of the robot, it is confirmed that the stop is due to the erroneous detection, safety of the robot is confirmed, and the input unit receives an instruction for resuming a work of the robot, the determination unit corrects, using the first reference load profile, a load acting on the robot after the stop. Nagasaki in the same field of the art discloses an input unit, wherein in a case where after stop of the robot, it is confirmed that the stop is due to the erroneous detection, safety of the robot is confirmed, and the input unit receives an instruction for resuming a work of the robot (Para. 0051, 0055, 0087, 0088, where the user confirms the state of the robot and instruct the resume work of the robot), the determination unit corrects, using the first reference load profile, a load acting on the robot after the stop (Para. 0052, where the robot is commanded to return to the origin in predetermined postures without gripping anything, corrects the load acting on the robot in accordance to the initial load profile after the stop). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Gotou to include an input unit, wherein in a case where after stop of the robot, it is confirmed that the stop is due to the erroneous detection, safety of the robot is confirmed, and the input unit receives an instruction for resuming a work of the robot, the determination unit corrects, using the first reference load profile, a load acting on the robot after the stop, as taught by Nagasaki to appropriately and safely restore the operations of the robot to perform correct tasks.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotou (US 2016/0075031 A1) and Hamaya et al. (US 2024/0083023 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saunders et al. (US 2021/0178604 A1) and Sakano (US 2014/0156066 A1).
For claim 12, Gotou discloses the robot system according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose the load includes a correction value for at least one of
a weight and/or a load due to acceleration and deceleration of a mechanism of the robot,
a weight and/or a load due to acceleration and deceleration of an end effector of the robot including a hand, and
a weight and/or a load due to acceleration and deceleration of a workpiece held by the hand,
and an offset of the sensor.
Saunders in the same field of the art discloses the load includes a correction value for at least one of a weight and/or a load due to acceleration and deceleration of a mechanism of the robot (Para. 0080, where the load due to acceleration of the robot end effector together with the object/workpiece includes correction value for motion associate with the object/workpiece). Sakano also in the same field of the art discloses an offset of the sensor (Para. 0047). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Gotou to include a correction value for a weight and/or a load due to acceleration and deceleration of a mechanism of the robot, as taught by Saunders and an offset of the sensor, as taught by Sakano to reduce or mitigate unsafe operating condition of the robot accounting for offsets and biases in measurements.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gotou (US 2016/0075031 A1), Hamaya et al. (US 2024/0083023 A1) and Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
For claims 14 and 15, Gotou discloses a robot control device comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor (Fig. 1, 2, where the robot system includes a robot and control device controlling the robot),
wherein the at least one memory stores a first reference load profile (Para. 0044-0046, where the force and mass property of the robot is stored in advance, which is the reference load profile of the robot), and
the at least one processor is configured to read from the storage unit when an execution instruction of a program is received (Para. 0015, 0016, 0075, 0076, 0079, where the external force and associate with type of article are received from storage information and it is determined the presence or absence of the external force acting on the robot by the article based on the reference data stored and the sensed data),
acquire a load acting on a robot and detected by a sensor during the execution of the program (Fig. 2, 8, abstract, para. 0011, 0080), determine a value of an external force acting on the robot based on the first reference load profile and the load (Para. 0075, 0076, 0079, where it is determined the presence or absence of the external force acting on the robot by the article based on the reference data stored and the sensed data), and
store, in the at least one memory, the load as a second reference load profile in association with the progress of the program according to an external force determination result (Para. 0015, 0016, 0079, where the storage unit store data indicative of the relationship of the article held by the robot and the external force acting on the robot, is storing the updated load data or profile to the storage unit). It is noted the present claimed limitations are very broad and have been given its BRI and read on by the same concept disclosed by Gotou.
Gotou does not explicitly disclose a magnitude of the external force acting on the robot is determined. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the value of the external force acted on the robot provides a positive value based on the measured force by the sensor (Para. 0075, 0076, 0079) may be considered a magnitude of the force parameter. Even so, Applicant acknowledges in the background in the art (Para. 0002-0003) in the originally filed disclosure that the magnitude of force detected by the sensor associate with the external force act on the robot is well known to be measured and used for the robot operations.
Gotou does not specifically disclose wherein the robot is controlled by the robot control device according to temporal change based on the second reference load profile and the load acting on the robot detected by the sensor. Hamaya in the same field of the art discloses the robot is controlled by the robot control device according to temporal change based on the second reference load profile and the load acting on the robot detected by the sensor (Fig. 1, 9, abstract, para. 0006, 0012, 0021, 0092-0094, where the external force model is updated over temporal changes for robot operations). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the invention of Gotou to control by the robot control device according to temporal change based on the second reference load profile and the load acting on the robot detected by the sensor, as taught by Hamaya to update the force model to reduce difference between predicted and actual values.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 11,839,979) Rosenlund et al. discloses a robot arm system monitoring the force and load of the robot arm and determine the presence of external forces.
(US 2022/0253058 A1) Watanabe et al. discloses a mobile object control system determining work environment and force sensing values relate to external forces.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sze-Hon Kong whose telephone number is (571)270-1503. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-5 PM Mon-Fri.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/SZE-HON KONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657