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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1, 6, and 11 are the independent claims. Claims 7-11 have been newly added. Claims 1 and 6 have been amended. This office action is in response to the Amendments received on 06/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 06/23/2026 “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Applicant's arguments according to the Applicant’s Remarks filed on, see pages 6-9 “Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C. § 102 Anticipation”, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to further recite the limitations “the first set region is fixedly set in a coordinate system based on the turning body regardless of a turning angle of the turning body, and the controller controls the operation of the traveling body by collating the position of the object with the first set region without performing coordinate transformation to a coordinate system based on the traveling body.”. Applicant argues that Doi does not teach the Element A and B according to the presented Remarks. As stated in the applicant’s Remarks, Element A refers to the feature of the first set region (i.e. A2) being fixedly set in a coordinate system based on the turning body regardless of the turning angle of the turning body. Doi’s disclosure teaches or suggested setting region around turning body that turns by turning the upper body, therefore examiner agrees that Doi does not teach the aforesaid limitation recited in Element A. Besides, Examiner agrees that Doi fails to disclose or suggest controlling the operation of the traveling body by collating the position of the object with the first set region, without performing coordinate transformation to a coordinate system based on the traveling body. In fact, Doi teaches converting the position of the obstacle wthrespect to the upper slewing body, according to at least [0008], [0075], [0079], [0099], [0123]), However, the new references relied upon for the rejection of claims 1, 6 and 11 (See Final Office Action below), teaches the newly added limitations. This is the office stance that the combination of Doi and the newly added references would be obvious to arrive at the claimed limitation. See the final office action below.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the below Office Action.
It is the Office’ stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi et al., US 20180347147 A1, hereinafter “Doi”, in view of Mori, JPH05331882A, hereinafter “Mori”.
Regarding claim 1, Doi discloses:
system to control a work machine including a traveling body and a turning body that can turn with respect to the traveling body (Abstract, [0001]),
the system comprising: a detection device that is attached to the turning body and detects an object present around the work machine ([0008], “detection device disposed on the upper slewing body to detect an obstacle existing around the upper slewing body;”);
and a controller that controls operation of the traveling body and the turning body of the work machine (at least for example, Abstract, [0008], “a movement control device configured to control the movement of the upper slewing body”, [0068], [0088], [0090], “The movement control section 442 controls the movement of at least one of the upper slewing body 14 and the lower travelling body 12”, [0102]), wherein the controller controls the operation of the traveling body on a basis of a position of the object detected by the detection device and a first set region ([0084], [0090], “the movement control section 442 controls the movement of at least one of the upper slewing body 14 and the lower travelling body 12, […] The movement control section 442 includes a speed reduction control section 4421 and a stop control section 4422.”, [0099], , Fig. 7: “S27”, [0103], [0105], [0106], [0126], “a region in which an obstacle exists in the speed reduction area 14A and the stop area 14B set”, __Examiner Note: According to the paragraph [0065] of instant specification, first set region is a lower travelling body stop region, therefore, stop area 14B disclosed by Doi, reads on first set region recited in the claim__),
and controls the operation of the turning body on a basis of the position of the object detected by the detection device and a second set region different from the first set region (Abstract, “The movement control device controls the movement of the upper slewing body in such a way as to prevent the upper slewing body from coming into contact with the obstacle based on the position of the obstacle relative to the virtual boundary surface,”, [0079], [0080], "virtual boundary surface” , Fig, 8A", __Examiner Note: According to the paragraph [0063] of instant specification, second set region is the upper turning body region, therefore, according to at least cited paragraphs of Doi, virtual boundary surface in Doi’s disclosure reads on second set region as recited in the claim__, [0101], [102], “he controller 44 specifies a movement of the upper slewing body 14 to be controlled, based on the position of the obstacle selected at step S21 relative to the virtual boundary surface 142,”, [0144], "The position of the obstacle relative to the upper slewing body may be identified in a two-dimensional coordinate system or in a three-dimensional coordinate system." [0149] [0151], "the virtual boundary surface is set outside the side surface of the upper slewing body in the plan view.", [0152] [0153]-[0156], __Examiner Note: according to at least cited paragraphs of Doi, the obstacle is detected relative to the virtual boundary surface and the turning/slewing body is controlled accordingly__)
Doi doesn’t teach or suggest:
the first set region is fixedly set in a coordinate system based on the turning body regardless of a turning angle of the turning body, and
the controller controls the operation of the traveling body by collating the position of the object with the first set region without performing coordinate transformation to a coordinate system based on the traveling body.
However, Mori discloses a safety device that detects a presence of an obstacle with a sensing area around a construction machine (See at least [0001]-[0002]) and teaches:
the first set region is fixedly set in a coordinate system based on the turning body regardless of a turning angle of the turning body (Fig. 10, and paragraph [0005]-[00036], Note: Circle 36 shows a sensing area with a fix radius and centered from the swivel body (reads on turning body). The represented circle 36 is independent from the turning angle of the swivel body instead it had a fix radius which is equal to the length of boom 34 attached to the swivel body and the bucket), and
the controller controls the operation of the traveling body by collating the position of the object with the first set region without performing coordinate transformation to a coordinate system based on the traveling body ([0005]-[0006], “If 37 represents a person or other obstacle that enters the circle 36, […] automatically preventing the upper swivel body from approaching or colliding with an obstacle 37.”, __Note: Mori does not detect the present of the obstacle based on coordinate system transformation technique, instead, it detects the presence of the obstacle relative to circle 36__).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Doi and Mori to arrive at the applicant’s claimed invention. Doi discloses a control technique for a working machine that detects an obstacle around a slewing body. Doi sets a virtual boundary surface outside the upper slewing body to track the position of an obstacle relative to that boundary. In Doi, this boundary surface aligns parallel to the upper slewing body. As a result, the system must constantly convert the position of the obstacle relative to a changing coordinate system as the slewing angle changes. In contrast, Mori teaches setting a detection region with a fixed radius around a slewing body that is independent of the turning angle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Doi’s boundary region to use a fixed circular area as taught by Mori, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for this combination would be to reduce computational load by eliminating the need to continuously convert obstacle positions based on a shifting coordinate system."
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Doi discloses wherein the detection device detects a position of the object in the coordinate system based on the turning body [0144], “The position of the obstacle relative to the upper slewing body may be identified in the two-dimensional coordinate system with the slewing center of the upper slewing body as the origin, for example.”) , and the controller performs control to limit a speed of the traveling body in a case of determining that the position of the object detected by the detection device in the coordinate system based on the turning body is present in the first set region ([0086], [0090], “The movement control section 442 controls the movement of at least one of the upper slewing body 14 and the lower travelling body 12, thereby causing the hydraulic excavator 10 to perform such a movement as to prevent the upper slewing body 14 from coming into contact with an obstacle. The movement control section 442 includes a speed reduction control section 4421 and a stop control section 4422.”, [0113], “restrain the lower travelling body 12 from advancing.”, [0091], “The speed reduction control section 4421 reduces the movement speed of the upper slewing body 14 when at least a part of an obstacle lies within the speed reduction area 14A.”, __Examiner Note: according to paragraph [0134] of Doi, it is disclosed that “the movement of the upper slewing body includes (1) a movement caused by travelling of the lower travelling body, (2) a movement caused by slewing of the upper slewing body with respect to the lower travelling body, and (3) a movement caused by both (1) and (2).”, therefore., reducing the movement speed of the upper slewing body includes reducing a movement speed caused by traveling of the lower travelling body, and also as cited, Doi discloses restraining lower body from advancing in response to the object detection which further meets the claimed limitation __).
Regarding claim 3, Doi discloses wherein the second set region is set in the coordinate system based on the turning body, and the controller performs control to limit a turn of the turning body in a case of determining that the position of the object detected by the detection device in the coordinate system based on the turning body is present in the second set region ([0090], [0096], “the slewing state (such as the slewing angle and the slewing direction) of the upper slewing body 14 with respect to the lower travelling body 12,”, [0106], [0107], “recognize the position of the obstacle in the two-dimensional coordinate system with the slewing center C1 of the upper slewing body 14 as the origin.”, [0109], [0149], [0151], "the virtual boundary surface is set outside the side surface of the upper slewing body in the plan view.", [0152], [0153]-[0156]).
Regarding claim 4, Doi discloses wherein the controller controls the traveling body to decelerate on a basis of the position of the object detected by the detection device and a third set region different from the first set region and the second set region and wider than the first set region, and the third set region is set in the coordinate system based on the turning body ([0104], “When at least a part of the obstacle lies within the speed reduction area 14A (step S23: YES), […] the controller 44 controls the operations of the first limiting valve 41 and the second limiting valve”, (__Examiner Note: controlling first and second limiting valve is for controlling the hydraulic motor speed (or travelling motor for driving the crawlers for moving the travelling body), that reads on controlling the travelling body to decelerate (See at least paragraphs [0044], and [0057]-[0062] of Doi)__), and paragraph [0126], “a region in which an obstacle exists in the speed reduction area 14A and the stop area 14B set around the upper slewing body 14, is displayed in a mode different from that of the other region, to indicate the position of the obstacle relative to the upper slewing body 14.”, [0090], “The movement control section 442 controls the movement of at least one of the upper slewing body 14 and the lower travelling body 12, thereby causing the hydraulic excavator 10 to perform such a movement as to prevent the upper slewing body 14 from coming into contact with an obstacle. The movement control section 442 includes a speed reduction control section 4421, [0091], “The speed reduction control section 4421 reduces the movement speed of the upper slewing body 14 when at least a part of an obstacle lies within the speed reduction area 14A.”, and also Fig. 8B, __ Examiner Note: According to paragraph [0066] of instant specification, third set region is a lower travelling body deceleration region, therefore, speed reduction area 14A disclosed by Doi, reads on third set region recited in the claim. Also, according to, at least Fig. 8B, area 14A is also wider than first region (region 14B) as claim further recites).
Regarding claim 5, Doi discloses wherein in the first set region, at least a part of an outer peripheral shape has an arc shape centered on an origin of the coordinate system based on the turning body (__Fig.12 shows regions 14A and 14B are a part of an arc shape centered on an origin of the coordinate system on turning body__).
Regarding claim 6, Doi discloses:
A method of controlling a work machine including a traveling body and a turning body that can turn with respect to the traveling body ([0001], [0002], Figs. 6 and 7),
the method comprising: detecting an object present around the work machine by a detection device attached to the turning body ([0008], “detection device disposed on the upper slewing body to detect an obstacle existing around the upper slewing body;”);
and controlling operation of the traveling body on a basis of a position of the object detected by the detection device and a first set region ([0084], [0099], [0102], “the controller 44 specifies a movement of the upper slewing body 14 to be controlled, based on the position of the obstacle selected at step S21 relative to the virtual boundary surface 142”, Fig. 7, S23, S27, [0103], [0105], [0126], “the stop area 14B”),
and controlling operation of the turning body on a basis of the position of the object detected by the detection device and a second set region different from the first set region by a controller that controls the operation of the traveling body and the turning body of the work machine (Abstract, “The movement control device controls the movement of the upper slewing body in such a way as to prevent the upper slewing body from coming into contact with the obstacle based on the position of the obstacle relative to the virtual boundary surface,”, [0079], [0080], "virtual boundary surface” , Fig, 8A", __Examiner Note: virtual boundary surface in Doi disclosure reads on second set region as recited in the claim__, [0101], [102], “he controller 44 specifies a movement of the upper slewing body 14 to be controlled, based on the position of the obstacle selected at step S21 relative to the virtual boundary surface 142,”, [0144], "The position of the obstacle relative to the upper slewing body may be identified in a two-dimensional coordinate system or in a three-dimensional coordinate system." [0149] [0151], "the virtual boundary surface is set outside the side surface of the upper slewing body in the plan view.", [0152] [0153]-[0156], __Examiner Note: according to at least cited paragraphs of Doi, the obstacle is detected relative to the virtual boundary surface and the turning/slewing body is controlled accordingly__).
Doi doesn’t teach or suggest:
Controlling the operation of the traveling body by collating the position of the object with the first set region without performing coordinate transformation to a coordinate system based on the traveling body, and
the first set region is fixedly set in a coordinate system based on the turning body regardless of a turning angle of the turning body.
However, Mori discloses a safety device that detects a presence of an obstacle with a sensing area around a construction machine (See at least [0001]-[0002]) and teaches:
controlling the operation of the traveling body by collating the position of the object with the first set region without performing coordinate transformation to a coordinate system based on the traveling body, ([0005]-[0006], “If 37 represents a person or other obstacle that enters the circle 36, […] automatically preventing the upper swivel body from approaching or colliding with an obstacle 37.”, __Note: Mori does not detect the present of the obstacle based on coordinate system transformation technique, instead, it detects the presence of the obstacle relative to circle 36__).
the first set region is fixedly set in a coordinate system based on the turning body regardless of a turning angle of the turning body (Fig. 11, and paragraph [0005]-[00036], Note: Circle 36 shows a sensing area with a fix radius and centered from the swivel body (reads on turning body). The represented circle 36 is independent from the turning angle of the swivel body instead it had a fix radius which is equal to the length of boom 34 attached to the swivel body and the bucket),
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Doi and Mori to arrive at the applicant’s claimed invention. Doi discloses a control technique for a working machine that detects an obstacle around a slewing body. Doi sets a virtual boundary surface outside the upper slewing body to track the position of an obstacle relative to that boundary. In Doi, this boundary surface aligns parallel to the upper slewing body. As a result, the system must constantly convert the position of the obstacle relative to a changing coordinate system as the slewing angle changes. In contrast, Mori teaches setting a detection region with a fixed radius around a slewing body that is independent of the turning angle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Doi’s boundary region to use a fixed circular area as taught by Mori, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for this combination would be to reduce computational load by eliminating the need to continuously convert obstacle positions based on a shifting coordinate system.
Regarding claim 8, Doi in view of Mori teaches the system according to claim 1, however, Doi doesn’t teach or suggest wherein the first set region is a circular region centered on an origin of the coordinate system based on the turning body.
However, Mori teaches wherein the first set region is a circular region centered on an origin of the coordinate system based on the turning body (Fig. 10, circle 36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Doi and Mori to arrive at the applicant's claimed invention, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 (paragraph 14 of the present office action). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Doi by using a circular detection region as taught by Mori. Specifically, a circular detection region corresponds to the rotational symmetry of a heavy machine's turning body. This configuration effectively covers the rotation of the turning body in a uniform area without requiring complex coordinate transformations.
Claim 9 and 11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi, in view of Mori, , further in view of Kameoka, US12104360B2, hereinafter “Kameoka”.
Regarding claims 9, Doi in view of Mori teaches the system according to claim 1, and Regarding claim 11, Doi discloses:
A system to control a work machine including a traveling body and a turning body that can turn with respect to the traveling body (Abstract, [0001]),
the system comprising: a detection device that is attached to the turning body and detects a position of an object present around the work machine in a coordinate system based on the turning body (([0008], “detection device disposed on the upper slewing body to detect an obstacle existing around the upper slewing body;”, “identify a position of the obstacle detected by the at least one detection device relatively to the upper slewing body;”, [0075], [0077]); and
a controller that controls operation of the traveling body and the turning body of the work machine (at least for example, Abstract, [0008], “a movement control device configured to control the movement of the upper slewing body”, [0068], [0088], [0090], “The movement control section 442 controls the movement of at least one of the upper slewing body 14 and the lower travelling body 12”, [0102]),
wherein the controller controls the operation of the traveling body on a basis of a position of the object in the coordinate system based on the turning body detected by the detection device and a first set region ([0084], [0090], “the movement control section 442 controls the movement of at least one of the upper slewing body 14 and the lower travelling body 12, […] The movement control section 442 includes a speed reduction control section 4421 and a stop control section 4422.”, [0099], , Fig. 7: “S27”, [0103], [0105], [0106], [0126], “a region in which an obstacle exists in the speed reduction area 14A and the stop area 14B set”, __Examiner Note: According to the paragraph [0065] of instant specification, first set region is a lower travelling body stop region, therefore, stop area 14B disclosed by Doi, reads on first set region recited in the claim__),
and controls the operation of the turning body on a basis of the position of the object in the coordinate system based on the turning body detected by the detection device, the first set region, and a second set region (Abstract, “The movement control device controls the movement of the upper slewing body in such a way as to prevent the upper slewing body from coming into contact with the obstacle based on the position of the obstacle relative to the virtual boundary surface,”, [0079], [0080], "virtual boundary surface” , Fig, 8A", __Examiner Note: According to the paragraph [0063] of instant specification, second set region is the upper turning body region, therefore, according to at least cited paragraphs of Doi, virtual boundary surface in Doi’s disclosure reads on second set region as recited in the claim__, [0101], [102], “he controller 44 specifies a movement of the upper slewing body 14 to be controlled, based on the position of the obstacle selected at step S21 relative to the virtual boundary surface 142,”, [0144], "The position of the obstacle relative to the upper slewing body may be identified in a two-dimensional coordinate system or in a three-dimensional coordinate system." [0149] [0151], "the virtual boundary surface is set outside the side surface of the upper slewing body in the plan view.", [0152] [0153]-[0156], __Examiner Note: according to at least cited paragraphs of Doi, the obstacle is detected relative to the virtual boundary surface and region 14A and 14B and the turning/slewing body and traveling body is controlled accordingly__),
the first set region and the second set region are regions that (Fig. 5, [0077], [0038], [0085], “predetermined area”, [0144], “The position of the obstacle relative to the upper slewing body may be identified in a two-dimensional coordinate system or in a three-dimensional coordinate system. The position of the obstacle relative to the upper slewing body may be identified in the two-dimensional coordinate system with the slewing center of the upper slewing body as the origin, for example.”, according to also mapping in claim 1, first and second region recited in the claim reads on …and….in Doi’s disclosure),
Doi does not teach the first region, and second region are regions that surrounds a periphery of the turning body and the first set region is a region that surrounds an entire circumference of the turning body (i.e. features recited in claim 11).
However, Mori teaches
the first region and second region surround a periphery of the turning body, the first set region is a region that surrounds an entire circumference of the turning body (Mori, Fig. 10),
Also, Doi does not explicitly teaches the following claimed features of claims 9 and 11, i.e. the second set region is a region surrounded by a straight portion located on a front side of a front end portion of the turning body, a straight portion located on a left side of a left side end portion of the turning body, a straight portion located on a right side of a right side end portion of the turning body, and an arc portion located on a rear side of a rear end portion of the turning body and centered on a turning axis of the turning body.
However, Kameoka teaches:
the second set region is a region surrounded by a straight portion located on a front side of a front end portion of the turning body, a straight portion located on a left side of a left side end portion of the turning body, a straight portion located on a right side of a right side end portion of the turning body, and an arc portion located on a rear side of a rear end portion of the turning body and centered on a turning axis of the turning body (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Doi, Mori and Kameoka to arrive at the applicant’s claimed invention recited in claims 9 and 11. Doi discloses a control technique for a working machine that detects an obstacle around a slewing/turning body of a working machine. Doi sets a virtual boundary surface a determination area (14A, and 14B) outside the upper slewing body to track the position of an obstacle relative to the machine. In Doi, this boundary surface aligns parallel to the upper slewing body and the determination areas does not surrounds the turning body (just a part of it), While Mori teaches setting a detection region with a fixed radius surrounding a slewing body and Kameoka teaches claimed feature regarding the shape and location of the determination areas. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Doi’s boundary region to use a circular area surrounding the turning body as taught by Mori and further set areas in the front right and left and rear of the turning body, as taught by Kameoka, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for this combination would be increasing the accuracy of the obstacle determination system by monitoring the areas surrounding the machine and further reducing the computational load by considering a circular area where the obstacle position information does not need to be obtained by coordinate system conversion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi, in view of Mori, further in view of Ramasamy et al., US20220187823A1, hereinafter “Ramasamy”.
Regarding claim 10, Doi in view of Mori teaches the system according to claim 1, however, it doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the controller maintains a state in which a turn of the turning body is limited even after the object comes out of the second set region until a cancellation operation by an operator is detected, and maintains a state in which an operation of the traveling body is limited even after the object comes out of the first set region until a cancellation operation by an operator is detected.
Ramasamy teaches wherein the controller maintains a state in which a turn of the turning body is limited even after the object comes out of the second set region until a cancellation operation by an operator is detected, and maintains a state in which an operation of the traveling body is limited even after the object comes out of the first set region until a cancellation operation by an operator is detected. (Note: according to at least [0026], Ramasamy teaches that the user must acknowledge the alert before resuming the operation, which reads on the feature of claimed invention).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Doi and Mori to arrive at the applicant's claimed invention, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 (paragraph 14 of the present office action). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to further modify Doi to include the requirement of an operator’s involvement for resuming the operation, after the machine’s operation been restricted by the controller and after the object is no longer in the area, as taught by Ramasamy, with a reasonable expectation of success, with motivation of increasing the safety.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HAJAR HASSANIARDEKANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8 am-5 pm ET.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 5712707429. 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.
/H.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights