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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the notion of the claims does refer to the same invention, and claim 1 of the current application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439 anticipates claim 1 of the current application because it includes all of the limitations of the current application.
Below is a limitation mapping between claim 1 of the current application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439.
Current Application (18/704,049)
U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439
A method, comprising: receiving an image featuring a container, the image including a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) image data;
A method for assessing trailer utilization, comprising: capturing an image featuring a trailer, wherein the image includes a plurality of three- dimensional (3D) image data;
segmenting the image into a plurality of regions;
segmenting the image into a plurality of regions;
for each region of the plurality of regions:
for each region of the plurality of regions:
cropping the image to exclude 3D image data that exceeds a respective forward distance threshold corresponding to a respective region,
cropping the image to exclude 3D image data that exceeds a respective forward distance threshold corresponding to a respective region,
iterating, using a utilization algorithm, over each 3D image data point of the cropped image,
iterating, using a utilization algorithm, over each 3D image data point of the cropped image
determining, based on the iteration, one of that a matching point is not included for a respective 3D image data point of the cropped image or that a matching point is included for a respective 3D image data point of the cropped image,
to determine whether or not a matching point is included for each 3D image data point of the cropped image, responsive to determining that a matching point is not included for a respective 3D image data point of the cropped image,
adding the respective 3D image data point to the respective region, responsive to determining that a matching point is included for a respective 3D image data point of the cropped image, adding the respective 3D image data point or the matching point to the respective region based on a position of the respective 3D image data point,
calculating a normalized height of the respective region based on whether a gap is present in the respective region; and
calculating a normalized height of the respective region based on whether or not a gap is present in the respective region; and
creating a 3D model visualization of the trailer that depicts trailer utilization based on the 3D image data included in each respective region and the normalized height of each respective region.
generating a 3D model visualization of the container depicting container utilization based on the 3D image data included in each respective region and the normalized height of each respective region.
With respect to “an image featuring a container” in the current application, U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439 teaches “an image featuring a trailer”. A trailer is a specific type of container, therefore, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439 teaches the limitation “an image featuring a container”.
With respect to “receiving an image” claimed in the current application, U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439 teaches “capturing an image.” Since an image is received by a system after it has been captured, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439 teaches the limitation “receiving an image”.
Therefore, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 of the current application.
Current Application
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439
1
2, 3
4
5
6
7
8
9, 10
11
Part 1 of claim mapping between the current application and U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439
Current Application
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Part 2 of claim mapping between the current application and U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439
Current Application
19
20
21
U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439
1
8
15
Part 3 of claim mapping between the current application and U.S. Patent No. 11,763,439
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pages 9-12, paragraphs [0004]-[0012] should be [0046]-[0054], and paragraphs [0046]-[0086] from pages 12-24 should be paragraphs [0055]-[0095].
On page 9, paragraph [0045], line 29, “other app” should be “another app”.
On page 16, paragraph [0064], line 26, “does not indicates” should be “does not indicate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Due to the limited definition in the applicant’s specifications regarding “matching point”, the examiner interprets “matching point” as a point in a region where an object occupies a space in the container. The examiner acknowledges that “matching point” is described in the specifications based on its usage, such as “whether or not any matching points exist between subsequent slices of the same region” [0059], and “the matching point should be included in the composite point cloud representation of the respective region as the forward most point within the respective region at the x, y coordinates shared by the 3D image data point and the matching point” [0060]. The “matching point” is further mentioned from paragraphs [0057]-[0065]. However, as there is no explicit definition to “matching point”, the examiner interprets “occlusion” as “matching point” in the prior art rejection based on this interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, claim 1 recites “a matching point” in both lines 10 and 11. As both lines 10 and 11 recite “a matching point”, it cannot be determined whether the “a matching point” in line 10 is referring to the same “a matching point” in line 11. A change should be made such that if “a matching point” in line 11 Is different from “a matching point” in line 10, there should be a “first matching point” and “second matching point” in order to establish a distinction between them.
The same indefinite argument for claim 1 is made for claim 7, as claim 7 recites “a matching point” in both lines 15 and 16-17.
The same indefinite argument for claim 1 is made for claim 13, as claim 13 recites “a matching point” in both lines 11-12 and 12.
In regards to claim 3, claim 3 recites “a matching point” in line 2. As claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, it cannot be determined whether the “a matching point” in line 2 of claim 3 refers to the same “a matching point” of either lines 10 or 11 of claim 1. A change should be made such that if “a matching point” in line 2 of claim 3 is different from “a matching point” of lines 10 and 11, this “a matching point” should be a “third matching point” in order to establish a distinction between them.
The same indefinite argument for claim 3 is made for claim 9 as dependent on claim 7, and claim 9 recites “a matching point” in line 3.
The same indefinite argument for claim 3 is made for claim 15 as dependent on claim 13, and claim 15 recites “a matching point” in line 3,
In regards to claim 19, claim 3 recites “a matching point” in line 2. As claim 19 is dependent on claim 1, it cannot be determined whether the “a matching point” in line 2 of claim 3 refers to the same “a matching point” of either lines 10 or 11 of claim 1. A change should be made such that if “a matching point” in line 2 of claim 3 is different from “a matching point” of lines 10 and 11, this “a matching point” should be a “third matching point” in order to establish a distinction between them.
The same indefinite argument for claim 19 is made for claim 20 as dependent on claim 7, and claim 9 recites “a matching point” in line 3.
The same indefinite argument for claim 19 is made for claim 21 as dependent on claim 13, and claim 15 recites “a matching point” in line 3.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-20, and 14-21 incorporate independent claim deficiency from claims 1, 7, and 13 and thus also rejected under 112(b).
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korobov et al. (US 2019/0355144, hereinafter Korobov) in view of Krishnamurthy et al. (US 2019/0197455, hereinafter Krishnamurthy-1), and further in view of Krishnamurthy et al. (US 2019/0197701, hereinafter Krishnamurthy-2).
In regards to claim 1, Korobov teaches a method, comprising: ([Abstract] “A method of determining a location for placement of a package in an imaging controller”)
receiving an image featuring a container, the image including a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) image data; ([0017] “the imaging device 103 is deployed to capture image data and depth data of the package space 110”, where package space 110 is the container as seen in Fig. 1)
segmenting the image into a plurality of regions; ([0064] “The package placement module 208 then segments the package wall 112 into regions 915 of the occupancy matrix”, where “the unobstructed depth data represents the package space 110 including package wall 112, and a package clutter portion 905”)
for each region of the plurality of regions: cropping the image to exclude 3D image data that exceeds a respective forward distance threshold corresponding to a respective region, ([0062] “The package placement module 208 identifies the points of the unobstructed depth data having a smaller distance than the distance threshold. These points define the package clutter portion 905.” Note: as the package clutter portion 905 is the region within a distance threshold, that would require excluding the region outside of the distance threshold.)
iterating, using a utilization algorithm, over each 3D image data point of the cropped image, ([0048] “The occlusion detector may include a GPU employing machine learning algorithm”, where “At block 325… the occlusion handler 204, is configured to determine if an occlusion was detected in a threshold number of prior sets of depth data” [0056], and “the occlusion handler 204 tracks the occlusion over successive performances of the method 300, via capture of separate frames” [0044], also seen in the feedback loop of Fig. 3)
determining, based on the iteration, one of that a matching point is not included for a respective 3D image data point of the cropped image ([0056] “if at block 325, no occlusion is detected for a threshold number of sets of depth data, it may be reasonably assumed that no occlusion is present”)
or that a matching point is included for a respective 3D image data point of the cropped image, ([0047] “the occlusion handler 204 provides the cropped image data 710 to the occlusion detector to generate a preliminary region 715 approximating the location of an occlusion”).
Korobov fails to teach calculating a normalized height of the respective region based on whether a gap is present in the respective region. However, this is taught in the art as taught by Krishnamurthy-1. Krishnamurthy-1 teaches calculating a normalized height of the respective region based on whether a gap is present in the respective region ([0044] “estimating missing points in data slices may include scanning each data slice for gaps in a data arrangement, and calculating an approximate number of missing points for each data slice”, where “calculate the load-efficiency score by calculating a ratio of the number of points that are part of a wall to a summation of the number of points behind the wall and an approximated number of missing points.” [0046]. Note: the examiner interprets “load-efficiency score” as “normalized height”, as the specifications describe “normalized height” as “percentages representing the utilization of multiple horizontal subsections of the region” [0068]).
Krishnamurthy-1 is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to calculating trailer utilization efficiency. Krishnamurthy-1 further teaches an invention to solve the problem of prior approaches to calculating trailer load efficiency, where “[an] approach fails to pin-point where gaps in the packing of the trailer occur” [0001], therefore “there is a need for a way to compute package wall density in the commercial trailer loading industry” [0002]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Krishnamurthy-1 to Korobov in order to account for gaps between packages when calculating for load efficiency of the container.
The combination of Korobov and Krishnamurthy-1 fails to teach generating a 3D model visualization of the container depicting container utilization based on the 3D image data included in each respective region and the normalized height of each respective region. However, this is known in the art as taught by Krishnamurthy-2. Krishnamurthy-2 teaches generating a 3D model visualization of the container depicting container utilization based on the 3D image data included in each respective region and the normalized height of each respective region ([0041] “Once the process is complete, a graphical representation, such as trailer view 500, may be generated to show the specific dimensions, depths, or other metrics of each package wall loaded and constructed within vehicle storage area 102s.”).
Krishnamurthy-2 is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to tracking the efficiency of packing trailers. Krishnamurthy-2 further teaches that “dashboard app to receive the image data and/or the post-scanning data and display such data, e.g., in graphical or other format, to manager 206 to facilitate the unloading or loading of packages” [0027]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Krishnamurthy-2 to the combination of Korobov and Krishnamurthy-1 in order for users to be able to receive visual information of container utilization to be able to better facilitate packing efficiency.
Claim 7 has substantially similar limitations to claim 1, but in a system form. The combination of Korobov, Krishnamurthy-1, and Krishnamurthy-2 teaches a system, comprising: a housing; (Korobov; [0016] “The system 100 is deployed, in the illustrated example, in a package space 110 for loading packages”)
an imaging assembly at least partially within the housing and configured to capture an image featuring a container, the image including a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) image data; (Korobov; [0016] “a computing device 101 in communication with an imaging device 103”, where “the imaging device 103 is deployed to capture image data and depth data of the package space 110” [0017])
one or more processors; ([Korobov; [0018] “the computing device 101 includes a special purpose imaging controller, such as a processor 120, specifically designed to control the imaging device 103 to capture data”
and a non-transitory computer-readable memory coupled to the imaging assembly and the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (Korobov; [0019] “The processor 120 is interconnected with a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, such as the above-mentioned memory 122, having stored thereon computer readable instructions for executing control of the device 101 to capture data”).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 has substantially similar limitations to claim 1, but in a medium form. The combination of Korobov, Krishnamurthy-1, and Krishnamurthy-2 teaches a tangible machine-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause a machine to at least: (Korobov; [0021] “The memory 122 stores a plurality of applications, each including a plurality of computer readable instructions executable by the processor 120. The execution of the above-mentioned instructions by the processor 120 configures the computing device 101 to perform various actions described herein.”).
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korobov (US 2019/0355144) in view of Krishnamurthy-1 (US 2019/0197455) and Krishnamurthy-2 (US 2019/0197701), and further in view of Christopher (“K-Nearest Neighbor”).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Korobov, Krishnamurthy-1, and Krishnamurthy-2 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each region of the plurality of regions is defined by a length of the container divided by an average box depth loaded within the container (Korobov; Fig. 5, where [0040] “each of the segmented package walls 501-510 includes a corresponding package wall depth”, and “As described herein, a package wall is generally defined by a stack of boxes sharing at least one common or approximately common depth or dimension.” [0040]).
The combination of Korobov, Krishnamurthy-1, and Krishnamurthy-2 fails to teach the utilization algorithm is a K-nearest neighbor searching algorithm. However, this is known in the art as taught by Christopher. Christopher teaches that it is known in the art of learning algorithms to use K-nearest neighbor searching algorithm for classification, which in this case would be used to classify a 3D data point as a matching point (“The KNN algorithm calculates the probability of the test data belonging to the classes of ‘K’ training data and class holds the highest probability will be selected” [par. 1, lines 5-7]). Christopher further teaches that “With the help of K-NN, we can easily identify the category or class of a particular dataset” [par. 4, lines 4-5]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Christopher to the combination of Korobov, Krishnamurthy-1, and Krishnamurthy-2, as the K-nearest neighbor algorithm is specialized to classify data points in a given set of data.
Claim 8 has substantially similar limitations to claim 2, therefore, will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 14 has substantially similar limitations to claim 2, therefore, will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korobov et al. (US 2019/0355144, hereinafter Korobov) in view of Krishnamurthy-1 (US 2019/0197455) and Krishnamurthy-2 (US 2019/0197701), and further in view of Yerli (US 2013/0300758).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Korobov, Krishnamurthy-1, and Krishnamurthy-2 teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying, on a user interface, the 3D model visualization of the container for a user (Krishnamurthy-2; [0027] “Client device 204 may implement a dashboard app to receive the image data and/or the post-scanning data and display such data, e.g., in graphical or other format, to manager 206 to facilitate the unloading or loading of packages”),
wherein the 3D model visualization of the container includes a graphical rendering indicating a region within the container that has a corresponding container utilization (Krishnamurthy-2; [0044] “Once the process is complete, a graphical representation, such as trailer view 500, may be generated to show the specific dimensions, depths, or other metrics of each package wall loaded”, where “various metrics can be calculated, such as the thickness of the wall, the height of the wall, the percent utilization of the wall”).
The combination of Korobov, Krishnamurthy-1, and Krishnamurthy-2 fails to teach that same graphical rendering indicating a region… that does not satisfy a container utilization threshold. However, this is taught in the art by Yerli. Yerli does not explicitly teach the threshold as the container utilization threshold, however, Yerli teaches “Visual container characteristics would be determined by threshold level” [0063], where it can “include a visualization of atmospheric effects to reflect a satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the particular entity” [0059]. As Yerli teaches visualization can be used to graphically render and display based on not satisfying a certain threshold, this same teaching could be used for not satisfying a container utilization threshold, given the percent utilization of the package wall as taught by the combination of Korobov, Krishnamurthy-1, and Krishnamurthy-2. Yerli further teaches that “Interactive environments can increase the efficiency of information communication and processing of rendered data” [0002]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Yerli to the combination of Korobov, Krishnamurthy-1, and Krishnamurthy-2 to increase efficiency of communicating information regarding the dissatisfaction of certain thresholds, which would not be limited to container utilization threshold.
Claim 12 has substantially similar limitations to claim 6, therefore, will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 18 has substantially similar limitations to claim 6, therefore, will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9-11, 15-17, and 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 3, the prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the limitations of “responsive to determining, based on the iteration, that a matching point is included for a respective 3D image data point of the cropped image: adding the respective 3D image data point or the matching point to the respective region based on a position of the respective 3D image data point, determining (i) whether the respective 3D image data point of the cropped image is further forward than the matching point and (ii) a distance of the respective 3D image data point from a front depth of the respective region, responsive to determining that the respective 3D image data point of the cropped image is further forward than the matching point, adding the matching point to the respective region, and responsive to determining that (i) the respective 3D image data point of the cropped image is not further forward than the matching point and (ii) the distance of the respective 3D image data point does not exceed a front depth distance threshold, adding the respective 3D image data point to the respective region.” Therefore, claim 3 is considered allowable.
Claim 4 contains allowable subject matter because it depends on claim 3, which contains allowable subject matter.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Korobov (US 2019/0355144), Krishnamurthy-1 (US 2019/0197455), and Krishnamurthy-2 (US 2019/0197701) teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: calculating the normalized height of the respective region by: segmenting the respective region into a plurality of horizontal sections that each have a respective horizontal section height, (Krishnamurthy-1; [0045] “The load-efficiency app may then scan the entire data slice and calculate the approximate number of missing points for each data slice. This process may repeat until a set of missing data points is estimated for all the data slices.”)
wherein each gap present in the respective region has a respective gap dimension, (Krishnamurthy-1; [0044] “estimating missing points in data slices may include scanning each data slice for gaps in a data arrangement, and calculating an approximate number of missing points for each data slice”, where the “set of missing data points” is interpreted as “gap dimension”)
and adding each normalized horizontal section height corresponding to a respective region together to calculate the normalized height of the respective region (Krishnamurthy-1; [0042] “Where each non-overlapping region is composed of a set of data slices they may be aggregated into one overall load efficiency score per region.”)
However, the prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the limitations of “subtracting each respective gap dimension that corresponds to a respective gap included within a respective horizontal section from the corresponding respective horizontal section height to calculate a normalized horizontal section height”. Therefore, claim 5 is considered allowable.
Claims 9, 15, and 19-21 have substantially similar limitations to claim 3 that contains allowable subject matter, therefore, claims 9, 15, and 19-21 are considered allowable.
Claims 10 and 16 contain allowable subject matter because they depend on claims 9 and 15 respectively, which contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 11 and 17 have substantially similar limitations to claim 5 that contains allowable subject matter, therefore, claims 11 and 17 contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA HA whose telephone number is (571)272-3601. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM, and Fri 9:00 AM - 1:00 PM.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/ALICIA HA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2611 /KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611