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 .
This action is in response to the amendment and argument filed 2/17/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 (a machine), 11 (a non-transitory CRM), 20 (a machine).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of the response Applicant details differences between the disclosure of the cited Wiechers reference and the disclosure of the present application. For example, Applicant states: “Wiechers differs significantly from what Applicant claims. In contrast to Wiechers, Applicant’s “trigger” is not a user request. Instead, Applicant’s independent claims recite that the triggering event … is the output signal produced by the transceiver module exceeding a predetermined threshold.”
This argument is not persuasive.
Initially, the claims do not require a “trigger”. Rather, the claims require “in the secure shipping state, the controller is configured to determine whether the output signal …” Thus, there is no “trigger” and all that is required is that during a ‘secure shipping state’ an output signal is checked. This is disclosed by Wiechers in ¶¶ 4 and 67, see below.
Applicant’s argument that the “’trigger’ is not a user request” is basically an assertion that the additional, unmapped, portion of Wiechers (e.g. Fig. 3, step 301) precludes the other portions of Weichers from teaching the claimed limitations. This is not persuasive. “The transitional term “comprising”, which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.” MPEP 2111.03. Thus, the present claims could not exclude the additional disclosure of Weichers.
On page 7, ¶ 3, of the remarks Applicant states: “The cited 'output signal' in Wiechers (e.g., a "wireless communication signal") is not produced by the unmanned vehicle, but instead is produced by a separate Bluetooth beacon provided by the transport company and located at the delivery position”.
Applicant’s system does not produce the “radio-frequency signal received by the transceiver module”. Applicant’s system is not transmitting a signal. If it were transmitting a signal the strength of the signal would be entirely determined by the transceiver itself and have no utility in locating the device because the system would be receiving its own signal.
By reference to Applicant’s Figure 1, the claimed “output signal” is a received signal at antenna 106 – output – to the controller 108. As required by the claim: “an output signal according to one or more radio-frequency signals received by the transceiver module”.
As noted in Applicant’s specification ¶ 35: “Transceiver module 106 produces an output signal based on incident RF energy…. when the shielded container 104 is opened, ambient RF energy will inevitably flood the internal compartment. RF transceiver module 106 is tuned to detect at least one type of common RF signal (i.e., that can be expected to exist within the shipping route). If the output signal exceeds a predetermined threshold, controller 108 can perform a destination check to determine whether secure device 102 has reached its intended destination.”
The output signal is merely a measurement of the “received radio-frequency signal”.
Thus, Applicant’s system functions identically to that of Weichers in that “(e.g., “a "wireless communication signal") is not produced by the [claimed system].”
For at least the above reasons, Applicant’s remarks are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-9, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Wiechers et al., US 2018/0099641 (published 2018).
As to claim 1, Wiechers discloses a machine/CRM comprising:
A secure device for detecting a potential breach during shipment, comprising: (“the security for shipments” Wiechers ¶ 4)
a transceiver module operable to generate an output signal according to one or more radio-frequency signals received by the transceiver module; and (“the checking in step 3042 can be carried out by comparing the signal strength of a communication signal captured in step 303 with the predetermined signal strength threshold value and by checking and/or determining the identity and/or origin of the captured communication signal.” Wiechers ¶ 136. “the position of the unmanned vehicle with a signal strength above a predetermined signal strength threshold value or within a range of signal strength values.” Wiechers ¶ 54)
a controller configured to enter a secure shipping state, wherein, in the secure shipping state, the controller is configured to determine whether the output signal of the transceiver module exceeds a predetermined threshold, and, in response to the output signal of the transceiver module exceeding the predetermined threshold, to determine at least one identifier from the output signal of the transceiver module; (“signal is captured with a signal strength above the signal strength threshold value. Alternatively or additionally, an identity and/or origin of a captured wireless communication signal may be predetermined (for example by predetermining an identifier of the transmitter of the communication signal).” Wiechers ¶ 67)
wherein the controller is further configured to take a protective action if the the identifier does not match a predetermined identifier, (“by checking and/or determining the identity and/or origin of the captured communication signal.” Weichers ¶ 136. “If the checking in step 304 reveals that the request to open the receiving compartment 30 of the unmanned vehicle 3 is not authorized, the method is terminated in a step 305.” Wiechers ¶ 141)
and to exit the secure shipping state if the the identifier matches the predetermined identifier. (“Otherwise, the receiving compartment 30 of the unmanned vehicle 3 is opened in a step 306 and/or the opening of the receiving compartment 30 of the unmanned vehicle 3 is caused.” Wiechers ¶ 142)
As to claim 4, Weichers discloses the machine/CRM of claim 1 and further discloses:
Wherein the protective action comprises entering a secure state in which at least one capability of the secure device is suspended. (“If the checking in step 304 reveals that the request to open the receiving compartment 30 of the unmanned vehicle 3 is not authorized, the method is terminated in a step 305.” Wiechers ¶ 141).
As to claim 7, Weichers discloses the machine/CRM of claim 1 and further discloses:
Wherein the secure state persists until the controller receives a predetermined set of credentials. (“the first proof of authorization information is obtained by a user interface, a card interface and/or by a wireless communication interface at the unmanned vehicle.” Weichers ¶ 39. “interface, for example as a user input (for example as a keyboard or mouse input and/or as a voice or speech input and/or as a gesture and/or as an input of a biometric feature); for example, such a user input can be obtained from a shipment recipient and/or shipment sender.” Weichers ¶ 42)
As to claim 8, Weichers discloses the machine/CRM of claim 1 and further discloses:
Wherein the predetermined identifier is a location. (“the position of the unmanned vehicle with a signal strength above a predetermined signal strength threshold value or within a range of signal strength values.” Wiechers ¶ 54. “The checking of the authorization of the request to open the receiving compartment of an unmanned vehicle comprises, for example, checking, in dependence on the captured position of the unmanned vehicle,” Wiechers ¶ 31).
As to claim 9, Weichers discloses the machine/CRM of claim 1 and further discloses:
Wherein the predetermined identifier is a network identification parameter. (“signal is captured with a signal strength above the signal strength threshold value. Alternatively or additionally, an identity and/or origin of a captured wireless communication signal may be predetermined (for example by predetermining an identifier of the transmitter of the communication signal).” Wiechers ¶ 67. “the checking information may contain a digital signature, which confirms the origin and/or identity of the communication signal, and/or an identifier (for example an address such as a MAC address or an IP address and/or a name such as a network name or an SSID) ” Wiechers ¶ 58)
As to claims 20, Wiechers discloses a machine comprising:
A secure device for detecting a potential breach during shipment, comprising: (“the security for shipments” Wiechers ¶ 4)
a transceiver module operable to generate an output signal according to one or more radio-frequency signals received by the transceiver module; and (“the checking in step 3042 can be carried out by comparing the signal strength of a communication signal captured in step 303 with the predetermined signal strength threshold value and by checking and/or determining the identity and/or origin of the captured communication signal.” Wiechers ¶ 136. “the position of the unmanned vehicle with a signal strength above a predetermined signal strength threshold value or within a range of signal strength values.” Wiechers ¶ 54)
a controller configured to enter a secure shipping state, wherein, in the secure shipping state, the controller is configured to determine whether the output signal exceeds a predetermined threshold, and to determine a location from the output signal, (“signal is captured with a signal strength above the signal strength threshold value. Alternatively or additionally, an identity and/or origin of a captured wireless communication signal may be predetermined (for example by predetermining an identifier of the transmitter of the communication signal).” Wiechers ¶ 67)
wherein the controller is further configured perform a protective action if the unmanned vehicle 3 is not authorized, the method is terminated in a step 305.” Wiechers ¶ 141)
wherein the controller is configured to exit the secure shipping state if the
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiechers et al., US 2018/0099641 (published 2018), in view of Official Notice.
As to claim 10, Weichers discloses the machine/CRM of claim 1 but does not disclose:
Wherein the transceiver module includes an ultra-wide band antenna.
However, ultra-wide band transceivers are well known in the art, official notice is taken thereof.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have incorporated ultra-wideband standards in the system of Wiechers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiechers with an ultra-wideband transceivers in order to gain compatibility with terminals using such transceivers, thereby expanding interoperability and usability across a wider range of devices, similar to the wide selection of interfaces in Wiechers ¶ 37.
As to claim 11, Wiechers discloses a machine/CRM comprising: A program method, being stored on a non-transitory storage media and executed by one or more processors, the program method comprising: (“the security for shipments” Wiechers ¶ 4)
entering a secure shipping state; (“This is advantageous, for example, in order to prevent (unauthorized) opening of the receiving compartment if the unmanned vehicle is not at the delivery and/or posting position of the shipment.” Wiechers ¶ 76)
receiving an output signal from a transceiver module, the output signal representing one or more radio-frequency signals received by the transceiver module, wherein the transceiver module receives the one more radio-frequency signals (“the checking in step 3042 can be carried out by comparing the signal strength of a communication signal captured in step 303 with the predetermined signal strength threshold value and by checking and/or determining the identity and/or origin of the captured communication signal.” Wiechers ¶ 136. “the position of the unmanned vehicle with a signal strength above a predetermined signal strength threshold value or within a range of signal strength values.” Wiechers ¶ 54)
…
determining whether the output signal exceeds a predetermined threshold, and
if the output signal exceeds the predetermined threshold, performing one of: (“signal is captured with a signal strength above the signal strength threshold value. Alternatively or additionally, an identity and/or origin of a captured wireless communication signal may be predetermined (for example by predetermining an identifier of the transmitter of the communication signal).” Wiechers ¶ 67)
taking a protective action if at least one predetermined identifier cannot be identified from the output signal, or (“If the checking in step 304 reveals that the request to open the receiving compartment 30 of the unmanned vehicle 3 is not authorized, the method is terminated in a step 305.” Wiechers ¶ 141)
exiting the secure shipping state if the at least one predetermined identifier can be identified from the output signal. (“Otherwise, the receiving compartment 30 of the unmanned vehicle 3 is opened in a step 306 and/or the opening of the receiving compartment 30 of the unmanned vehicle 3 is caused.” Wiechers ¶ 142).
Wiechers does not disclose: with an ultra-wide band antenna;
However, ultra-wide band transceivers are well known in the art, official notice is taken thereof.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have incorporated ultra-wideband standards in the system of Wiechers. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiechers with an ultra-wideband transceivers in order to gain compatibility with terminals using such transceivers, thereby expanding interoperability and usability across a wider range of devices, similar to the wide selection of interfaces in Wiechers ¶ 37.
As to claim 14, 17, 18, and 19, Weichers discloses the machine/CRM of claim 11 and further discloses the elements of claims 14, 17, 18, and 19 as seen above in claims 4, 7, 8, and 9.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiechers et al., US 2018/0099641 (published 2018), in view of Heinla, US 2019/0287051 (published 2019).
As to claim 2, Weichers discloses the machine/CRM of claim 1 but does not disclose: wherein the protective action comprises displaying a notification on a display.
Heinla discloses:
wherein the protective action comprises displaying a notification on a display.
(“The first delivery recipient 60 can be notified that the robot 1 has arrived at the delivery location 62 via a mobile device for example. This can be a cell phone, a tablet, a personal computer, a wearable device and/or a comparable device. In some embodiments, the first delivery recipient 60 can be notified of which package within the package space 10 of the robot 1 is addressed to them.” Heinla ¶ 137. “the robot 1 can process this via a processing component 3 and send this second data to the server 70 and/or to the remote terminal 120 for further processing and/or actions via the communication component 5. For example, the server 70 can send an automated message to the first delivery recipient 60 warning them that the wrong package has been removed. Alternatively or additionally, the remote terminal 120 can directly communicate with the first delivery recipient 60 via their mobile device for example in case of complications during the delivery process.” Heinla ¶ 139).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Wiechers with Heinla by providing output and notifications during delivery, or miss-delivery, to enable the robots delivery task to complete successfully. 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 Wiechers with Heinla in order to allow parcels to be delivered to multiple recipients, Heinla ¶ 10.
As to claim 3, Weichers discloses the machine/CRM of claim 1 but does not disclose:
Wherein the protective action comprises transmitting a message to at least one party.
Heinla discloses:
Wherein the protective action comprises transmitting a message to at least one party.
(“The first delivery recipient 60 can be notified that the robot 1 has arrived at the delivery location 62 via a mobile device for example. This can be a cell phone, a tablet, a personal computer, a wearable device and/or a comparable device. In some embodiments, the first delivery recipient 60 can be notified of which package within the package space 10 of the robot 1 is addressed to them.” Heinla ¶ 137. “the robot 1 can process this via a processing component 3 and send this second data to the server 70 and/or to the remote terminal 120 for further processing and/or actions via the communication component 5. For example, the server 70 can send an automated message to the first delivery recipient 60 warning them that the wrong package has been removed. Alternatively or additionally, the remote terminal 120 can directly communicate with the first delivery recipient 60 via their mobile device for example in case of complications during the delivery process.” Heinla ¶ 139).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Wiechers with Heinla by providing output and notifications during delivery, or miss-delivery, to enable the robots delivery task to complete successfully. 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 Wiechers with Heinla in order to allow parcels to be delivered to multiple recipients, Heinla ¶ 10.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiechers et al., US 2018/0099641 (published 2018), in view of Official Notice and Heinla, US 2019/0287051 (published 2019).
As to claim 12, Weichers in view of Official Notice discloses the machine/CRM of claim 11 but does not disclose: wherein the protective action comprises displaying a notification on a display.
Heinla discloses:
wherein the protective action comprises displaying a notification on a display.
(“The first delivery recipient 60 can be notified that the robot 1 has arrived at the delivery location 62 via a mobile device for example. This can be a cell phone, a tablet, a personal computer, a wearable device and/or a comparable device. In some embodiments, the first delivery recipient 60 can be notified of which package within the package space 10 of the robot 1 is addressed to them.” Heinla ¶ 137. “the robot 1 can process this via a processing component 3 and send this second data to the server 70 and/or to the remote terminal 120 for further processing and/or actions via the communication component 5. For example, the server 70 can send an automated message to the first delivery recipient 60 warning them that the wrong package has been removed. Alternatively or additionally, the remote terminal 120 can directly communicate with the first delivery recipient 60 via their mobile device for example in case of complications during the delivery process.” Heinla ¶ 139).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Wiechers with Heinla by providing output and notifications during delivery, or miss-delivery, to enable the robots delivery task to complete successfully. 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 Wiechers with Heinla in order to allow parcels to be delivered to multiple recipients, Heinla ¶ 10.
As to claim 13, Weichers in view of Official Notice discloses the machine/CRM of claim 11 but does not disclose:
Wherein the protective action comprises transmitting a message to at least one party.
Heinla discloses:
Wherein the protective action comprises transmitting a message to at least one party.
(“The first delivery recipient 60 can be notified that the robot 1 has arrived at the delivery location 62 via a mobile device for example. This can be a cell phone, a tablet, a personal computer, a wearable device and/or a comparable device. In some embodiments, the first delivery recipient 60 can be notified of which package within the package space 10 of the robot 1 is addressed to them.” Heinla ¶ 137. “the robot 1 can process this via a processing component 3 and send this second data to the server 70 and/or to the remote terminal 120 for further processing and/or actions via the communication component 5. For example, the server 70 can send an automated message to the first delivery recipient 60 warning them that the wrong package has been removed. Alternatively or additionally, the remote terminal 120 can directly communicate with the first delivery recipient 60 via their mobile device for example in case of complications during the delivery process.” Heinla ¶ 139).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Wiechers with Heinla by providing output and notifications during delivery, or miss-delivery, to enable the robots delivery task to complete successfully. 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 Wiechers with Heinla in order to allow parcels to be delivered to multiple recipients, Heinla ¶ 10.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiechers et al., US 2018/0099641 (published 2018), in view of Weston et al., US 2011/0321173 (published 2011).
As to claim 5, Weichers discloses the machine/CRM of claim 4 but does not disclose:
wherein the at least one capability is the ability to process payments.
Weston discloses:
(“Upon detection of a tamper event associated with the secure keypad 115, the retail environment can enter a low security mode that restricts secure input to the secure keypad 115, but that permits secure input to the card reader 130.” Weston ¶ 114)
wherein the at least one capability is the ability to process payments.
(“This low security mode may be appropriate for use in meeting the requirement of standards that require terminating all function of a compromised PIN data entry device, such as the Europay, MasterCard, Visa (EMV) standard or the Unattended Payment Terminal (UPT) standard. When a security breach event is detected, the controller electronics 110 informs the POS server 155 via an XML message and displays a generic message on the display 120 to indicate that transactions at the retail environment 105 are disabled and the customer may pay at a POS terminal in the in-store environment 150” Weston ¶ 81)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Weichers with Weston by disabling secure functionality upon detection of intrusion into the device, as done in Weston. 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 Weichers with Weston in order to provide compatibility with the security standards, Weston ¶ 81.
As to claim 6, Weichers discloses the machine/CRM of claim 4 but does not disclose:
wherein the at least one capability is the ability to receive encryption keys.
Weston discloses:
(“Upon detection of a tamper event associated with the secure keypad 115, the retail environment can enter a low security mode that restricts secure input to the secure keypad 115, but that permits secure input to the card reader 130.” Weston ¶ 114)
wherein the at least one capability is the ability to receive encryption keys.
(the PIN being analogous to an ‘encryption key’ where no use or encryption is required: “This low security mode may be appropriate for use in meeting the requirement of standards that require terminating all function of a compromised PIN data entry device, such as the Europay, MasterCard, Visa (EMV) standard or the Unattended Payment Terminal (UPT) standard. When a security breach event is detected, the controller electronics 110 informs the POS server 155 via an XML message and displays a generic message on the display 120 to indicate that transactions at the retail environment 105 are disabled and the customer may pay at a POS terminal in the in-store environment 150” Weston ¶ 81)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Weichers with Weston by disabling secure functionality upon detection of intrusion into the device, as done in Weston. 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 Weichers with Weston in order to provide compatibility with the security standards, Weston ¶ 81.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiechers et al., US 2018/0099641 (published 2018), in view of Official Notice and Weston et al., US 2011/0321173 (published 2011).
As to claim 15, Weichers in view of Official Notice discloses the machine/CRM of claim 14 but does not disclose:
wherein the at least one capability is the ability to process payments.
Weston discloses:
(“Upon detection of a tamper event associated with the secure keypad 115, the retail environment can enter a low security mode that restricts secure input to the secure keypad 115, but that permits secure input to the card reader 130.” Weston ¶ 114)
wherein the at least one capability is the ability to process payments.
(“This low security mode may be appropriate for use in meeting the requirement of standards that require terminating all function of a compromised PIN data entry device, such as the Europay, MasterCard, Visa (EMV) standard or the Unattended Payment Terminal (UPT) standard. When a security breach event is detected, the controller electronics 110 informs the POS server 155 via an XML message and displays a generic message on the display 120 to indicate that transactions at the retail environment 105 are disabled and the customer may pay at a POS terminal in the in-store environment 150” Weston ¶ 81)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Weichers with Weston by disabling secure functionality upon detection of intrusion into the device, as done in Weston. 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 Weichers with Weston in order to provide compatibility with the security standards, Weston ¶ 81.
As to claim 16, Weichers in view of Official Notice discloses the machine/CRM of claim 14 but does not disclose:
wherein the at least one capability is the ability to receive encryption keys.
Weston discloses:
(“Upon detection of a tamper event associated with the secure keypad 115, the retail environment can enter a low security mode that restricts secure input to the secure keypad 115, but that permits secure input to the card reader 130.” Weston ¶ 114)
wherein the at least one capability is the ability to receive encryption keys.
(the PIN being analogous to an ‘encryption key’ where no use or encryption is required: “This low security mode may be appropriate for use in meeting the requirement of standards that require terminating all function of a compromised PIN data entry device, such as the Europay, MasterCard, Visa (EMV) standard or the Unattended Payment Terminal (UPT) standard. When a security breach event is detected, the controller electronics 110 informs the POS server 155 via an XML message and displays a generic message on the display 120 to indicate that transactions at the retail environment 105 are disabled and the customer may pay at a POS terminal in the in-store environment 150” Weston ¶ 81)
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have combined Weichers with Weston by disabling secure functionality upon detection of intrusion into the device, as done in Weston. 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 Weichers with Weston in order to provide compatibility with the security standards, Weston ¶ 81.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, particularly:
De la Broise, US 12,507,036, which discloses notifications in a tracking device environment based on signal strength thresholds.
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 MICHAEL W CHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-5165. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F 8-5.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. 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.
/MICHAEL W CHAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492