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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in FR on 12/28/2021. Applicant has filed a certified copy of the foreign priority application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph): "means .. for securing the various elements together" (claim 12); "means for detecting …", "means for taking measurements …", "computer means … for designing …", means for transmitting …" (claim 13); "automatic means for assembling …" (claim 14).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The following terms lack antecedent basis: Claim 1, line 12: "the packaging model";
Claim 5, line 19: "the 3D digital design operation";
Claim 12, line 10: "the various elements."
Claim 7 recites the phrase, "an operation of identifying … is incorporated." It is unclear whether this operation is required by the claim, and what it means for the operation to be incorporated. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets the phrase as meaning that the operation may be incorporated anywhere. To address the above issue and assuming such meaning is intended, Examiner suggests amending the phrase to state, "… the method comprising identifying any areas of lesser strength of said packaging …"
The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: "means for detecting …," "means for taking measurements …," "computer means … for digitally decomposing …," "means for transmitting …" (claim 13); "automatic means …" (claim 14).
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the above claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The specification does not appear to refer to a processor, memory or any structure for performing the above functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a));
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-12, 14 and 15 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiencies of their respective parent claims.
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 of this title, 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, 3-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagestedt (US 2021/0139171) in view of Thomas (EP2239210 translation).
Hagestedt was submitted in an IDS filed 09/26/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Hagestedt teaches a method for digitally designing and manufacturing a made-to-measure packaging, the method comprising the step of:
recognizing an object to be packaged[ ([0025-0028, 0045, 0036], the system scans a target product and can determine the product, characteristics and dimensions; for example, the system may recognize that the item is a vase and thus requires more insulation e.g., see [0045, 0050])
automatically determining a family of objects to which said object belongs ;
automatically determining a sub-family to which said object belongs according to the morphology of the object ([0025-0028, 0045, 0050, 0036], the system determines categories and subcategories that the product belongs to e.g., a product being a vase, a vase or product having particular dimensions or weight, a vase or product requiring particular packaging features, characteristics etc.)
evaluating the dimensions of said object ([0025-0028, 0045, 0050, 0030], the system determines categories and subcategories that the product belongs to e.g., a product being a vase, a vase or product having particular dimensions, a vase or product requiring particular packaging features, characteristics etc.);
determining the packaging model of which the internal volumetric space is capable of containing said object (Figs. 3A-3C, [0031, 0037-0045], the system determines a packaging model/template, which incorporate dimensions for the packaging template and for associated dunnage);
identifying, locating, defining and quantifying preferential wedging areas (Figs. 3A-3C, [0031, 0037-0045], the system determines dimensions of dunnage areas, where cushioning elements e.g., air pillows, peanuts etc., can be fitted around the item or wedged in);
creating a 3D digital design of the packaging and its preferential wedging areas (Figs. 3A-3C, [0031, 0037-0045], the system determines a packaging model/template, which incorporate dimensions for the packaging template and for associated dunnage);
digitally decomposing said packaging and its preferential wedging areas by digital slicing into different complementary elementary layers (Figs. 3A-3C, [0031-0045], based on the above designs of the packaging system, the system sends a command to a packaging production machine to generate a packaging template; as seen in Fig. 1, the machine 130 is designed to generate connected sheets/layers of packaging material e.g., cardboard; the system also generates layers of dunnage, used to filled excess space designed for the package e.g., see [0041, 0003, 0033])
However, Hagestedt does not expressly disclose reproducing said different layers by cutting operations in suitable material packed in sheets in order to obtain strata; and then stacking and/or juxtaposing, positioning, assembling and securing said different layers to form said packaging.
In the same field of endeavor, Thomas teaches
reproducing said different layers by cutting operations in suitable material packed in sheets in order to obtain strata (Figs. 1, 8-11, [0056-0062], it is known that to form packaging for a product, to cut and fold multiple sheets of a packing material, such as cardboard, thereby creating multiple layers/strata); and
then stacking and/or juxtaposing, positioning, assembling and securing said different layers to form said packaging (Figs. 1, 8-11, [0049-0062], to package a product, such as a bike, the cut pieces are then folded and positioned/stacked over one another; they are secured to one another; for example, the cardboard sheets of Figs. 1, 8-11 are cut and folded, and then positioned and attached to one another e.g., see Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated reproducing said different layers by cutting operations in suitable material packed in sheets in order to obtain strata; and then stacking and/or juxtaposing, positioning, assembling and securing said different layers to form said packaging as suggested in Thomas into Hagestedt because Hagestedt and Thomas pertain to analogous fields of technology. Hagestedt pertains to a system for scanning an item and generating customized packaging by generating sheets of processed manufacturing material e.g., see Hagestedt Figs. 1, 3A-3C, [0031-0045]. Thomas also pertains to generating customized packaging from a sheet of processed manufacturing material. In Thomas, multiple sheets can be used, which have been folded or cut to form the packaging for a product, and where pieces or layers are secured to one another. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Hagestedt, so that a variety of known methods could be used to generate customized packaging based on an identified item e.g., see Thomas Figs. 1, 8-11, [0049-0062].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Hagestedt and Thomas also teaches wherein the strata are optimally distributed in a kit on one or more sheets (Thomas Figs. 1, 8-11, layers can be formed like sheets, which can be cut or folded to produce packaging; see also Hagestedt Fig. 1, the packaging template is printed as a sheet).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Hagestedt and Thomas also teaches wherein the wedging areas are comprised of independent elements (Hagestedt [0041], excess space within the packaging can be filled with dunnage e.g., foam peannuts; Thomas Figs. 1, 8-12, [0006], there are portions of the packaging that elements of the product are meant to be wedged into e.g., the fork receiving element, the rear structure receiving element etc.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Hagestedt and Thomas also teaches
prior to the 3D digital design operation of the packaging, an additional step of identifying, locating and defining one or more protective areas of the object to be packaged is carried out (Hagestedt [0039-0034, 0041-0044], to protect areas of an identified delicate object e.g., a vase, excess space is provided in the packaging to be filled with dunnage; Thomas Figs. 1, 8-12, [0006], there are portions of the packaging that elements/areas of the product are meant to be wedged into e.g., the fork receiving element, the rear structure receiving element etc.; these determinations are performed before various operations related to the packaging design e.g., transmitting the design to a production machine, as noted in Hagestedt [0030]; see also Thomas Figs. 1, 8-12, [0006], the system can generate packaging designed to target particular parts of a product e.g., fork receiving element, rear structure receiving element etc.)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Hagestedt and Thomas also teaches wherein the step of determining the packaging model is associated with an operation of choosing the packaging model from a selection resulting from a typological study (Hagestedt [0038, 0043, 0050-0052], the system must select a packaging model from numerous options, which has particular characteristics and dimensions; as noted in Hagestedt [0043], the thresholds for dunnage may differ may depending on the identity of the product e.g., a vase may require at least 25% of the volume be dunnage; see also Hagestedt Figs. 3A-3E, [0039-0046], the system decides multiple possible packages as indicated in Figs. 3B and 3C; the system may choose to adjust dimensions of a packaging template i.e., select between different options).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 6. The combination of Hagestedt and Thomas also teaches
wherein, after the operation of choosing the packaging model, an operation of identifying any areas of lesser strength of said packaging is incorporated, followed by an operation of modeling the reinforcements of said packaging, enabling said areas of lesser strength to be corrected (Hagestedt [0037-0047], the system determines that a particular kind of packaging is suitable e.g., for a vase; the system identifies associated excess space/areas within the packaging; later, dunnage can be added to reenforce those spaces), and
then an operation of digitally decomposing said reinforcements by digital slicing into different complementary elementary layers, so as to integrate the manufacture of said reinforcements with that of said packaging (Hagestedt [0041], the system will fill in excess spaces with layers of dunnage e.g., air pillows or peanuts; Hagestedt Fig. 1, the packaging design will be generated in the form of sheets; see also Thomas Figs. 1, 8-11, the packaging design can be generated in the form of layers and sheets, which are intended to be cut and secured; in the context of Hagestedt, such designs would create spaces for dunnage and cushioning).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Hagestedt and Thomas also teaches wherein, prior to the cutting operation, each of the strata is identified, and assembly instructions are drawn up (Thomas Figs. 1, 8-12, the system identifies and generates sheets/layers to construct the packaging; as indicated in Hagestedt Fig. 1, [0031], the system sends instructions for assembling/creating such packaging sheets/layers to a production machine; see also Hagestedt [0031], the system stores assembly-related instructions e.g., available packaging production machines to use, available packaging materials, types of products to be package and their characteristics, special packaging needs/requirements etc.)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Hagestedt and Thomas also teaches wherein the suitable material is comprised of cardboard or other recyclable, bio-based materials (Thomas [0006, 0007, it is known to make packaging elements out of cardboard).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Hagestedt and Thomas also teaches wherein the different layers are joined together by a gluing and/or interlocking and/or key-locking operation (Thomas Figs, 3 and 9, the packaging can be formed by interlocking various layers of the packaging material; for example, Fig. 9 illustrates various layers that are folded and interlocked as seen in Fig. 3; see also Thomas Figs. 2-12).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Hagestedt and Thomas also teaches wherein, during the cutting operation, means are created for securing the various elements together (Thomas Fig. 9, [0058-0061], sheets are connected along lines 138, and these are cut to form individual sheets/parts; [0058], recesses 62, 66 are punched out/cut; see Fig. 3, recesses 62 facilitates securing to other sheets/elements e.g., surface 56; see also Thomas Figs. 1-12, which provides additional examples of unfolded sheets being cut and folded with features allowing attachment/securing of parts).
Regarding claim 13, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Hagestedt teaches a device for digital design and manufacturing (Fig. 1 describes a system), comprising:
means for detecting and recognizing the object to be packaged,
means for taking measurements of said object ([0025-0028, 0045, 0036], the system scans a target product and can determine the product, characteristics and dimensions; for example, the system may recognize that the item is a vase and thus requires more insulation e.g., see [0045, 0050]),
computer means associated with one or more software programs for designing said packaging and for digitally decomposing said packaging by digital slicing into various complementary elementary layers (Figs. 3A-3C, [0031-0045], based on the above designs of the packaging system, the system sends a command to a packaging production machine to generate a packaging template; as seen in Fig. 1, the machine 130 is designed to generate connected sheets/layers of packaging material e.g., cardboard; the system also generates layers of dunnage, used to filled excess space designed for the package e.g., see [0041, 0003, 0033]; the above operations inherently are performed using software and a computer).
transmitting to means layers (Figs. 3A-3C, [0031-0045], based on the above designs of the packaging system, the system sends a command to a packaging production machine to generate a packaging template; as seen in Fig. 1, the machine 130 is designed to generate connected sheets/layers of packaging material e.g., cardboard; the system also generates layers of dunnage, used to filled excess space designed for the package e.g., see [0041, 0003, 0033]; the above operations inherently are performed using software and a computer).
However, Hagestedt does not expressly disclose the means to which the transmitting is performed is a means for cutting sheets, with a view to creating a kit.
In the same field of endeavor, Thomas teaches the means to which the transmitting is performed is a means for cutting sheets, with a view to creating a kit (Figs. 1, 8-11, [0056-0062], it is known that to form packaging for a product, to cut and fold multiple sheets of a packing material, such as cardboard, thereby creating multiple layers/strata; Figs. 1, 8-11, [0049-0062], to package a product, such as a bike, the cut pieces are then folded and positioned/stacked over one another; they are secured to one another; for example, the cardboard sheets of Figs. 1, 8-11 are cut and folded, and then positioned and attached to one another e.g., see Figs. 1-3; "with a view to creating a kit" appears to state an intended use and thus lacks patentable weight).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the means to which the transmitting is performed is a means for cutting sheets, with a view to creating a kit as suggested in Thomas into Hagestedt because Hagestedt and Thomas pertain to analogous fields of technology. Hagestedt pertains to a system for scanning an item and generating customized packaging by generating sheets of processed manufacturing material e.g., see Hagestedt Figs. 1, 3A-3C, [0031-0045]. Thomas also pertains to generating customized packaging from a sheet of processed manufacturing material. In Thomas, multiple sheets can be used, which can be folded or cut to form the packaging for a product, and where pieces or layers are secured to one another. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Hagestedt, so that a variety of known methods could be used to generate customized packaging based on an identified item e.g., see Thomas Figs. 1, 8-11, [0049-0062].
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 13. The combination of Hagestedt and Thomas also teaches wherein the means for implementing the method also comprise automatic means for assembling the packaging (Hagestedt Fig. 1 teaches a system with various components for automatically assembling packaging materials e.g., see Hagestedt [0024-0026, 0030, 0036-0038, 0040-0042].
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Hagestedt and Thomas also teaches an assembly, comprising: packaging designed and manufactured according to the method of claim 1 (Hagestedt Fig. 1, Abstract, [0047] describes generating packaging; Thomas Figs. 1-12. [0034] describe packaging to be produced).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagestedt and Thomas, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Meany (US 2020/0005020).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. However, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas does not expressly disclose wherein the step of determining the family to which the object belongs, as a function of its morphology, comprising the steps of: identifying common points and singularities, and comparing them with a morphological classification previously carried out.
In the same field of endeavor, Meany teaches wherein the step of determining the family to which the object belongs, as a function of its morphology, comprising the steps of: identifying common points and singularities, and comparing them with a morphological classification previously carried out ([0043-0049, 0055, 0056], a database of object profiles is created using past scans; a new object is scanned to recognize the object; a profile is obtained of the object, which includes various geometric and photometric characteristics/descriptors; the process involves comparing the obtained profile against the database of profiles; to help identify the object, multiple filters are applied that cause the object to be associated with various, progressively smaller groups/sets).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein the step of determining the family to which the object belongs, as a function of its morphology, comprising the steps of: identifying common points and singularities, and comparing them with a morphological classification previously carried out as suggested in Meany into Hagestedt and Thomas because Hagestedt and Meany pertain to analogous fields of technology. Hagestedt pertains to a system in which an object is scanned and recognized, and customized packaging is generated based on the scanning of the object. Meany also pertains to scanning an object and recognizing it. In Meany, the object is scanned, compared against stored profiles and associated with various groups. It would be desirable to incorporate these features into Hagestedt to provide a method for improving the recognition of an object via scanning e.g., see Meany [0043-0049, 0055, 0056].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagestedt and Thomas, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Garden (YouTube video, "How to Make Handles for a Cardboard Box," by Garden, Garage & House Channel, published Mar. 28, 2016, downloaded from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R2zaJMXnpQ).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. However, the combination of Hagestedt and Thomas does not expressly disclose wherein, during the cutting operation, openings are created to facilitate the carrying of the packaging.
In the same field of endeavor, Garden teaches wherein, during the cutting operation, openings are created to facilitate the carrying of the packaging (Garden 0:20-0:36, 1:10-1:19, it is known to cut openings in a box to create handles to facilitate carrying).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein, during the cutting operation, openings are created to facilitate the carrying of the packaging as suggested in Garden into Hagestedt and Thomas, because Hagestedt/Thomas and Garden pertain to analogous fields of technology. Hagestedt/Thomas pertains to cutting sheets to form a packaging box for a product. Garden also pertains to cutting a packaging box. In Garden, openings are cut to create handles. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Hagestedt/Thomas to facilitate carrying or movement of packages e.g., see Garden 0:20-0:36, 1:10-1:19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Systema (US 2017/0210500) teaches a system for packaging items e.g., see Systema Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YOON whose telephone number is (408)918-7581. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ERIC J YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights