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
Request for priority to Provisional Application No. 63/515,467 , filed on July 25, 2023, is acknowledged. The Examiner notes that the current claims do not appear to be fully supported by the provisional application, and further notes that the Applicant may be requested to perfect one or more of the claims in the situation where applied prior art has priority falling between the filing date of the non-provisional application date July 23, 2024, and the provisional application dated July 25, 2023 . No action on the part of the Applicant is requested at this time.
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on July 23, 2024. Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on November 06, 2024, and December 22, 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference number 105b in Figure 3, Reference number 802 in Figure 8, Reference number 108 in Figure 9B, Reference number 1052h in Figure 10B, Reference number 1132 in Figure 11, Reference number 1164 in Figure 11E.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference numbers 1106f3-1106f12 in Paragraphs [0089], [0091] of the instant specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 term “sufficiently rigid” in Claims 11 and 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently rigid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what constitutes the actuator being sufficiently rigid in the context of the claims. The Examiner is interpreting this claim language to mean that the actuator (bumper) can be depressed or compressed to activate sensors on the bumper, but the actuator maintains its shape.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0001311 A1, to Bushman, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bushman).
As per Claim 1, Bushman discloses the features of a robot configured for cleaning (e.g. Paragraph [0031]; where the wheel modules can propel the robot across the floor during a cleaning routine), the robot comprising:
a body (e.g. Paragraph [0031]; Figure 1A; where the robot (1000 has a robot body (100)) comprising
a chassis (e.g. Paragraph [0031]; Figure 1A; where the robot (100) has a chassis as part of the robot body (110) which supports the drive structure) and
an outer perimeter (e.g. Paragraph [0046]; Figure 1A; where the robot (100) has edges to define the robot body (see reference numbers 101, 103, 112, 114 which define the body of the robot));
a motor configured to move the robot within an environment (e.g. Paragraph [0033]; where the wheels have drive motors for driving the wheels (124a, 124b) to drive the robot in the forward or reverse directions);
a multi-directional sensor comprising a plurality of radial zones, wherein each radial zone defines direction relative to the robot (e.g. Paragraphs [0046], [0094]; where the robot (100) comprises an omnidirectional sensor to detect 360 degrees around the robot (i.e. multidirectional));
a processor communicatively coupled to the multi-directional sensor; a computer memory communicatively coupled to the processor; and computing instructions stored on the computer memory (e.g. Paragraphs [0080], [0094]; Figures 4B; 7; where the plurality of receivers are disposed around the robot to provide full perimeter detection, and where each receiver has a detection zone, which overlaps other detection zones to provide perimeter detection) and configured, when executed by the processor, to cause the processor to:
receive sensor data from the multi-directional sensor when at least a portion of the outer perimeter of the body of the robot contacts an object in the environment (e.g. Paragraphs [0038], [0089]; Figure 6; where the sensor system (500) includes obstacle detection and contact sensors, and the robot determines if an object is detected, and if contact with the object has been sensed by the bumper), and,
actuate the motor based on the sensor data to cause the robot to alter its course (e.g. Paragraph [0089]; Figure 6; where when contact is detected, the robot executes a maneuvering behavior to avoid the obstacle).
As per Claim 7, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, and Bushman further discloses the features of wherein the plurality of radial zones are configurable to have a specified number of radial zones (e.g. Paragraphs [0080], [0094]; Figures 4B; 7; where the plurality of receivers are disposed around the robot to provide full perimeter detection, and where each receiver has a detection zone, which overlaps other detection zones to provide perimeter detection).
As per Claim 8, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, and Bushman further discloses the features of wherein the plurality of radial zones comprises at least two radial zones (e.g. Paragraphs [0080], [0094]; Figures 4B; 7; where the plurality of receivers are disposed around the robot to provide full perimeter detection, and where each receiver has a detection zone, which overlaps other detection zones to provide perimeter detection).
As per Claim 9, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, and Bushman further discloses the features of further comprising:
a second multi-directional sensor (e.g. Paragraphs [0044], [0046], [0094]; where the robot (100) comprises an omnidirectional sensor to detect 360 degrees around the robot (i.e. multidirectional); and where the robot includes an array of sensors), wherein
each of the second multi-directional sensor and the multi-directional sensor are coupled to at least a portion of the outer perimeter via a multi-axis sensor actuator (e.g. Paragraphs [0031], [0081], [0089]; where the forward portion (112) of the robot body (110) carries a bumper (130), which detects (e.g., via one or more sensors) obstacles in a drive path of the robot (100)), and wherein the computing instructions are further configured, when executed by the processor, to cause the processor to:
receive second sensor data from the second multi-directional sensor when at least a portion of the outer perimeter of the body of the robot contacts the object in the environment (e.g. Paragraphs [0038], [0089]; Figure 6; where the sensor system (500) includes obstacle detection and contact sensors, and the robot determines if an object is detected, and if contact with the object has been sensed by the bumper), and,
actuate the motor further based on the second sensor data to cause the robot to alter its course (e.g. Paragraph [0089]; Figure 6; where when contact is detected, the robot executes a maneuvering behavior to avoid the obstacle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0001311 A1, to Bushman, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bushman), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0299503 A1, to Wolfe, et al (hereinafter referred to as Wolfe).
As per Claim 2, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-directional sensor comprises: an analog sensor; a joystick sensor; a magnetic field sensor; or a potentiometer.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where the robot includes magnetic field sensors (e.g. Paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using various sensors in the system of Wolfe, in order to increase the sensitivity of the robot’s bumpers, and more closely follow into corners to clean (see at least Paragraph [0101] of Wolfe).
As per Claim 3, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of the multi-directional sensor is a magnetic field sensor, and wherein one or more magnets are positioned on the outer perimeter of the robot to provide magnetic signals, and wherein the magnetic field sensor generates the sensor data based on the magnetic signals.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where the robot includes magnetic field sensors, where magnets are mounted on the edges of the vehicle; and where the sensor can return an analog voltage signal in response to the magnetic field, and determine a relative position of the magnet (i.e. generates sensor data) (e.g. Paragraphs [0059]-[0060], [0063]; Figure 1F;).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using magnetic sensors in the system of Wolfe, in order to increase the sensitivity of the robot’s bumpers, and more closely follow into corners to clean (see at least Paragraph [0101] of Wolfe).
As per Claim 4, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of the multi-directional sensor is a magnetic field sensor, and wherein one or more magnets are positioned on a surface of the robot to provide magnetic signals, and wherein the magnetic field sensor generates the sensor data based on the magnetic signals.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where the robot includes magnetic field sensors, where magnets are mounted on a surface of the robot; and where the sensor can return an analog voltage signal in response to the magnetic field, and determine a relative position of the magnet (i.e. generates sensor data) (e.g. Paragraphs [0059]-[0060], [0063]; Figure 1F).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using magnetic sensors in the system of Wolfe, in order to increase the sensitivity of the robot’s bumpers, and more closely follow into corners to clean (see at least Paragraph [0101] of Wolfe).
As per Claim 11, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 9, and Bushman further discloses the features of wherein the multi-axis sensor actuator is a dampening structure (e.g. Paragraphs [0031], [0081], [0089]; where the forward portion (112) of the robot body (110) carries a bumper (130), which detects (e.g., via one or more sensors) obstacles in a drive path of the robot (100)).
Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the dampening structure is coupled to the multi-directional sensor and the second multi-directional sensor and is sufficiently rigid to move the multi-directional sensor and/or the second multi-directional sensor when a force is applied to the multi-axis sensor actuator.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where the bumper sensor assemblies (112L, 112R) provide an analog signal that is linear with respect to a force on the bumper (110), and where forces are exerted on the bumper (110) to cause the bumper to move (e.g., be depressed) relative to the robot body (110) (e.g. Paragraphs [0049], [0059], [0067]; Figure 1F).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using various sensors in the system of Wolfe, in order to increase the sensitivity of the robot’s bumpers when detecting an applied force (see at least Paragraph [0101] of Wolfe).
As per Claim 12, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 9, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-axis sensor actuator is sufficiently rigid to apply a first actuation force to the multi-directional sensor and/or a second actuation force to the second multi-directional sensor.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where the bumper sensor assemblies (112L, 112R) provide an analog signal that is linear with respect to a force on the bumper (110), and where forces are exerted on the bumper (110) to cause the bumper to move (e.g., be depressed) relative to the robot body (110) (e.g. Paragraphs [0049], [0059], [0067]; Figure 1F).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using various sensors in the system of Wolfe, in order to increase the sensitivity of the robot’s bumpers when detecting an applied force (see at least Paragraph [0101] of Wolfe).
As per Claim 13, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 9, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-axis sensor actuator is limited to one more directions and/or one or more distances of travel within or with respect to the body of the robot to prevent actuating at least one of the multi-directional sensor or the second multi- directional sensor to a fully actuated position.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where the linear sensor provides a signal that varies with the extent of bumper compression, based on if the bumper is fully compressed, not compressed, or half-way compressed (i.e. the bumper has limited range of motion and direction) (e.g. Paragraphs [0050], [0111]-[0112]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of limiting the direction of the actuator in the system of Wolfe, in order to maintain the position of the bumper while in contact with the wall (see at least Paragraph [0011] of Wolfe).
As per Claim 14, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 9, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-axis sensor actuator is configured to be deformed in a shape, wherein deformation of the shape creates a change in sensor data output by at least one of the multi-directional sensor or the second multi-directional sensor.
However, Wolfe, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a wall following robot, where forces are exerted on the bumper (110) to cause the bumper to move (e.g., be depressed) relative to the robot body (110) ; where the linear sensor provides a signal that varies with the extent of bumper compression, based on if the bumper is fully compressed, not compressed, or half-way compressed (e.g. Paragraphs [0050], [0111]-[0112]; Figure 1F).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of deforming the actuator in the system of Wolfe, in order to better control the robot and improve navigation (see at least Paragraph [0021] of Wolfe).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0001311 A1, to Bushman, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bushman), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0225580 A1, to Jang (hereinafter referred to as Jang).
As per Claim 5, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 1, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-directional sensor is a time-of-flight sensor.
However, Jang, in a similar field of endeavor, a robot cleaner and robot control method, where the sensor (120) may include a Lidar, for detecting an obstacle based on time-of-flight (TOF) of a transmission signal and reception signal or a phase difference between the two (e.g. Paragraphs [0053], [0100]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using a time-of-flight sensor in the system of Jang, in order to increase efficiency of the robot when operating in real-time and increase accuracy of the detection (see at least Paragraphs [0007], [0100] of Jang).
As per Claim 6, Bushman, in view of Jang, teaches the features of Claim 5, and Jang further teaches the features of wherein the sensor data comprises three-dimensional sensor data of one or more interior surfaces of the body of the robot, and wherein the 3D sensor data defines a distance of the one or more interior surfaces of the body of the robot with respect to the ToF sensor.
However, Jang, in a similar field of endeavor, a robot cleaner and robot control method, where the sensor may be a three-dimensional camera sensor for generating three-dimensional coordinate information relating to the surrounding of the main body, and where the sensor (120) may include a Lidar, for detecting an obstacle based on time-of-flight (TOF) of a transmission signal and reception signal or a phase difference between the two and Lidar sensor may detect a distance between the sensor on the robot and an object (e.g. Paragraphs [0054], [0084], [0099]-[0100]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of using a time-of-flight sensor in the system of Jang, in order to increase efficiency of the robot when operating in real-time and increase accuracy of the detection (see at least Paragraphs [0007], [0100] of Jang).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0001311 A1, to Bushman, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bushman), in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,505,140, to Fay, et al (hereinafter referred to as Fay).
As per Claim 10, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 9, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-axis sensor actuator is configured actuate the sensor and the second sensor independently.
However, Fay, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches contact sensors for a mobile robot, where the bumper includes a bumper sensor associated with the corner of the robot, and the bumper comprises multiple segments, which can move somewhat independently from each other in response to applied force (e.g. Col. 10 lines 27-29; Col. 18 lines 28-43; Figures 2, 8A).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of actuating the sensors separately in the system of Fay, in order to more accurately detect forces on each of the bumper segments (see at least Col. 19 lines 13-17 of Fay).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0001311 A1, to Bushman, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bushman), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0234492 A1, to Svendsen, et al (hereinafter referred to as Svendsen).
As per Claim 15, Bushman discloses the features of Claim 9, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the multi-axis sensor actuator, the multi- directional sensor, and the second multi-directional sensor comprise a synthetic sensor, and wherein computing instructions stored on the computer memory, when executed by the processor, are further configured to cause the processor to: generate synthetic sensor data based on the sensor data of the multi-directional sensor and the second sensor data of the second multi-directional sensor.
However, Svendsen, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method for determining coverage of a robot, where actual physical sensors may be represented in the architecture by “virtual” sensors synthesized from the conditioning and drivers, or from detectable or interpreted physical properties, proprioceptive or interpreted upon the robot (100), such as over-current of a motor, stasis or stuck condition of the robot (by monitoring a lack of odometry reading from a wheel encoder or counter), battery charge state via coulometry, and other virtual sensors (e.g. Paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of synthesizing the data in the system of Svendsen, in order to more predictably collect and process data for the robot’s understanding of its environment (see at Paragraph [0058] of Svendsen).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0001311 A1, to Bushman, et al (hereinafter referred to as Bushman), in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0234492 A1, to Svendsen, et al (hereinafter referred to as Svendsen), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,505,140, to Fay, et al (hereinafter referred to as Fay).
As per Claim 16, Bushman, in view of Svendsen, teaches the features of Claim 15, but Bushman fails to disclose every feature of wherein the synthetic sensor data comprises data computed using each of the sensor data and the second sensor data, wherein the sensor data and the second sensor data differ based on at least one of: direction or magnitude.
However, Svendsen, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the features of wherein the synthetic sensor data comprises data computed using each of the sensor data and the second sensor data.
Svendsen teaches a method for determining coverage of a robot, where actual physical sensors may be represented in the architecture by “virtual” sensors synthesized from the conditioning and drivers, or from detectable or interpreted physical properties, proprioceptive or interpreted upon the robot (100), such as over-current of a motor, stasis or stuck condition of the robot (by monitoring a lack of odometry reading from a wheel encoder or counter), battery charge state via coulometry, and other virtual sensors (e.g. Paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, with the feature of synthesizing the data in the system of Svendsen, in order to more predictably collect and process data for the robot’s understanding of its environment (see at Paragraph [0058] of Svendsen).
Fay further teaches the features of wherein the sensor data and the second sensor data differ based on at least one of: direction or magnitude.
Fay teaches contact sensors for a mobile robot, where the bumper includes a bumper sensor associated with the corner of the robot, and the bumper comprises multiple segments, which can move somewhat independently from each other in response to applied force; and where the controller determines the attribute of the contact by comparing electrical signals received from the bumper sensors, including the strength of the electrical signal, a location of the contact, and a magnitude of force for each bumper section that is in contact with an obstacle (i.e. sensor data is different in direction or magnitude for each bumper segment) (e.g. Col. 13 lines 20-35; Col. 14 lines 36-43; Col. 18 lines 27-43; Figures 2, 8A).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to further modify the robot navigational sensor system of Bushman, in view of Svendsen, with the feature of determining a difference in signal strength in the system of Fay, in order to more accurately detect forces on each of the bumper segments (see at least Col. 19 lines 13-17 of Fay).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ebrahimi Afrouzi, et al (U.S. 2020/0069134 A1), which teaches a cleaning robot which has a flexible bumper for detecting contact with an object.
Gilbert, et al (U.S. 2008/0281470 A1), which teaches an autonomous coverage robot which detects an object and follows the wall.
Rosenstein, et al (U.S. 9,498,886 B2), which teaches a method for localizing and navigation a mobile robot.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MERRITT E LEVY whose telephone number is (571)270-5595. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0630-1600.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/MERRITT E LEVY/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/TIFFANY P YOUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666