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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The current title is highly vague and provides little informative value for a person of ordinary skill in the art whether the document warrants further review. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP 606.01 guides that a descriptive title may result in slightly longer title, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The "system" in claims 21-30. In claim 1, the "system" is configured to perform the functions. No evidence is before the examiner that the term "system" is the name for structure that performs the claimed functions. The cites structures such as "processor" and "computer-readable media having instructions." The processor and computer readable media with instructions are understood to be generic computer related components and do not appear to be sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions because no evidence was found by the Examiner that these structures are sufficient to perform the claimed functions. This interpretation appears to be reasonable and similar to example claim 9 in MPEP 2181(V) where claim 9 recites an image processing assembly comprising a system that is configured to perform several functions which is guided as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Furthermore, the algorithm is not found to be self-evident based on then claimed functions and would require consulting the specification for the algorithm.
The "non-transitory computer-readable medium/media" in claims 36-40. See MPEP 2181(V).
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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 21 and 31 recite the "determine a change in each coordinate of the set of three-dimensional coordinates for each coated panel of the set of coated panels" and there appears to be a lack of antecedent basis as to what the other coordinates are or a lack sufficient information as to what the previous condition is so that there is a change. The previous claimed step states that spectral data is converted to three-dimensional coordinates and it is not clear if this converted coordinate is the coordinate before or after the change and what the coordinates are that is being compared to the converted coordinates. The term "change" implies a temporal sequence. Dependent claims 22-30, and 32-40 are rejected for the same reason by virtue of their dependence on claim 21 or 31. For examination purposes, the clam will be interpreted as any difference between the data of one panel with the data of different panel.
Claim 21 recites the system to perform the function of "analyze, using a machine learning algorithm" and it is not clear if the system comprises this machine learning algorithm or if the system is merely capable of using a machine learning algorithm that may be external to the claimed system. Furthermore, it is not clear if it is the machine learning algorithm that performs the analysis or if the system has the algorithm that performs the analysis. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as the system being able to use an external machine learning algorithm that has an algorithm that performs the analysis. Claims 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reason since they depend on claim 21.
Claim 36 is also indefinite for similar reason. Claim 36 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) that has instructions to "analyze, using a machine learning algorithm" and it is and it is not clear if the CRM comprises this machine learning algorithm or if the CRM merely has an instruction to use a machine learning algorithm that may be external to the claimed CRM. Furthermore, it is not clear if it is the machine learning algorithm that performs the analysis or if the CRM has the algorithm that performs the analysis. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as the CRM having an instruction to use an external machine learning algorithm that performs the analysis. Claims 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reason since they depend on claim 36.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 29 and 30 depend on claim 21 which is drawn to the structure of a product, namely a system comprising a processor and a CRM, the system processing spectral data. MPEP 2115 guides that objects worked upon by an apparatus do not serve to structurally distinguish. Claims 29 and 30 provides a limitation to the data and is not found to further limit the structure of the system. Although claim 29 recites the data is obtained from a spectrophotometer, the spectrophotometer is not taken as an element of the system. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 21-40, as interpreted by the Examiner, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Numata et al. (US 6,539,325) in view of Kang (US 2013/0249956).
Note: The claims 21-30 are directed to the structure of a system comprising a processor and a CRM having instructions. The limitation pertaining to the spectral data of each coated panel is not found to be an element of the algorithm/instructions, but rather the data are objects worked upon by the system. The same applies to limitations directed to the coated panels as these panels are not elements of the system. See MPEP 2115. The claims are interpreted as to what the processor/CRM/algorithm is, and limitations as to the data operated on by the system are not found to impart any particular structure to the processor/CRM/algorithm and thus do not serve to structurally distinguish in a patentable manner.
Numata shows a color matching apparatus for automotive repair paint as follows:
21. A system for performing color batch correction, comprising:
one or more processors (column 13, lines 20-25: "personal computer is one equipped with a CPU having a clock frequency of not less than 166 MHz, an internal memory with a capacity of not less than 16 MB, preferably 32 MB or more, a hard disk unit of not less than 1 GB"; column 15, lines 47-51: "computer" or "CPU"); and
one or more computer-readable media (see above) having stored thereon executable instructions that (column 13, lines 30-40), when executed at the one or more processors, configure the system to perform at least the following:
receive spectral data corresponding to a set of coated panels, wherein each coating of each coated panel comprises one or more base coatings and at least an amount of a colorant, each coated panel of the set of coated panels having a different amount of the colorant(column 4, lines 59-61: "using spectral reflectance data at a plurality of viewing angles as generated with a plurality of coated samples…thus obtained");
convert the spectral data for each coated panel of the set of coated panels into a set of three-dimensional coordinates, the three-dimensional coordinates comprising a lightness value (L*), a red/green value (a*), and a blue/yellow value (b*) in a color space (column 5, lines 43-45: "a convergence computation can be carried out by the metameric method monitoring the difference from a target using the tristimulus values XYZ and coordinates L*a*b* "; See Table 2; column lines. 25-29);
determine a change in each coordinate of the set of three-dimensional coordinates for each coated panel of the set of coated panels (column 8, lines 14-29:" The degree of random reflection depends on the level of addition of a metallic or pearlescent pigment and, moreover, the spectral reflectances at different viewing angles are varied; column 9, lines 5-9: "using the…multiangle spectral reflectance data generated beforehand using a plurality of coated plates varied in the formulation of colorants and metallic or pearlescent pigments and in coating conditions as stored in the computer memory a fuzzy logic is employed");
analyze, using (e.g. fuzzy logic; column lines 1-column 12, line 37) (column 10, lines 29-33: "For example, when 3 kinds of colorants are involved, their correlations can be expressed in a trigonal prismatic coordinate space defined by the coordinate representing the total formulating amount and the coordinates representing the formulating ratios of the respective colorants, respectively, based on the total formulation."; column lines )
receive data associated with a first coating and a target coating, the data indicating a delta value calculated between the first coating and the target coating (column 4, lines 58-61:"using spectral reflectance data…thus obtained is compared with the reflectance of the target color");
determine one or more adjustments to make to the first coating and a predicted delta reduction value based at least in part on applying the (column 4, lines 64-67:"If the difference from the target color is greater than a predetermined value, a correction computation for necessary convergence is repeated"); and
output an indication of the one or more adjustments and the predicted delta reduction value (column 4, line 67:"the result is outputted").
Numata shows fuzzy logic being used for the spectral data analysis and adjustment determination but does not show a machine learning algorithm is used.
Kang shows a CIE lab color space conversion method where a neural network algorithm, i.e., a machine learning algorithm, was known to be used for accurate target color conversion (Para. [0006]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious modify the fuzzy logic of Numata with machine learning algorithm taught by Kang in order to accurately analyze and adjust the color values to produce the target color.
22. The system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions for receiving the spectral data comprise instructions that, when executed at a processor, configure the system to:
receive spectral data associated with measurements of each coated panel of the set of coated panels taken at multiple angles (Being a processor with algorithms, there is no reason why the device of Numata cannot receive the claimed data. Furthermore see column 12, lines 25-30).
23. The system of claim 22, wherein the multiple angles comprise 15, 25, 45, 75, or 110 degree angles, or any combination thereof (Being a processor with algorithms, there is no reason why the device of Numata cannot receive the claimed data. Furthermore see column 12, lines 25-30).
24. The system of claim 22, wherein the executable instructions for determining the change in each coordinate of the three-dimensional coordinates comprises instructions that, when executed at a processor, configure the system to:
determine the change in each coordinate of the set of three-dimensional coordinates on a per-angle basis, wherein a change is calculated at each angle of the multiple angles (column 12, lines 25-30; column 13, line 66 - column 14 line 3).
25. The system of claim 22, where in the executable instructions include instructions that are executable to configure the system to:
add an indication of the data associated with the target coating and the first coating, the one or more adjustments and the predicted delta reduction value to the set of coated panels (Numata and Kang show all the elements as discussed for claim 22, but no not show adding the parameters as recited in claim 25. Kang states that neural networks require a large number experiments. With the neural network requiring a large number of experiments and being that it is a neural, i.e. learning, algorithm, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add more data for the neural network in to learn from and thereby improve the accuracy of the color).
26. The system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions for determining the one or more adjustments include instructions that are executable to configure the system to:
determine amounts of one or more pigments to add to the first coating, wherein the predicted delta reduction value is based at least in part on the amounts of the one or more pigments (column lines 25-29: "As to the colorants, the formulation information can be expressed in a coordinate system representing the total formulating amount of all the colorants and the formulating ratios of the respective colorants"; column 17, lines 9-15: "Based on the result of computation, the paint components were weighed out with the electronic balance to prepare a paint. A coated plate was prepared with this paint in the same manner [Symbol font/0x44]as the target coated plate. This coated plate was measured and the color difference [Symbol font/0x44]E from the target color was determined").
27. The system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions for outputting the one or more adjustments and the predicted delta reduction value include instructions that are executable to configure the system to:
display, to a user of the system, the amounts of one or more pigments to add to the first coating, the predicted delta reduction value, a root mean square delta value, or any combination thereof (column 17, lines 29-32: "The color of the predicted formulation during said weighing was displayed in parallel with the target color for each of the highlight direction, front direction and shade direction and visually monitored on the color display.").
28. The system of claim 21, wherein the machine learning algorithm comprises a linear regression algorithm or other supervised machine learning algorithms (With Numata and Kang combined, with Numata teaching a linear algorithm (column 8, lines 28-540) and Kang teaching the machine learning algorithm, the combination would yield the linear regression algorithm. Alternatively, Official notice is taken that supervised learning algorithms were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a supervised learning algorithm in order to monitor and ensure the learning is performed with accurate data.)
29. The system of claim 21, wherein the spectral data for the set of coated panels comprise measurements taken using a spectrophotometer (column 12, lines 7-8: "data generated with a multiangle spectrophotometer").
30. The system of claim 21, wherein the data associated with the target coating and the first coating comprise a product identifier, a color code, or both (Numata does not show the data for the target coating to be identified by a color code. Official notice is taken that the use of color codes for automotive paint was well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious use a color code for the target color in order to simplify the identification and specification of the target color).
31. A method for performing color batch correction, the method executed on one or more processors of a computer system, the method comprising:
receiving spectral data corresponding to a set of coated panels, wherein each coating of each coated panel comprises one or more base coatings and at least an amount of a colorant, each coated panel of the set of coated panels having a different amount of the colorant;
converting the spectral data for each coated panel of the set of coated panels into a set of three-dimensional coordinates, the three-dimensional coordinates comprising a lightness value (L*), a red/green value (a*), and a blue/yellow value (b*) in a color space;
determining a change in each coordinate of the set of three-dimensional coordinates for each coated panel of the set of coated panels;
analyzing, using a machine learning algorithm, the change in each coordinate of the set of three-dimensional coordinates for each coated panel of the set of coated panels;
receiving data associated with a first coating and a target coating, the data indicating a delta value calculated between the first coating and the target coating;
determining one or more adjustments to make to the first coating and a predicted delta reduction value based at least in part on applying the machine learning algorithm; and
outputting an indication of the one or more adjustments and the predicted delta reduction value (See the citations given for claim 21 above).
32. The method of claim 31, wherein receiving the spectral data comprises:
receiving spectral data associated with measurements of each coated panel of the set of coated panels taken at multiple angles (See the citations given for claim 22 above).
33. The method of claim 32, wherein the multiple angles comprise 15, 25, 45, 75, or 110 degree angles, or any combination thereof (See the citations given for claim 23 above).
34. The method of claim 31, further comprising:
adding an indication of the data associated with the target coating and the first coating, the one or more adjustments and the predicted delta reduction value to the set of coated panels (See the citations given for claim 25 above).
35. The method of claim 31, wherein determining the one or more adjustments further comprises:
determining amounts of one or more pigments to add to the first coating, wherein the predicted delta reduction value is based at least in part on the amounts of the one or more pigments (See the citations given for claim 26 above).
36. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising one or more computer- readable storage media having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, if executed at a processor, cause a computer system to perform a method for performing color batch correction, the method comprising:
receiving spectral data corresponding to a set of coated panels, wherein each coating of each coated panel comprises one or more base coatings and at least an amount of a colorant, each coated panel of the set of coated panels having a different amount of the colorant;
converting the spectral data for each coated panel of the set of coated panels into a set of three-dimensional coordinates, the three-dimensional coordinates comprising a lightness value (L*), a red/green value (a*), and a blue/yellow value (b*) in a color space;
determining a change in each coordinate of the set of three-dimensional coordinates for each coated panel of the set of coated panels;
analyzing, using a machine learning algorithm, the change in each coordinate of the three-dimensional coordinates for each coated panel of the set of coated panels;
receiving data associated with a first coating and a target coating, the data indicating a delta value calculated between the first coating and the target coating;
determining one or more adjustments to make to the first coating and a predicted delta reduction value based at least in part on applying the machine learning algorithm; and
outputting the one or more adjustments and the predicted delta reduction value (See the citations given for claim 21 above).
37. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 36, wherein the computer-executable instructions for receiving the spectral data comprise computer-executable instructions that, when executed at a processor, cause the computer system the method comprising:
receiving spectral data associated with measurements of each coated panel of the set of coated panels taken at multiple angles (See the citations given for claim 22 above).
38. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37, wherein the multiple angles comprise 15, 25, 45, 75, or 110 degree angles, or any combination thereof. (See the citations given for claim 23 above)
39. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 36, wherein the computer-executable instructions comprise:
adding an indication of the data associated with the target coating and the first coating, the one or more adjustments and the predicted delta reduction value to the set of coated panels (See the citations given for claim 25 above).
40. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 36, wherein the computer-executable instructions for determining the one or more adjustments further comprise computer-executable instructions that, when executed at a processor, cause the computer system to perform the method comprising:
determining amounts of one or more pigments to add to the first coating, wherein the predicted delta reduction value is based at least in part on the amounts of the one or more pigments (See the citations given for claim 26 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, abstract idea, without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent claims 21 and 36 are drawn to a product and independent claim 31 is drawn to a process. These claims are directed to a statutory category.
Step 2A:
A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Examiner notes that independent claim 21, 31, and 36 recites the steps of --convert the spectral data…, determine a change in each coordinate…, and analyze, using a machine learning algorithm, the change in each coordinate…, which fall under mathematical calculations.
The dependent claims limit the abstract idea to – type of received data, further mathematical calculations, or communication preferences – which constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity or the mathematical calculations.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 21-40 recite a judicial exception.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The only additional elements recited by the independent claims, beyond the judicial exception, are recitations of "output an indication.." in the last clause and the use of a machine learning algorithm.
The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas that merely use a generic computer component (a machine learning algorithm, processor, CRM, non-transitory CRM, and "output" such as a display) as a tool. Steps that do nothing more than spell out what is means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility. Thus, the claimed limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Hence, under Prong Two of PEG 2019, the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For the above reasons, claims are ineligible under Step 2A.
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
The independent claims also recite "receive spectral data corresponding to a set of coated panels…" and "receive data associated with a first coating and target coating…" These amount to insignificant data gathering in order practice the judicial exception and thus do not add significantly more
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Osumi et al (US 6,362,885) computer-aided color matching with formulation in learning data for reproducing a predicted color value.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights