DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claim fails to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 1, the term “pre-configured sample data window” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear of how, in what manner, or based on what criteria/condition that such “pre-configured sample data window” is configured. Likewise, the term “pre-defined reference feature” also suffers the same deficiencies. In addition, what is meant and encompasses “a spectral analysis method”, “fundamental tones”, “an estimation technique”, and “statistical features” are also unclear. The metes and bound of the claims cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art. Further, it is also unclear of how aerial objects are detected and classified by merely obtaining and processing a radar input signal from a radar station. The claim fails to clearly set forth the claimed subject matter from the claimed language encompass. Much of the claimed language is simply a list of desired results and do little to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 3, it is also unclear of what is meant and encompasses the claimed language of “a reference set of statistical features from known aerial objects”. It lacks any clarity as to what metes and bound of such encompass.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the method, system, and computer product for detection and classification of aerial objects that is accomplished through a series of mental processes and/or mathematical manipulation. The claims also require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (i.e. generic computer/processor are disclosed throughout Applicant’s disclosure). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract...is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,…and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 12 recites a system. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 13 recites a computer product. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claims recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1, and similarly claims 12-13, recites the steps of:
processing, in a processing unit, a pre-configured sample data window of the detected radar input signal by using a spectral analysis method to obtain spectral data;
extracting fundamental tones from said spectral data by using an estimation technique;
measuring, in the processing unit, statistical features between the extracted fundamental tones; and
detecting and classifying objects by comparing, in the processing unit, the measured statistical features with at least one pre-defined reference feature.
The “processing” step may be performed by observing and evaluating the received radar input signa which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation and/or mathematical calculations.
The “extracting” and “measuring” steps may be practically performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation and/or mathematical calculations.
The “detecting” and “classifying” steps may be practically performed in the human mind using evaluation, judgement, and opinion and/or mathematical calculations.
Therefore, such steps of as claimed in claims 1 and 12-13 encompass processes that can be performed mentally and/or mathematical calculations; thus, fall within “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-11 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes and/or mathematical calculations.
Regarding claims 2-11, the further steps of detecting and classifying objects as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion and/or mathematical calculations.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 also falls within the “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The only additional elements of claim 1, and similarly claims 12-13, is the “obtaining, in an input detection unit, a radar input signal from a radar station”. This limitation, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data gathering step for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception.
Further, claims 1-13 require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (i.e. generic computer/processor disclosed throughout Applicant’s disclosure). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1-13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps and mental processes. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harman (IDS reference – US 20190137605).
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 12-13, as best understood, Harman discloses a method for detection and classification of aerial objects (i.e. “a drone detection radar”) ([0010]); (i.e. “…the system is arranged to compare the returns from the target with the information in the database, to identify a model of the target drone from those in the database.”) ([0019]), the method comprising:
obtaining, in an input detection unit (i.e. broadly reads on the receiver antenna 20 and the receiver front end 22) (Fig 1), a radar input signal from a radar station ([0050]).
processing, in a processing unit (i.e. processor 12) (Fig 1), a pre-configured sample data window (i.e. broadly reads on the envelope) ([0026]) of the detected radar input signal by using a spectral analysis method to obtain spectral data (i.e. broadly reads on Fourier transform of Doppler signals) ([0026])
extracting fundamental tones from said spectral data by using an estimation technique (Fig 2a; [0056]-[0057])
measuring, in the processing unit, statistical features between the extracted fundamental tones ([0010]-[0014]; [0061]); and
detecting and classifying objects by comparing, in the processing unit, the measured statistical features with at least one pre-defined reference feature ([0010]-[0014]; [0019]).
In addition regarding claims 12-13, Harman discloses in Fig 1 the claimed system for perform the method of claim 1 (Fig 1); and inherently disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by at least one of an input detection unit and a processing unit of a system, the one or more programs including instructions for performing the method of claim 1 (i.e. processor) ([0063]).
As to limitations which are considered to be inherent in a reference, note the case law of In re Ludtke, 169 U.S.P.Q. 563; In re Swinehart, 169 U.S.P.Q. 226; In re Fitzgerald, 205 U.S.P.Q. 594; In re Best et al, 195 U.S.P.Q. 430; and In re Brown, 173 U.S.P.Q. 685, 688.
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 2, Harman discloses the step of obtaining the radar input signal comprises sampling the radar input signal at regular intervals ([0026]).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Harman discloses the pre-defined reference feature is a reference set of statistical features from known aerial objects ([0010]-[0014]; [0019]-[0020]).
Regarding claim 4, Harman discloses the spectral analysis method is digital Fourier transform ([0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Harman discloses the object is an unmanned aerial vehicle, (UAV) (Abstract; [0003]; [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Harman discloses the statistical features are indicative of at least one physical trait of an aerial object or physical trait of a component of an aerial object; the physical trait is at least one of velocity, material and dimension; wherein the components component being is at least one of rotor blade, a skid, a tail, a fin, a wing or a fastening means. ([0018]-[0019]; [0061]-0062]).
Regarding claim 9, Harman discloses the step of detecting and classifying (305) objects comprise categorizing the objects into different types of unmanned aerial-vehicle, vehicles (UAVs), or other objects (i.e. “…embodiments may extend to a system further including a database of different drone models”) ([0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Harman discloses the detecting and classifying is performed by comparing, in the processing unit, the measured statistical features with a plurality of pre-defined reference features and matching said measured statistical features to one of said pre-defined reference features are most correlative relative to said measured statistical features ([0019]).
Regarding claim 11, Harman discloses when detecting and classifying, determining a likelihood of a hypothesis, the hypothesis being whether a detected aerial object belongs to a specific classification conditional on said statistical features ([0016]-[0020]).
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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman in view of Cohen et al (WO 2016/205217).
Regarding claim 5, Harman does not explicitly disclose the estimation technique to extract fundamental tones is an Estimation of Signal Parameters via Rotational Invariance Technique, (ESPRIT) as claimed. Cohen et al teach in the same field of endeavor of object detection utilizing the estimation technique to extract fundamental tones is an Estimation of Signal Parameters via Rotational Invariance Technique, (ESPRIT) (page 11, last paragraph – page 12, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Harman in view of Cohen et al by incorporating the estimation technique to extract fundamental tones is an Estimation of Signal Parameters via Rotational Invariance Technique, (ESPRIT) as taught by Cohen et al to gain advantage of properly detecting an object in a radar system; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harman.
Regarding claim 6, Harman does not explicitly disclose the statistical features comprises at least one of mean, median, standard deviation, or variance as claimed. However, such mean, median, standard deviation, or variance are merely statistical measurements, distribution and well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize any of the claimed well known statistical measurements into Harman’s invention for detecting and classifying objects.
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,520,051 discloses a system and method for detecting a rotary wing aircraft. A return electromagnetic signal, reflected by a rotary wing aircraft, is received through an electromagnetic signal detection apparatus. The aircraft includes a plurality of propeller blades attached to at least one motor. At least one propeller blade has at least one portion with a reflectivity different from other portions. A first time series data of the return electromagnetic signal is received. A second time series data is determined based on the first time series data and a predefined threshold. A characteristic of the second time series data is used to determine whether it corresponds to the known aircraft.
US 11,402,469 discloses a drone detection radar configured to identify, from information present on returns reflected from a target, the presence of a drone, by identification, within Doppler information on the returns, of: i) Doppler signals being characteristic of rotating parts of a motor; ii) Doppler signals being characteristic of rotating parts of a blade; and, by identification from temporal information in the reflected returns; and iii) signals being characteristic of flashing of the blade of a drone. The target is assumed to be a drone if signals i, ii, and iii are present above respective predetermined thresholds. The largest return from a drone is often from the body, but this is often filtered by a clutter filter. The identified parameters therefore improve detection ability. The characteristic form of the Doppler signals in some instances allow the body return to be implied, thus providing information as to drone velocity.
US 9,971,021 discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) radar apparatus may be used in aircraft detection and avoidance. The radar apparatus may include an RF front end configured to transmit and receive RF signals, a filtering module coupled with the RF front end module that filters RF signals received at the RF front end module, and a target data processing module coupled with the filtering module that detects and identifies one or more targets based on the filtered RF signals. Avoidance procedures may be initiated based on the identification and detection of one or more targets.
WO 2019/161076 discloses systems, methods, and devices for detecting UAVs in an RF environment. A node device is constructed and configured for network communication with at least one camera. The at least one camera captures images of the RF environment and transmits video data to the apparatus. The node device receives RF data and generates FFT data based on the RF data, identifies at least one signal based on a first derivative and a second derivative of the FFT data, measures a direction from which the at least one signal is transmitted, analyzes the video data. The node device then identifies at least one UAV to which the at least one signal is related based on the analyzed video data, and controls the at least one camera based on the direction from which the at least one signal is transmitted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights