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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. Claim 14 recites a "computer program product being adapted for carrying out the method according to claim 1" without requiring that the computer program product be embodied in a tangible computer-readable storage medium or other statutory manufacture. Thus, the claim encompasses a computer program or software per se, which does not fall within any of the four statutory categories of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 15 recites “a computer storage medium storing the computer program product of claim 14.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited computer storage medium is not limited to a non-transitory tangible storage medium and therefore encompasses a transitory propagating signal carrying the computer program product. A transitory propagating signal is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore does not fall within any of the four statutory categories of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. MPEP 2106.03 specifically provides that when the broadest reasonable interpretation of computer-readable or machine-readable media encompasses transitory signal transmission, the claim should be rejected under 101.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. Claim 6 recites “wherein the vegetative parameter includes a type or species parameter specifying a condition per sub-area and a quantitative parameter specifying a quantity of a type or species per sub-area.” However, claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites a “vegetative indicator” and does not previously introduce or define “the vegetative parameter.” Accordingly, it is unclear whether “the vegetative parameter” in claim 6 is intended to refer to the “vegetative indicator” of claim 1 or to a different parameter. Because the antecedent basis and relationship between “the vegetative parameter” and the previously recited “vegetative indicator” are unclear, the scope of claim 6 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tempel (US 2022/0167546 A1) in view of Grimm et al. (US 2010/0032492 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tempel teaches a method for generating a control signal for a smart spraying device with one or more individually controllable spray nozzle(s) or groups of spray nozzles for a field treatment process, wherein the treatment device may be a smart sprayer having a nozzle arrangement with several independent nozzles that may be controlled independently. Tempel further teaches determining a treatment control signal for controlling the treatment arrangement based on the determined application rate. (Tempel, paras. [0090], [0094]-[0095], [0116], [0126], [0136]). Tempel teaches receiving a vegetative indicator of an area to be treated by taking images of a plantation field and recognizing objects, including crops and weeds, from the images. Tempel further teaches determining parameters representative of vegetation conditions, including weed species, weed growth stage, object density, and biomass coverage. (Tempel, paras. [0012]-[0014], [0027], [0029]-[0030], [0063]-[0064], [0111]-[0115], [0128]-[0133]).
Tempel teaches determining a required dose rate for a first product for an area to be treated with a first product based on the vegetative indicator. Specifically, Tempel teaches determining variable application rates based on the recognized vegetation, including species, growth stage, biomass, and object density. Tempel expressly defines application rate as an amount of treatment product per area and dose rate as an amount of active ingredient per area, and states that determining the application rate preferably comprises determining the dose rate. For example, Tempel determines different herbicide application rates depending upon the detected weed species and increases the application rate when detected biomass exceeds a threshold. (Tempel, paras. [0030], [0032], [0039], [0091], [0123], [0129]-[0135]).
Tempel further teaches providing the generated control signal for individually controlling said one or more spray nozzle(s) or group of spray nozzles for application of the first product. Tempel teaches generating treatment control signal S based on the recognized objects and application-rate decision logic, providing the signal to the treatment arrangement, and independently controlling several nozzles of the smart sprayer based on the determined treatment requirement. (Tempel, paras. [0090], [0094]-[0095], [0116], [0126], [0136]).
Tempel does not expressly teach determining a first duty cycle (DC1) of a Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) of a control signal for application of the first product in the area to be treated based on the determined dose rate for the first product, wherein the first duty cycle is indicative of an activation duration during a duration of a first base cycle (BC1) for at least one of the individually controllable spray nozzle(s) or group of spray nozzles.
However, Grimm teaches this limitation. Grimm teaches a spraying system having a plurality of individually controlled pulse-width-modulated valves associated with respective spray nozzles. The controller calculates a duty-cycle percentage for each individual valve and controls the amount of agricultural product dispensed by each nozzle according to the calculated duty cycle. Grimm further teaches that increased or decreased application rates may be selected based on vegetative conditions including crop or weed density, crop or weed health, and crop or weed species. (Grimm, paras. [0007]-[0009], [0016]-[0017], [0041]-[0045], [0067]-[0069], [0078]-[0079], [0084]-[0086]). More specifically, Grimm teaches that the actuator associated with each valve pulsates between an open position and a closed position according to a duty-cycle percentage and expressly defines the duty-cycle percentage as “the percentage of time the valve is open divided by the total operation time.” Thus, Grimm's duty cycle represents an activation/open duration during the duration of a repeating operating cycle. Grimm further teaches that the duty-cycle percentage controls the flow rate and that the controller uses the calculated individual duty-cycle percentages to control the respective solenoids to dispense agricultural product according to the desired amount. (Grimm, paras. [0058]-[0062], [0076]-[0079]; Fig. 1).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the independently controllable spray nozzles of Tempel using the pulse-width-modulated valve control taught by Grimm, including determining an individual PWM duty cycle based on the desired application or dose rate, in order to precisely regulate the amount of agricultural product dispensed by each individual nozzle according to the locally determined vegetative treatment requirement. Grimm expressly teaches PWM individual-nozzle control as a mechanism for varying nozzle application rates based on field and vegetative conditions, such that the combination would have amounted to use of a known nozzle-control technique to implement Tempel's independently determined variable application rates with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Tempel teaches wherein receiving a vegetative indicator of the area to be treated includes receiving location-specific field data associated with a plurality of sub-areas within the area to be treated, by receiving spatially resolved, location-specific field information associated with multiple locations or grid elements on a sub-field scale, including location-specific images corresponding to areas to be treated. (Tempel, paras. [0017], [0024], [0026]-[0027]).
Tempel further teaches wherein determining a required dose rate for a first product includes determining an individual dose rate for the respective sub-area to be treated based on the vegetative indicator associated with the respective sub-area, by determining a location-specific application/dose rate based on vegetation information associated with the particular location, including recognized weed species, growth stage, density, and biomass. (Tempel, paras. [0030]-[0032], [0095], [0128]-[0135]).
Grimm teaches wherein determining a first duty cycle (DC1) of a control signal includes determining a first duty cycle (DC1) for at least one of the individually controllable spray nozzle(s) or group of spray nozzles based on the individual dose rate for the first product for the respective sub-area, by determining an individual PWM duty-cycle percentage for each valve/nozzle based on the desired individual application rate or flow requirement. (Grimm, paras. [0067]-[0069], [0076]-[0079], [0084]-[0086]).
Tempel in view of Grimm further teaches wherein providing the generated control signal includes providing a generated control signal for at least one of the individually controllable spray nozzle(s) or group of spray nozzles for application of the first product in the respective sub-area, because Tempel teaches providing a treatment control signal for independently controlling respective nozzles according to location-specific treatment requirements, while Grimm teaches applying the individual PWM control signal to the corresponding nozzle/valve to dispense the desired amount of agricultural product. (Tempel, paras. [0094]-[0095], [0116], [0126], [0136]; Grimm, paras. [0059]-[0060], [0078]-[0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Grimm’s individual PWM nozzle control with Tempel’s location-specific treatment determinations so that each independently controllable nozzle applies the individually determined dose rate to the respective sub-area.
Per claim 3, Grimm teaches receiving a ground speed of the at least one spray nozzle or group of spray nozzles, wherein Grimm teaches determining the speed at which each valve/nozzle traverses the field, particularly during a turn where nozzles at different positions travel at different speeds. (Grimm, paras. [0012], [0043], [0062], [0080]).
Tempel in view of Grimm teaches wherein determining a first duty cycle (DC1) of a control signal includes determining a first duty cycle (DC1) for at least one of the individually controllable spray nozzles or group of spray nozzles for application of the first product in an area to be treated, based on the determined dose rate for a first product and the ground speed of the at least one spray nozzle or group of spray nozzles. Tempel teaches determining the required application/dose rate from the local vegetative condition, while Grimm teaches calculating the individual PWM duty-cycle percentage using flow-related control values that include the desired application rate and a speed-based turn-ratio value for the nozzle. (Tempel, paras. [0030]-[0032], [0129]-[0135]; Grimm, paras. [0008]-[0012], [0062], [0067]-[0069], [0076]-[0080]).
Grimm further teaches wherein receiving a ground speed includes receiving an individual ground speed for individual spray nozzles or groups of spray nozzles each associated with a respective sub-area, wherein Grimm teaches that individual nozzles positioned along the boom travel at different actual speeds during a turn and that an individual speed-dependent turn-ratio value is assigned to each nozzle according to its position and speed. Tempel teaches that respective independently controllable nozzles are associated with particular location-specific areas of the field to be treated. (Grimm, paras. [0012], [0043], [0080]; Tempel, paras. [0017], [0024], [0026], [0095], [0126]).
Tempel in view of Grimm further teaches wherein determining a first duty cycle (DC1) of a control signal includes determining a first duty cycle (DC1) for individual spray nozzles or group of spray nozzles based on the individual dose rate for the first product for the respective sub-area and the individual ground speed of the individual spray nozzles or group of spray nozzles. Tempel teaches determining a location-specific dose/application rate for the area associated with the respective nozzle, while Grimm teaches combining multiple individual flow-related control values for each nozzle—including a speed-dependent turn-ratio value—to obtain a flow factor and then using that flow factor with the application-rate-related duty cycle to calculate the individual PWM duty-cycle percentage for that nozzle. (Tempel, paras. [0024], [0026], [0030]-[0032], [0095], [0126]-[0135]; Grimm, paras. [0008]-[0012], [0067]-[0069], [0076]-[0080]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to account for the individual ground speed of each nozzle when implementing Tempel’s location-specific dose rates using Grimm’s PWM nozzle control, so that the respective nozzle duty cycle is adjusted according to both the treatment requirement of the corresponding field area and the actual speed of that nozzle, thereby maintaining the desired application rate as individual nozzle speed varies.
Regarding claim 4, Tempel further teaches wherein the control signal per spray nozzle or spray nozzle group relates to an active-operation, if the vegetative indicator related to a specific spray nozzle or spray nozzle group is a quantitative indicator and with respect to a first threshold of the respective vegetative indicator indicates the respective sub-area to be treated with the first product. Tempel teaches deriving quantitative vegetation parameters, including biomass coverage, from image data associated with the area to be treated, comparing the quantitative parameter to a threshold, and making an on/off treatment decision depending on whether the parameter satisfies the threshold. Tempel further teaches independently controllable nozzles associated with respective treatment areas. (Tempel, paras. [0004]-[0006], [0029]-[0030], [0095], [0115]-[0116], [0126], [0130]-[0133]).
Regarding claim 7, Tempel teaches wherein the vegetative indicator is derived from real time field data, by acquiring location-specific images and other online field data in real time as the treatment device traverses the field, recognizing vegetation/weed conditions from that data, and using the recognized conditions to control treatment. (Tempel, paras. [0017]-[0018], [0021], [0026]-[0030], [0043], [0067]-[0070], [0111]-[0116]).
Tempel further teaches wherein the field data are associated with a field condition, including current plantation growth data, weed growth stage, soil conditions, weather conditions, biomass, species, and object density associated with the particular location being treated. (Tempel, paras. [0021], [0025], [0030], [0063]-[0076]).
Tempel in view of Grimm teaches wherein determining a duration of the first duty cycle (DC1) is determined in real time based on the vegetative indicator per sub-area and location specific dose rates per sub-area per spray nozzle or spray nozzle group. Tempel teaches determining, in real time, location-specific application/dose rates based on the vegetation condition associated with the particular field location and independently controlling respective nozzles according to those rates. (Tempel, paras. [0017]-[0018], [0024], [0026], [0030]-[0032], [0043], [0094]-[0095], [0126]-[0136]). Grimm teaches determining the PWM valve-open duration/duty cycle according to the desired individual application rate or flow requirement for the respective nozzle. (Grimm, paras. [0058]-[0062], [0067]-[0069], [0076]-[0079]).
Regarding claim 8, Tempel teaches determining a weed indicator per sub-area associated with a predetermined weed type and/or weed species is based on the field data of that respective sub-area, by acquiring location-specific field images, identifying the weed present in the corresponding field location, and determining parameters including weed species, biomass, growth stage, and density for that location. Tempel specifically teaches distinguishing between weed species such as Amaranthus retroflexus and Digitaria sanguinalis based on the captured field image. (Tempel, paras. [0017], [0024], [0026]-[0030], [0063]-[0064], [0111]-[0115], [0128]-[0132]).
Tempel further teaches adapting the required dose rate for a first product applied to the respective sub-area is based on the determined weed indicator. Tempel teaches setting different herbicide application rates depending on the identified weed species and further modifying the application rate based on quantitative weed characteristics such as biomass. For example, Tempel sets one application rate for Digitaria sanguinalis and a higher application rate for Amaranthus retroflexus, and increases the rate when weed biomass exceeds a threshold. (Tempel, paras. [0030]-[0032], [0063], [0123], [0129]-[0135]).
Regarding claim 12, Tempel teaches a smart spraying device comprising one or more individually controllable spray nozzle(s) or groups of spray nozzles. Tempel expressly describes the treatment device as a smart sprayer having a nozzle arrangement comprising several independent nozzles that may be controlled independently. (Tempel, paras. [0090], [0094]-[0095], [0126]).
Tempel further teaches a receiving section for receiving control signals for the one or more individually controllable spray nozzle(s) or groups of spray nozzles provided by the method according to claim 1. Tempel teaches that treatment control unit 210 generates treatment control signal S and provides the treatment control signal to treatment arrangement 270, which includes the independently controlled spray nozzles and treats the plantation based on the received control signal. (Tempel, paras. [0090], [0116], [0126], [0136]).
Grimm further teaches an actor device for activating selectively the one or more individually controllable spray nozzle(s) or groups of spray nozzles based on the provided control signals. Grimm teaches individually controllable valves associated with respective spray nozzles, each valve including a solenoid actuator that selectively moves the valve between open and closed positions in response to the PWM control signal, thereby selectively activating the corresponding nozzle to dispense agricultural product. (Grimm, paras. [0041]-[0045], [0058]-[0062], [0076]-[0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Tempel’s independently controllable smart-sprayer nozzles using Grimm’s individually actuated PWM valves and associated control circuitry, so that received control signals selectively actuate the respective nozzle valves to provide the desired individual application rate.
Regarding claim 13, Tempel teaches a computing capacity being adapted for carrying out the method according to claim 1, by disclosing treatment control unit 210 and field manager system 100 implemented using data-processing elements such as a microprocessor, microcontroller, FPGA, CPU, or DSP, which determine application-rate logic and generate treatment control signals for controlling the treatment device. Tempel further explains that the field-manager functionality may be embedded in the treatment device or performed externally, including by a cloud service. (Tempel, paras. [0104]-[0106], [0109]-[0110], [0115]-[0119]).
Tempel teaches a smart spraying device comprising one or more individually controllable spray nozzle(s) or groups of spray nozzles, by expressly describing the treatment device as a smart sprayer having a nozzle arrangement with several independent nozzles that may be controlled independently. (Tempel, paras. [0094]-[0095], [0126]).
Tempel further teaches a receiving section for receiving control signals for the one or more individually controllable spray nozzle(s) or groups of spray nozzles provided by the method according to claim 1, wherein treatment control unit 210 generates treatment control signal S and provides that signal to treatment arrangement 270 for controlling the spray nozzles. (Tempel, paras. [0090], [0116], [0126], [0136]).
Grimm teaches an actor device for activating selectively the one or more individually controllable spray nozzle(s) or groups of spray nozzles based on the provided control signals, by teaching solenoid actuators associated with individually controlled PWM valves/nozzles that open and close in response to the respective control signals to dispense agricultural product. (Grimm, paras. [0058]-[0062], [0076]-[0079]).
Tempel further teaches wherein the receiving section and the computing capacity are communicatively connected to each other to communicate control signals, by teaching communication between the treatment control unit and the treatment arrangement/nozzle system, including provision of the generated treatment control signal from the computing/control functionality to the treatment device for execution. (Tempel, paras. [0090], [0104]-[0106], [0116], [0119]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Tempel’s smart sprayer using Grimm’s individually actuated PWM nozzle valves, with the computing/control components communicatively coupled to the nozzle-control components, so that generated control signals are transmitted to selectively actuate the respective spray nozzles.
Regarding claim 14 and 15, Tempel teaches a computer program product being adapted for carrying out the method according to claim 1, by disclosing that the field manager system and treatment control functionality may be implemented using programmable processing elements, including microprocessors, microcontrollers, CPUs, DSPs, and similar computing devices, and that the relevant functionality may be executed by software instructions stored and run by those computing elements. Tempel further teaches that the control functionality may be embedded in the treatment device or performed externally, including in a cloud service. (Tempel, paras. [0106], [0118]-[0119]).
Regarding claim 16, Tempel further teaches wherein the vegetative indicator is derived from image field data collected during the field treatment process. Tempel teaches acquiring location-specific images of the plantation field while the treatment device is operating in the field, recognizing vegetation objects from the acquired images, and deriving vegetation parameters from the image data for use in determining the corresponding treatment/application rate. Tempel expressly teaches that the image acquisition, object recognition, application-rate determination, and treatment control may be performed in real time during treatment of the field. (Tempel, paras. [0012]-[0018], [0026]-[0030], [0063]-[0064], [0111]-[0116], [0128]-[0136]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tempel in view of Grimm and further in view of Funseth et al. (US 2020/0406281).
Regarding claim 5, Tempel in view of Grimm does not teach limitation of claim 5. However, Funseth teaches wherein determining a first duty cycle (DC1) includes determining a first base cycle (BC1) by providing a predetermined overlap of at least two application areas in successive duty cycles (DC1) for respective sub-areas in a movement direction of the individual spray nozzle or group of spray nozzles. Funseth teaches PWM-controlled agricultural nozzles in which spray coverage and overlap are coordinated through pulse timing and frequency. Funseth further teaches setting the amount of overlap among neighboring nozzles and controlling PWM frequency, duty cycle, pulse phase, nozzle travel speed, and spray pattern to maintain coverage. In particular, Funseth teaches pulsing at selected frequencies while ensuring overlapping spray coverage and expressly refers to operation at a “base frequency” or another selected frequency. (Funseth, paras. [0108], [0111]-[0114], [0125], [0129]-[0132], [0142]-[0144]; Figs. 11B-11C, 14A, 15A-15C).
Funseth further teaches deriving the first base cycle (BC1) from the predetermined overlap of application areas in successive duty cycles (DC1) and the on duration of the first duty cycle (DC1) derived from the respective dose rate. Funseth teaches that duty cycle represents the ON duration relative to the full operating period T, that fluid volume and flow depend on how long the valve remains open, and that pulse width is selected according to the desired fluid amount/flow rate and vehicle travel speed. Funseth additionally teaches dynamically changing pulse frequency based on nozzle travel speed and duty cycle, thereby changing the corresponding cycle period while maintaining the desired spray coverage/overlap. (Funseth, paras. [0076]-[0077], [0103]-[0106], [0112]-[0114], [0142]-[0144]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure the PWM nozzle control of Tempel and Grimm according to Funseth's teaching of selecting PWM frequency/cycle timing based on duty-cycle ON duration, nozzle movement, and desired spray overlap, in order to provide substantially uniform product coverage while avoiding untreated gaps between successive spray applications.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tempel in view of Grimm and further in view of Serrat et al. (US 2020/0230633 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Tempel teaches wherein the vegetative parameter includes a type or species parameter specifying a condition per sub-area and a quantitative parameter specifying a quantity of a type or species per sub-area, by determining vegetation information including object species, object growth stage, object density, and biomass coverage on a location-specific basis. (Tempel, paras. [0024], [0027], [0029]-[0030], [0063]-[0064], [0128]-[0133]).
Serrat teaches wherein the method further comprises selecting the first product per sub-area based on the type or species parameter. Serrat teaches identifying weed species from image data and, based on the weed species detection signal, selecting a supply module containing an herbicide adapted for that identified weed species and controlling the corresponding nozzle to spray the selected chemical agent. Serrat further teaches associating weed species with field location and controlling selected nozzles according to that location. (Serrat, paras. [0025], [0043]-[0047], [0086]-[0095], [0096]-[0100]).
Tempel further teaches wherein determining a dose rate per sub-area is based on at least one of the type or species parameter and the quantitative parameter, by determining application/dose rate based on recognized weed species, growth stage, density, and biomass, including different application rates for different weed species and increasing the application rate based on quantitative biomass. (Tempel, paras. [0030]-[0032], [0039], [0123], [0129]-[0135]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further configure Tempel’s location-specific smart spraying method to select among available treatment products based on the identified vegetation or weed species, as taught by Serrat, in order to apply a chemical agent suited to the particular weed species detected in the respective sub-area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20080312635 Fig. 1-3
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMEED ALIZADA whose telephone number is (571)270-5907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 am until 5:30 pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/OMEED ALIZADA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights