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 . 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 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.
Priority/Benefit
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The instant application is a 371 national stage of PCT/CN2023/118452 (effective filing date of 09/13/2023) and also claims foreign priority to Chinese application CN202211534164.3 (with an effective filing date of 12/02/2022). Examiner ahs checked and verified that the subject matter of the instant application is supported by the earlier filed foreign application, and as such, the earlier filed date of 12/02/2022 is granted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2024 and 05/22/2026, were filed before the mailing of a First Office Action on the Merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 12/11/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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:
“a first determination module configured to …” in claim 18
“a first obtaining module configured to …” in claim 18
“a second determination module configured to …” in claim 18
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.
Claim 18 is 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. The claim recites the limitations of “first determination module configured to …”, “first obtaining module configure to …”, and “second determination module configured to …”. However, the specification makes no mention of what these ‘modules’ actually are and merely describes their function in the same way the limitations of claim 18 does. As such, it is unclear what these modules actually are and renders the claim indefinite.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis -Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within the one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A positioning method, applied to a robot, comprising:
determining, based on a photographed image captured by a camera provided on the robot, calibration information of each object in the photographed image;
obtaining, based on actual point cloud data obtained by a LiDAR provided on the robot, a position of the camera, and a position of the LiDAR, virtual point cloud data corresponding to the actual point cloud data;
and determining position information of each object based on the calibration information of each object and the virtual point cloud data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the ‘determining’ and ‘obtaining’ steps encompass a user obtaining an image with associated calibration data, determining a position of the camera and lidar based on obtained point cloud data, comparing the image to point cloud data, and further determining positioning information based on the calibration data.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A positioning method, applied to a robot, comprising:
determining, based on a photographed image captured by a camera provided on the robot, calibration information of each object in the photographed image;
obtaining, based on actual point cloud data obtained by a LiDAR provided on the robot, a position of the camera, and a position of the LiDAR, virtual point cloud data corresponding to the actual point cloud data;
and determining position information of each object based on the calibration information of each object and the virtual point cloud data.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of ‘robot’, ‘camera’, and ‘lidar’ the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the ‘robot’, ‘camera’, and ‘lidar’ are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the ‘determining’ and ‘obtaining’ steps, therefore acting as a generic computer component to perform the abstract idea. The ‘robot’, ‘camera’, and ‘lidar’ are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not 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 additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (‘robot’, ‘camera’, and ‘lidar’).
Additionally, the claim recites the limitations of ‘based on a photographed image captured’ and ‘based on actual point cloud data obtained’. These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, the limitations are directed to pre-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of ‘robot’, ‘camera’, and ‘lidar’ amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Regarding the limitations of ‘based on a photographed image captured’ and ‘based on actual point cloud data obtained’, the limitations represent insignificant pre-solution activity. Namely, obtaining photographs with a camera and obtaining a point cloud using lidar are well-known and are done so in a manner consistent with the sensors in question and simply acts as mere data gathering.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 2-17 and 19-20, the claims ultimately depend from claim 1 and simply recite additional mental steps of determining data based on the images and point cloud. Specifically, claims 19 and 20 recite effectively similar subject matter as claim 1 and don’t include any additional elements that brings the claim into eligibility.
Regarding claim 18, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1. Additionally, claim 18 recites various ‘modules’ for performing the limitations as seen in claim 1. However, these modules fall under generic computer components that merely automate the exceptions, and as such, do not bring the claim into eligibility.
Regarding claims 19-20, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1. Additionally, claims 19-20 recites a ‘processor’ and ‘memory’. However, these fall under generic computer components that merely automate the exceptions, and as such, do not bring the claim into eligibility.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ziglar et al., US 20220128702 A1, herein referred to as Ziglar.
Regarding claim 1,
Ziglar discloses the following:
a robot (at least Paragraph 0003)
the system may include an autonomous vehicle which can be considered a robot
determining, based on a photographed image captured by a camera provided on the robot, calibration information of each object in the photographed image (Paragraphs 0045, 0121-0128)
images may be obtained by a camera of the autonomous vehicle
the camera may have associated calibration data
obtaining, based on actual point cloud data obtained by a LiDAR provided on the robot, a position of the camera, and a position of the LiDAR, virtual point cloud data corresponding to the actual point cloud data (Paragraphs 0121-0128)
lidar data (point cloud) may be projected onto a given image
the image and lidar data may be used to determine the camera and lidar positions
determining position information of each object based on the calibration information of each object and the virtual point cloud data (Paragraphs 0121-0128)
object positioning may be determined based on the projection and matching of the lidar point cloud to the image pixels (pixels of object have point cloud projections, which give positioning of that ‘pixel’ in space)
Regarding claim 2,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ziglar further discloses the following:
matching the virtual point cloud data with the calibration information of each object respectively to determine a target object corresponding to the virtual point cloud data (Paragraph 0121-0128)
the lidar point cloud may be projected onto an image to determine positions/distances of objects and the sensors
this may include utilizing the calibration information
determining position information of the target object corresponding to the virtual point cloud data based on the actual point cloud data corresponding to the virtual point cloud data (Paragraphs 0117, 0125)
objects within each image may have a corresponding set of lidar points which can be used to determine their position
Regarding claim 3,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Ziglar further discloses the following:
wherein the calibration information comprises a detection box, and projecting the virtual point cloud data onto the photographed image, and determining a proportion of the virtual point cloud data within the detection box of each object (Paragraphs 0121-0128)
a bounding box may be present surrounding a given identified object in an image
this bounding box may be matched with the lidar point cloud data to determine a mask that defines the object
a portion of the lidar point cloud is associated with the bounding box of the object
determining the target object corresponding to the virtual point cloud data according to the proportion (Paragraphs 0121-0128)
the object may be defined based on the lidar point cloud masking performed; the object is defined by the appropriate bounding box and mask which has associated confidence values
Regarding claim 4,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Ziglar further discloses the following:
determining the object corresponding to the detection box whose proportion is greater than a preset threshold as the target object; or, determining the object corresponding to the detection box with a highest proportion as the target object (Paragraphs 0110, 0121-0128)
the masking with associated confidence values may be used to determine the target object
the masking may be based on the lidar data set being pruned (see step 714)
Regarding claim 5,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Ziglar further discloses the following:
obtaining a centroid of the actual point cloud data (Paragraphs 0149-0151, 0179)
the lidar segments may be used to generate cuboids for determining proper lidar masking for determining objects in an image
the segments may have their centroids determined to determine if the lidar point cloud is truly associated with the object
these segments define the object in question and the centroids of these segments ultimately results in a centroid of the point cloud being associated with the target object
determining a position of the centroid as the position information of the target object (Paragraphs 0149-0151, 0179)
lidar segment centroids may be utilized to determine the centroid of the point cloud associated with the target object
this centroid has a given position
Regarding claim 6,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ziglar further discloses the following:
creating a virtual LiDAR according to the altitude of the camera and the altitude of the LiDAR (Paragraphs 0121-0128)
lidar and cameras may be associated with given intrinsic and extrinsic parameters
these may include camera and lidar positioning coordinates which can include altitude (height)
obtaining the virtual point cloud data according to the actual point cloud data and the virtual LiDAR (Paragraphs 0121-0128)
the lidar point cloud may be obtained through the use of the lidar and projected onto an image
Regarding claim 7,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Ziglar further discloses the following:
determining the altitude of the camera as an altitude of the virtual LiDAR (Paragraphs 0126-0127)
lidar and camera sensors have associated intrinsic and extrinsic parameters
determining intrinsic parameters and extrinsic parameters of the virtual LiDAR according to intrinsic parameters and extrinsic parameters of the LiDAR (Paragraphs 0126-0127)
intrinsic and extrinsic parameters of the lidar and cameras may be utilized for future operations including the lidar point cloud projection onto an image
these projections may further be used for masking of objects and can include pruned data resulting in a new, different point cloud
creating the virtual LiDAR according to the altitude of the virtual LiDAR, the intrinsic parameters and the extrinsic parameters of the virtual LiDAR (Paragraphs 0126-0127)
a masked, pruned point cloud may be determined based off of lidar and camera intrinsic and extrinsic parameters
Regarding claim 8,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Ziglar further discloses the following:
wherein the intrinsic parameters comprise resolution and field of view, and the extrinsic parameters comprise position information and angle information (Fig. 7 item 706, Paragraphs 0098, 0108, 0126)
lidar and cameras may have associated field-of-views as well as resolutions (pixels for cameras and spin rate of lidar, see 0108) and can be considered intrinsic parameters
both the lidar and cameras may also have associated positioning, as well as relative angles of capture, and can be considered as extrinsic parameters
Regarding claim 9,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Ziglar further discloses the following:
determining a virtual point cloud plane of the virtual LiDAR based on the intrinsic parameters and extrinsic parameters of the virtual LiDAR (Paragraphs 0121-0128)
lidar point cloud data may be determined for a given image which can be considered a ‘plane’
this point cloud may be based on the lidar and camera intrinsic and extrinsic parameters
projecting the actual point cloud data onto the virtual point cloud plane to obtain the virtual point cloud data (Paragraphs 0121-0128)
the lidar point cloud may be projected onto the image to determine positioning of relevant objects, etc.
Regarding claim 10,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ziglar further discloses the following:
filtering out a redundant point cloud within the actual point cloud data to obtain filtered point cloud data, the redundant point cloud comprising other point clouds except for the objects (Paragraph 0104)
clutter may be filtered from the lidar point cloud segments
the clutter may be irrelevant to the target objects
obtaining virtual point cloud data corresponding to the filtered point cloud data based on the filtered point cloud data, the position of the camera, and the position of the LiDAR (Paragraphs 0104, 0125)
the filtered/pruned lidar point cloud segments that are used for object detection may be further utilized for determining the lidar and camera positioning
Regarding claim 11,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Ziglar further discloses the following:
obtaining a point cloud shape of the object within the actual point cloud data (Paragraphs 0099-0104, 0125)
point cloud data may be obtained for target object in question
this point cloud may be obtained through segment analysis
filtering out other point clouds within the actual point cloud data except for the point cloud shapes of the objects to obtain the filtered point cloud data (Paragraphs 0099-0104, 0125)
point cloud data that is from clutter (non-relevant objects, etc.) may be filtered out while leaving the relevant object point cloud behind
Regarding claim 12,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Ziglar further discloses the following:
detecting a discrete point cloud within the actual point cloud data by a filter, and detecting a linear point cloud within the actual point cloud data by a straight line detection algorithm (Paragraphs 0099-0104)
lidar point cloud may have a segmentation algorithm performed on it to filter out non-relevant segments
these segments are straight lines between given lidar points
filtering out the discrete point cloud and the linear point cloud within the actual point cloud data to obtain the filtered point cloud data (Paragraphs 0099-0104)
non-relevant point cloud data may be filtered out based on the segmentation algorithm results
Regarding claim 13,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Ziglar further discloses the following:
wherein the straight line detection algorithm comprises Hough straight line detection or straight line segment detection (Paragraphs 0099-0104)
the segmentation algorithm may be used for detecting segments of the lidar point cloud
these segments may be straight lines
Regarding claim 14,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Ziglar further discloses the following:
clustering the filtered point cloud data to obtain multiple point cloud clusters (Paragraphs 0126-0128, 0185)
clustering may be used on the lidar point cloud after filtering to obtain point clusters for various objects
obtaining the virtual point cloud data corresponding to each point cloud cluster based on each point cloud cluster, the position of the camera and the position of the LiDAR (Paragraphs 0126-0128, 0185)
point cloud data clusters may be associated with given lidar and cameras, each of which have associated intrinsic and extrinsic parameters such as positioning
Regarding claim 15,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ziglar further discloses the following:
detecting each object in the photographed image by a target detection model and calibrating each object to obtain the calibration information of each object in the photographed image (Paragraphs 0126-0128)
objects may be detected in a given image
this detection may be based on lidar and camera intrinsic and extrinsic parameters
these parameters may be calibrated based on what is being imaged, etc.
Regarding claim 16,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Ziglar further discloses the following:
wherein the detection box of each object is any one of a rectangular, circular, semicircular and irregular shape (Paragraphs 0125-0128)
the bounding box may be used to encompass an identified object
this bounding box may have various lengths and widths to encompass the object, meaning that it can be rectangular
Regarding claim 17,
Ziglar discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Ziglar further discloses the following:
wherein the position information comprises at least one of distance information, orientation information, altitude information, speed information or posture information (Paragraphs 0125-0128)
the positioning of the lidar and cameras may include coordinates which includes altitude (height), as well as skew (orientation)
Regarding claim 18, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claims 19, a portion of the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1. Additionally, Ziglar discloses a processor (Paragraphs 0028-0030; the system may include at least one processor), and a memory (Paragraphs 0028-0030; the system may include at least one memory).
Regarding claim 20, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 19 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights