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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 23, 2024 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 and therefore has been considered and placed in the file.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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 BRIs are used for purposes of searching for prior art, but cannot be incorporated into the claims. Claim limitations must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01. BRIs for some of the claim limitations are provided below. Should Applicant believe that other interpretations are warranted, Applicant should point to the portions of the present disclosure that clearly show that a different interpretation is appropriate.
Regarding the use of optional or alternative claim language, under MPEP 2111.04, claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
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 1-5, 8-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2015/0293225 A1 to Riley et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Riley”) in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2020/0292735 A1 to Hadi et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Hadi”).
Regarding claim 1, Riley discloses an information carrier for providing information to a LIDAR sensor (Abstract, a system of retroreflectors 28 constituting an information carrier because they are “configured to encode information scanable by the LIDAR device”. See also para. [0037] and Fig. 4 showing retroreflectors 28 attached to the fuel receptacle of an aircraft 30 to be refueled and to the boom of the refueling tanker 24, and describing the retroreflectors 28 as being detected and decoded by LIDAR device 22), the information carrier comprising:
a sheet formed code carrier having a first reflectivity (each retroreflector 28 comprises a code carrier, but Riley does not explicitly disclose that they are sheet formed code carriers) and
at least one code pattern on a part of one side of the sheet formed code carrier (Paras. [0039]-[0042] and Figs. 5 and 6, duplicated below for convenience, are disclose examples of code patterns of the retroreflectors, with the code pattern of Fig. 5 being a one-dimensional (1D) array 40 of retroreflectors 42 and the code pattern of Fig. 6 being a two-dimensional (1D) array 50 of retroreflectors 52), wherein the code pattern comprises:
first code areas in the form of apertures through the sheet formed code carrier (Fig. 5, code areas 42c and 42e that are white and that do not include the dark circular shapes representing the retroreflectors 42a, 42b, 42d and 42f are first code areas in the form of apertures in the code carrier where there is an absence of the retroflectors 42. Fig. 6, code areas that are white and that do not include the dark circular shapes representing the retroreflectors 52 are first code areas in the form of apertures in the code carrier where there is an absence of the retroflectors 52. Para. [0041]: “[i]n particular, when any one of the retro-reflectors 42b, 42c, 42d, 42e is present (e.g., mounted to the surface or having a light color), this corresponds to a ‘1’ bit or ‘on’ and when any one of the retro-reflectors 42b, 42c, 42d, 42e is not present (e.g., not mounted to the surface such that the surface is exposed or having a dark color), this corresponds to a ‘0’ bit or ‘off’.” The first areas that do not include the retroreflectors 42a, 42b, 42d, 42f and 52 have a first reflectivity that represents a “0” bit), and
second code areas having a surface of a retroreflective material with a second reflectivity (Fig. 5, code areas that include the dark circular shapes representing the retroreflectors 42a, 42b, 42d and 42f are second code areas. Fig. 6, code areas that include the dark circular shapes representing the retroreflectors 52 are second code areas. The second areas that include the retroreflectors 42a, 42b, 42d, 42f and 52 have a second reflectivity that represents a “1” bit), wherein the first reflectivity is different from the second reflectivity (the first reflectivity that represents a “0” bit is different from the second reflectivity that represents a “1” bit), wherein the code areas are arranged according to a predetermined regular pattern (the BRI for the term “regular pattern”, based on page 3 of the present specification is that it means the elements of the pattern are in known positions relative to one another, such as an array of elements. Riley discloses such regularity: “[a]ny number of retro-reflectors 42 may be provided in the arrays (e.g., the 1D array 40 includes six retro-reflectors 42a-42f). The retro-reflectors 42 may have different characteristics, such as different colors (e.g., light and dark, white and black, and the like) to provide encoding of information. For example, positioning of different color retro-reflectors in the array may produce different patterns for encoding of information. In one embodiment of the 1D array 40, the end or edge of retro-reflectors 42a and 42f are always present”) and wherein the code areas are at a distance from each other with areas of the sheet formed code carrier between the code areas (Para. [0041], the retroreflectors of the array are evenly spaced: “[i]n the illustrated embodiment, other evenly spaced retroreflectors 42b, 42c, 42d, 42e represent bits (coded data bits)”).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As indicated above, Riley does not explicitly disclose that the code carrier comprising the retroreflectors is sheet-formed, although Riley does indicate that the thickness of the code carrier is selectable such that it could have a sheet-like profile (Para. [0042]: “[i]n various embodiments, the retro-reflectors 42 or 52 are mounted in a raised configuration with respect to the surface on which the retro-reflectors 42 or 52 are mounted. For example, the retro-reflectors 42 or 52 may have a thickness or may be mounted on a base structure that positions the retro-reflectors 42 or 52 a distance above the surface on which the retro-reflectors 42 or 52 are mounted.”).
Hadi, in the same field of endeavor of using LIDAR to detect and decode retroreflective areas of different reflectivities (Paras. [0007]-[0045]), discloses that the carrier for carrying the patterns of retroreflectors can be sheet-formed (Para. [0074], the carrier can be a marker lens 930 that is attached to an existing reflective marker 940 to retrofit the marker 940 with retroreflective encoding. Para. [0046] discloses that the marker lens can be sheet-formed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to use sheet-formed code carriers in the retroreflective encoding system of Riley to carry the retroreflective code areas of Riley as taught by Hadi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to ensure that the retroreflective patterns have a low profile that would not detrimentally impact the aircrafts. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success to yield predictable results because making the modification merely involves employing common manufacturing methods for generating devices having sheet-like profiles.
Regarding claim 2, this claim further limits claim 1 by reciting that the code pattern comprises third areas having a third reflectivity. Duplicating claim elements has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). See also In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Adding the third areas having a third reflectivity would produce an expected result of the code pattern providing additional information that can be decoded. Therefore, this limitation produces no unexpected result and therefore has no patentable significance. Furthermore, Riley discloses that additional areas and/or features can be added to the code pattern to increase the coded information, such as by adding different color retroreflectors to the code pattern (Para. [0041]), which would have different reflectivities compared to the reflectivities of the other areas, and/or by adding areas having raised or elevated configurations to provide additional elevation information to the code pattern (Para. [0042]) and/or by arranging the pattern in a particular arrangement to provide additional information (Para. [0041]). These portions of Riley indicate that adding additional areas having different reflectivities to the code pattern would produce a predictable and expected result.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Riley discloses that at least the second code areas 42b, 42c, 42d and 42e of the array 40 shown in Fig. 5 are surfaces of retroreflective material (Paras. [0041]-[0043] that are attached to the aircraft or boom).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 applies mutatis mutandis to claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, the BRI for this limitation, based on page 10, lines 7-16 and Fig. 6, which is duplicated below for convenience, is that it means that the ratio of DCC to D is in the range of 1.25 to 5. The distance DCC is the distance between the centers of adjacent retroreflective code areas 9 in the top row and the distance D is the distance between the side edges of the adjacent retroreflectors 9 in the top row. The present specification indicates that these distances are constant and that because these distances are constant, the system will be able to determine the position of a missing code area 12 because the pattern is regular. This portion of the present specification also indicates that keeping the ratio range from 1.25 to 5, and preferably 2, allows the LIDAR detector to reliably detect the code areas while maximizing the distance between the LIDAR detector and the information carrier.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Riley, duplicated below again for convenience and annotated by the examiner, shows the code areas 42a – 42f of the retroreflective array 40. Para. [0041] of Riley discloses that the code areas 42a – 42f are evenly spaced. Riley does not explicitly provide a range for the ratio of DCC to D. However, Riley discloses that the arrangement of the coded areas 42a-42f allows the coded areas to be detected by the LIDAR detector “at a greater distance” (Para. [0039]).
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to try DCC/D ratios within the range claimed in claim 8 for the arrays of Riley since Riley was concerned with not only keeping the code pattern regular by keeping the distances between adjacent code areas in the same row constant, but also designing the code areas to be detected by the LIDAR detector “at greater distances”. There are a finite number of ratios that will work properly for this purpose with predictability and with a reasonable expectation of success. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding when, for example, there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" solutions. See also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, the BRI for this limitation, based on page 4, lines 28-30 of the present specification, is that the information carrier may be part of another structure that is a self-supporting structure. In Riley, the aircraft and the boom on which the information carriers are attached meet this definition.
Regarding claim 10, the BRI for this limitation is that the structure to which the information carrier is attached can be collapsed. The BRI is based on page 9, lines 1-10 of the present specification. Riley discloses that the information carriers can be attached to a drogue, which is collapsible (Fig. 8, Para. [0051]: “As can be seen in FIGS. 7 and 8, one or more reflectors 28, which in this embodiment, are retro-reflectors, are attached to a portion of the drogue 140”).
Regarding claim 11, Riley does not explicitly disclose that the information carrier forms a continuous tape. Hadi discloses that the information carrier forms a continuous tape (Para. [0040]: “[i]n some embodiments, the marker lens comprises a roll of marker lenses. In some embodiments, the roll of marker lenses comprises a continuous array of marker lenses separated by at least one of a perforation and a demarcation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to use code carriers in continuous tape form as the retroreflective encoding system of Riley as taught by Hadi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to make the system of Riley easy to transport. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success to yield predictable results because making the modification merely involves employing common manufacturing methods for generating devices having continuous tape structures.
Regarding claim 12, Riley discloses that the code areas can have a rectangular shape (Para. [0040]: “[i]t should be noted that although the 2D array 50 is illustrated in a square configuration, different 2D patterns may be provided, such as a rectangle, triangle, or trapezoid, among other shapes.”).
Regarding claim 13, which recites the largest dimension of the code area being in the range of 10 mm to 5000 mm, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See also MPEP 2144.IV.A.
The present specification discloses this range of dimensions on page 5, lines 13-15 and page 11, lines 1-4, but does not discuss any reason why this range is important. Therefore, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that a code area having the claimed dimensions would perform differently than the code areas of Riley having similar array configurations to those of the present disclosure. Therefore, the claimed code area is not patentably distinct from the code area of Riley.
Regarding claim 14, Riley discloses a method for configuring a monitoring system (Para. [0037] and Fig. 4, the receptacle 36 of the aircraft to be fueled is monitored to guide the extendable portion of the boom 34 of the tanker 24 into the receptacle 36 of the aircraft 30), wherein the monitoring system comprises at least one LIDAR sensor (Paras. [0022] and [0037], the laser positioning system (LPS) is a monitoring system that comprises the LIDAR device 22 used to monitor the positions of the extendable portion of the boom 34 relative to the receptacle 36), configured to record images of a monitoring area (the BRI for the term “records images”, based on page 11, lines 17-20 of the present specification, is it means acquiring images with the LIDAR sensor. The LIDAR device 22 of Riley records the images of the monitoring area, which includes at least the receptacle 36 and the area around the receptacle to which the retroreflectors 28 are attached), and a computer in communication with the at least one LIDAR sensor (Para. [0037], the relative position information captured by the LIDAR device 22 is provided to the flight control computer of the aircraft 30), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
marking the borders of at least one monitoring zone within the monitoring area with information carriers according to claim 1, comprising a predetermined code pattern for each border (the borders of the monitoring area around the receptacle 36 are marked with receiver retroreflectors 28, Para. [0037]: “receive reflectors 28 are attached to the area around the receptacle 36 of the aircraft 30.”),
recording, with the at least one LIDAR sensor, at least one configuring image of the monitoring area with the LIDAR sensor (Para. [0037], the LIDAR device 22 records images of the monitoring area with the LIDAR device of the LPS: “[t]he LPS can measure the distance between the tanker retro-reflectors 28 on the boom 34 and the receiver retro-reflector 28 each pass to ensure RNP requirements are met for that scan. The position of the receiver retro-reflector 28, relative to the tanker, is provided to the receiver via a tanker-receiver datalink and the aircraft 30 flight control computer”),
analyzing, with the computer, the at least one configuring image to identify in the at least one configuring image the borders of the at least one monitoring zone by identifying the code pattern on the information carriers (Paras. [0021], [0037], the flight control computer of the aircraft analyzes the images captured by the LIDAR device 22 of the LPS to identify the code patterns of the retroreflectors 28 defining the area around the receptacle 36 to thereby identify the border around the receptacle 36: “[i]n one embodiment, the LIDAR device is mounted to a tanker aircraft facing aft to scan an area behind the tanker aircraft to identify the one or more coded retro-reflectors. Para. [0028]: “the LIDAR device 22 is configured to perform scanning in an azimuth and elevation direction to identify any reflectors 28 within the field of view 26. For example, in some embodiments, the LIDAR device 22 performs three-dimensional (3D) LIDAR scanning to identify a portion of the aircraft 30 (e.g., a receptacle or probe) and/or to identify a portion of the tanker 24 (e.g., boom or drogue)”), and
defining, with the computer, the at least one monitoring zone in monitoring images recorded by the at least one LIDAR sensor during monitoring of the monitoring area, based on the borders identified in the configuring image (Para. [0037], the flight control computer defines the monitoring zone around the receptacle 36 during monitoring based on the identified borders corresponding to the positions at which the retroreflectors 28 are attached around the receptacle 36).
Regarding claim 15, the BRI for this combination of limitations, based on page 14, lines 6-19 of the present specification, is that the monitoring zone is related to at least one condition and at least one action and that during monitoring of the monitoring zone, when the computer detects that the condition is fulfilled, it initiates the action.
Para. [0037] of Riley discloses this combination of limitations in that when the condition of the boom 34 being in the correct position relative to the receptacle 36 is fulfilled, the flight control computer initiates the action of maintaining that position to allow the tanker's boom operator to insert the extendable portion of the boom 34 into the receiver's receptacle 36.
Regarding claim 17, Riley discloses that a condition to be fulfilled is movement of an object in the monitoring zone (Para. [0037], when that the flight control computer determines based on the images recorded by the LIDAR that the boom 34 is not properly positioned relative to the position of receptacle 36, the condition to be fulfilled is to reposition the aircraft 30 to the tanker’s contact position, which condition is fulfilled by imparting movement of the aircraft 30 to the contact position).
Regarding claim 18, Riley discloses that a condition to be fulfilled comprises a speed limit to be exceeded and/or a direction interval in which the direction must be for the condition to be fulfilled (Para. [0037] discloses that a condition to be fulfilled is increasing the speed and/or direction of the aircraft 30 to place the position of the extendable portion of the boom 34 in the proper position relative to the receptacle 36: “[t]he position of the receiver retro-reflector 28, relative to the tanker, is provided to the receiver via a tanker-receiver datalink and the aircraft 30 flight control computer uses such information to fly to the tanker's 24 contact position and maintain that position for the tanker's boom operator to insert the extendable portion of the boom 34 into the receiver's receptacle 36. For example, the tanker's 24 velocity, Euler angles, accelerations and the like may be transmitted via the datalink. The LPS may transmit the relative distance, elevation, azimuth angle and the like via the datalink.”).
Regarding claim 19, Riley discloses that the information carrier is used as a marker for a LIDAR sensor 22 (the term “marker” is not defined in the present disclosure, and therefore the BRI is based on the plain meaning, which is that a marker marks something and that the marker is detectable by the LIDAR sensor. As indicated above in the rejection of claim 14, the arrays of retroreflectors 28 comprising the information carrier are used in Riley to mark the boom 34 and the receptacle 36 and are detectable by the LIDAR device 22, Para. [0037]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley and Hadi as applied to claims 1-5, 8-15 and 17-19 and further in view of U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2015/0266472 A1 to Furguson et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Furguson”).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings of Riley and Hadi do not explicitly teach that the retroreflective material on the surface of each one of the sheet formed code carrier and the second code areas comprise retroreflective spheres, such as retroreflective glass-beads, or is a cube corner retroreflective material.
Furguson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses using retroreflective material on code carriers and code areas comprises retroreflective spheres, such as retroreflective glass-beads, or is a cube corner retroreflective material (Para. [0173]: “typical construction zone cones may be required by the standard specifications of construction zones to be made of a retroreflective sheeting materials such as glass beads or prisms, and the computing device may be configured to compare intensity values of points forming the cone 1008 to a threshold intensity value of the retroreflective sheeting material. Based on the comparison, the computing device may be configured to confirm identification of the cone 1008, for example.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the code carrier and second code areas of the retroreflectors of Riley to use retroreflective material on their surfaces comprising retroreflective spheres, such as retroreflective glass-beads, or is a cube corner retroreflective material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to take advantage of existing manufacturing systems and methods used to manufacture standard construction zone signs to form the code carrier and code areas of Riley. This would obviate the need to develop new manufacturing systems and methods. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success to yield predictable results because making the modification merely involves employing known manufacturing methods and systems.
Regarding claim 7, the rejections of claims 2 and 6 apply mutatis mutandis to claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riley and Hadi as applied to claims 1-5, 8-15 and 17-19 and further in view of U.S. Pat No. 6,813,545 B2 to Stromme (hereinafter referred to as “Stromme”).
Hadi discloses that the retroreflector markers can be identified based at least in part on two-dimensional or three-dimensional shape (Para. [0015]: “[i]n some embodiments, the spatial encoding comprises a QR code, a bar code, a pattern, an array, a two-dimensional shape, a three-dimensional shape, a number, a letter, a symbol, or any combination thereof.”). Hadi also discloses that the computer of the vehicle associates the identified marker shape with a condition and causes an action to be initiated based on the condition (Para. [0156] describes determining that an autonomous vehicle is approaching a curve based on the recognized pattern and/or shape of the information carriers comprising the reflective markers and causing the vehicle to reduce speed, para. [0156]: “[a] computer comprising at least one processor attached to the LiDAR system analyzes the pattern and/or shapes of the regions of the second type and determines that marker encodes a turn radius of the curve ahead. As a result, the computer instructs the vehicle to reduce its speed before the slick sharp turn ahead.”).
However, Hadi does not explicitly disclose that the computer retrieves the condition from a memory device.
Stromme, in the same field of endeavor, discloses storing conditions associated with shapes of road signs in memory and retrieving the conditions from memory based on the identified shape of signs in images captured by a sensor and tracked (Abstract, Col. 1, lines 61-67, Col. 3, lines 27-32, Col. 4, lines 56-61, Fig. 5 and Col. 3, lines 33-39: the conditions associated with the shapes include approaching a “stop” sign, approaching a “warning” sign, approaching a “give way” sign, etc).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present disclosure, to modify the system and method of Hadi based on the teachings of Stromme to store marker shapes and the conditions associated with the marker shapes in memory and to retrieve those conditions when the shape of the detected marker matches the shape of a marker stored in memory as taught by Stromme. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification to allow conditions associated with identified marker shapes to be quickly identified via shape matching to allow the system of Hadi to quickly initiate the appropriate action based on the identified condition. The modification could have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure with a reasonable expectation of success to yield predictable results (e.g., implementing conventional software that performs shape matching and to retrieve conditions associated with the matching shape from memory).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2021/0199479 A1 discloses a sensor calibration target 220A comprising a planar board made from a substrate 205, with a pattern 210A printed, stamped, engraved, imprinted, or otherwise marked thereon. The pattern 210A is a checkerboard pattern. The substrate 205 may be paper, cardboard, plastic, metal, foam, or some combination thereof. The substrate 205 may in some cases include a translucent or transparent surface upon which the pattern 210A is printed, and which a light source may provide illumination through. The substrate 205 may in some cases include a retroreflective surface upon which the pattern 210A is printed. The retroreflective property of the surface may be inherent to the material of the substrate 205 or may be a separate layer applied to the surface of the substrate, for example by adhering a retroreflective material to the substrate 205 or by painting (e.g., via a brush, roller, or aerosol spray) the substrate 205 with a retroreflective paint. A reflective or retroreflective property may in some cases improve detection using radar, lidar, or other EmDAR sensors.
U.S. Publ. Appl. No. 2023/0093224 A1 discloses a system in which a reflector or retroreflector is wrapped around a rotating member, such as a cylinder, (also referred to as “Rotational LIDAR Barcodes”), which encodes relatively longer data messages, as compared to a static barcode, which can be detected by a LIDAR system and decoded from every direction, i.e. bearings angles of 0-360 degrees, even when partially obstructed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-2867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Matt Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL J. SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights