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 .
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
2. Claims 17 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 states, The method of claim 10 wherein the location data is received via WI-FI or BLUETOOTH®,
Claim 8 states, The system of claim 1 wherein the location data is received via WI-FI or BLUETOOTH®.
Claims contain the trademark/trade name BLUETOOTH. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-18 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-18 are directed to a process (method), and machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-18 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of managing compliance inspections in accordance with various regulatory or contractual requirements.
Claim 10 discloses: A method for performing a compliance inspection, the method comprising:
receiving data regarding an asset for inspection and location for the inspection, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
creating an inspection assignment based on the received data regarding the asset for inspection and the location for the inspection, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
communicating an inspection form to an inspector, wherein the inspection form is based on the inspection assignment, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),and
receiving location data related to the inspector; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
performing a location verification procedure using the received location data related to the inspector to verify the inspector is at the location for the inspection; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),
receiving inspection documentation related to the inspection from the inspector subsequent to verifying the inspector is at the location of the asset; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion),and
generating and issuing a work order based on the received inspection documentation, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Additional limitations disclose more of the method, including, if determining the inspector is not at the inspection location, issuing a warning to the inspector, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 11), determining that the inspector is within a prescribed distance from the inspection location, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 12), wherein the inspection assignment is communicated as a map of a facility that includes an indicia to indicate the inspection location – claim 13), wherein the inspection form includes at least one question that is specific to a configuration of the asset, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 14), wherein the location data is received via a global navigation satellite system, - claim 15), wherein the location data is gathered via cellular triangulation – claim 16), wherein the location data is received via WI-FI or BLUETOOTH® - claim 17), wherein the received inspection documentation includes imagery of the inspection location, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion – claim 18).
Each of these claimed limitations involve the application of abstract ideas to include organizing human activity by following rules or instructions, and/or employ mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Claims 1-9 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 11-18.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-18 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-18 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as an interface, an inspection device associated with, using one or more processors executing instructions stored on a memory, performing using one or more processors, a location verification procedure, autonomously verify the inspector is at the location, autonomously generating and issuing a work order, global navigation satellite system, cellular triangulation, Wi-Fi or BLUETOOTH®, imagery of the inspection location, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-18 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10, 13, 15, 18, 1, 4, 6, 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by
Heinonen, (US-20150134387-A1), “Optimizing Inspection and Maintenance of Components Using Mobile Device,” in view of Brinton, (US 20060081697 A1), “Ensuring the Performance of Mandated Inspections Combined with the Collection of Ancillary Data,” in further view of Koerber, (US 20170039574-A1), “Residential Fuel Tank Analysis and Management System.”
Regarding Claim 10, Heinonen teaches, A method for performing a compliance inspection, the method comprising:
receiving at an interface data regarding an asset for inspection and location for the
inspection, (a system for reserving at least one work order using a mobile device with a map view, [0010], the request satisfying at least one pre-defined criterion; [ ] reserving each of selected work orders from the second set of workorders for a pre-defined time period; and verifying the inspection of each site pertaining to the reserved work orders, [0011]
creating an inspection assignment based on the received data regarding the asset for
inspection and the location for the inspection, (The system comprises a receiving module, a processing module and a verification module. The receiving module is adapted to receive a request from the mobile device, the request satisfying at least one pre-defined criterion. The processing module is adapted to process the request satisfying the at least one pre-defined criterion by filtering a second set of work orders from a first set of work orders and enable the reservation of each selected work order from the second set of work orders for a pre-defined time period. The verification module is adapted to verify an inspection of each site pertaining to the reserved work orders, [0010]),
communicating an inspection form to an inspection device associated with an inspector, wherein the inspection form is based on the inspection assignment, and
receiving location data related to the inspector; (companies expect every contractor to be able to perform all kinds of inspections, [0005], the system 102 includes a receiving module 202 adapted to receive a request from a mobile device, such as the mobile device 106a, associated with a contractor, such as the contractor 104a, [0028 and Fig. 1], once a contractor gets the work order, the contractor goes to the field and performs the specific workorder. After the contractor fulfills the work order, the contractor documents the work to a GIS-system and/or to an asset management system and to a system that was used to order the work assignment, [0007], in addition, the sites for work orders are located at different and also remote sites, [0006]),
receiving inspection documentation related to the inspection from the inspector
subsequent to verifying the inspector is at the location of the asset; (inspection of each site pertaining to the reserved work orders is verified. In an example, the verification of the inspection of a site performed by authenticating a scanned unique code of a component on the site transmitted by the mobile device by comparing it with a stored unique code for the component of the site. Alternatively, the verification of the inspection of a site is performed by authenticating supplementary information of the site provided by the mobile device. The supplementary information is time-stamped and includes at least one of image of the site, videorecording of the site, and measurement data pertaining to a component of the site. Further, the supplementary information includes location information associated with a creation process of the supplementary information, [0069]).
Heinonen does not teach, but Brinton teaches, performing, using one or more processors executing instructions stored on a memory, a location verification procedure using the received location data related to the inspector to autonomously verify the inspector is at the location for the inspection; (functional components 67 that are included in portable device 20, either on or inside housing 42. A central processing unit (CPU) 62 comprises the controller for portable device 20 and is coupled bi-directionally to a memory 64 that includes both random access memory (RAM) and read only memory (ROM). Memory 64 is used for storing data in RAM and machine instructions in ROM that control the functionality of CPU 62 when executed by it, [0044], generating a record indicating that a component of a vehicle, or other type of apparatus or system, or a specific location, was visited during an inspection, [0005]).
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of this application to modify Heinonen’s inspection process with the teachings of Brinton for verification of the inspector’s location with the motivation to identify the locations/components that were inspected or omitted from the inspection, [0005]. The claimed invention is a combination of existing elements and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that elements would continue to perform the same functions as they did separately and produce predictable results, in this case receiving inspection specifics and verifying the inspection was conducted.
Heinonen does not teach, but Koerber teaches autonomously generating and issuing a work order based on the received inspection documentation, (the service provider's system stores and complies specific relative inspection data as shown in step 120. The system identifies incomplete inspection forms and other key data points to create report functions at step 125. At step 130, corrective action reports by inspection type are created, [0045]).
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of this application to modify Heinonen’s inspection process with the teachings of Koerber for initiating follow-up corrective actions for defects with the motivation to analyze every inspection for accuracy, completeness, and most importantly for follow through on necessary corrective action, [0055]. The claimed invention is a combination of existing elements and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that elements would continue to perform the same functions as they did separately and produce predictable results, in this case receiving inspection specifics and closing the loop by initiating corrective actions.
Claim 1 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 10, therefore claim 1 is rejected with same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 10. In this claim, the addition of a system comprising an interface and one or more processors executing instructions stored on a memory does not change the rationale for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the referenced prior art.
Regarding claim 13, Heinonen teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the inspection assignment is communicated as a map of a facility that includes an indicia to indicate the inspection location, (system 102 filters the sites (along with the work orders) at which the contractor can perform the inspection and maintenance and dynamically provides the map view of the sites to the mobile device after receiving the inputs from the contractor, [0060] and shown, [FIG. 5]).
Claim 4 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 13, therefore claim 4 is rejected with same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 13. In this claim, the addition of a system comprising an interface and one or more processors executing instructions stored on a memory does not change the rationale for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the referenced prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Heinonen teaches the method of claim 10, but Heinonen does not teach, Brinton teaches, wherein the location data is received via a global navigation satellite system, (it should be recognized that many types of sensors collecting many different kinds of ancillary data are encompassed by the concept provided herein, [0089], Some vehicles are equipped with positioning systems, such as global positioning satellite (GPS) based systems for determining the of the vehicle. The ancillary data provided by token 526 can also include such positioning data. Note that while token 526 does not communicate a token ID to a portable device responding to the proximity of token 526, the ancillary data from token 526 can be easily differentiated from any other ancillary data collected during the inspection, thereby providing evidence that an inspector was proximate token 526 during an inspection, [0090]).
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of this application to modify Heinonen’s inspection process with the teachings of Brinton with motivation to leverage the Global Positioning Satellite based systems for location data, [0090]). The claimed invention is a combination of existing elements and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that elements would continue to perform the same functions as they did separately and produce predictable results, in this case receiving inspection specifics and verifying the inspection was conducted.
Claim 6 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 15, therefore claim 6 is rejected with same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 15. In this claim, the addition of a system comprising an interface and one or more processors executing instructions stored on a memory does not change the rationale for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the referenced prior art.
Regarding claim 18, Heinonen teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the received inspection documentation includes imagery of the inspection location, (the verification of the inspection of a site is performed by authenticating supplementary information of the site provided by the mobile device. The supplementary information is time-stamped and includes at least one of image of the site, video recording of the site, and measurement data pertaining to a component of the site, [0069]).
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 18, therefore claim 9 is rejected with same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 18. In this claim, the addition of a system comprising an interface and one or more processors executing instructions stored on a memory does not change the rationale for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the referenced prior art.
Claims 11-12, 2-3, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by
Heinonen, (US-20150134387-A1), “Optimizing Inspection and Maintenance of Components Using Mobile Device,” in view of Brinton, (US 20060081697 A1), “Ensuring the Performance of Mandated Inspections Combined with the Collection of Ancillary Data,” in further view of Koerber, (US 20170039574-A1), “Residential Fuel Tank Analysis and Management System,” in further view of Wetzel, (US 20050023347 A1), “Inspection Data Recording Apparatus and Method.”
Regarding Claim 11, Heinonen teaches the method of claim 10, but Heinonen does not teach, Wetzel teaches, further comprising:
determining the inspector is not at the inspection location based on the analysis of the
received location data; and
issuing a warning to the inspector indicating that the inspector is not at the inspection
location. Data that may be automatically populated may include, among others, the location; the unique equipment identifier; the identity of the inspector; time data including, for example, time of change of position of the recording device such as may be useful for tracking the movement and activities of the inspector; and data related to the selected asset such as serial numbers, performance information, planned inspection points, warnings and instructions to the inspector, among others. Pull down menus and automatic comparison to permitted data values maybe used to improve data integrity. FIG. 3 illustrates an example data input display on the touch screen of a portable digital tool. Temporal information may be automatically recorded. The system 10 may further permit the transmission of inspection data for selected equipment from the portable inspection data recording derive 14 to the centralized database 46 only when the position detection device 32 indicates that the recording device 14 is located at the location of the selected equipment.
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of this application to modify Heinonen’s inspection process with the teachings of Wetzel with motivation to ensure tracking and monitoring of the inspector’s movement, and provide additional warnings and instructions to the inspector, [0025]. The claimed invention is a combination of existing elements and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that elements would continue to perform the same functions as they did separately and produce predictable results, in this case receiving inspection specifics and tracking inspector movements and activities.
Claim 2 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 11, therefore claim 2 is rejected with same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 11. In this claim, the addition of a system comprising an interface and one or more processors executing instructions stored on a memory does not change the rationale for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the referenced prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Heinonen teaches the method of claim 10, but Heinonen does not teach, Wetzel teaches, the method of claim 10 wherein the one or more processors (the portable inspection data recording device 14 includes a processor 20 having various input and output connections, [0010]), verify that the inspector is at the inspection location includes determining that the inspector is within a prescribed distance from the inspection location, (The closeness of the match between the location of the inspection data recording device 14 and the location of the selected equipment 12 that is necessary to trigger the enablement of the recordation of inspection data may be programmed to any desired tolerance. This relationship may be variously described herein as proximate locations or locations that correspond, or being at a location, etc. While some location tracking systems may have the ability to identify location to within a few meters or less, it may be practical in an embodiment of the present invention to consider the data recording device 14 to be sufficiently close to the selected equipment location to enable data recording if the two location coordinates are within ten meters of each other or other site-appropriate value, [0024]).
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of this application to modify Heinonen’s inspection process with the teachings of Wetzel with motivation to ensure complete inspection based on proximate location to the inspection site, [0024]. The claimed invention is a combination of existing elements and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that elements would continue to perform the same functions as they did separately and produce predictable results, in this case receiving inspection specifics and ensuring proximity for the inspection.
Claim 3 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 12, therefore claim 3 is rejected with same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 12. In this claim, the addition of a system comprising an interface and one or more processors executing instructions stored on a memory does not change the rationale for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the referenced prior art.
Claims 14, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by Heinonen,
(US-20150134387-A1), “Optimizing Inspection and Maintenance of Components Using Mobile Device,” in view of Brinton, (US 20060081697 A1), “Ensuring the Performance of Mandated Inspections Combined with the Collection of Ancillary Data,” in further view of Koerber, (US 20170039574-A1), “Residential Fuel Tank Analysis and Management System,” in further view of Huang, (CN 104766166 A), “The Information System Security-oriented Level Protection Compliance Checking Method,”
Regarding claim 14, Heinonen teaches the method of claim 10, but Heinonen does not teach, but Huang teaches, wherein the inspection form includes at least one question that is specific to a configuration of the asset, (an information system security compliance checking method for grade protection, comprising a technical inspection tool set and hierarchical protection check management system. technical inspection tool set is divided into U disk tool and online tools and [p.4 ], technical inspection tool set for gathering IT asset configuration and vulnerability data, [p.5], The standard, information system to be inspected from level protection security aspect can be divided into physical security, network security, network devices, host security, application security. The examination information system to be different, network security comprising: a network architecture, network equipment, safety equipment, host security comprising: a host, a database, an application security comprises: application system. to finish the security inspection requirements to be types of inspection information system for collecting the corresponding technical inspection tool, [p.5]).
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of this application to modify Heinonen’s inspection process with the teachings of Huang with the motivation to capturing configuration of an asset as part of ensuring accurate inspection procedures, [p.5]. The claimed invention is a combination of existing elements and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that elements would continue to perform the same functions as they did separately and produce predictable results, in this case receiving inspection specifics and ensuring capturing asset configuration as part of the inspection.
Claim 5 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 14, therefore claim 5 is rejected with same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 14. In this claim, the addition of a system comprising an interface and one or more processors executing instructions stored on a memory does not change the rationale for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the referenced prior art.
Claims 16, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by
Heinonen, (US-20150134387-A1), “Optimizing Inspection and Maintenance of Components Using Mobile Device,” in view of Brinton, (US 20060081697 A1), “Ensuring the Performance of Mandated Inspections Combined with the Collection of Ancillary Data,” in further view of Koerber, (US 20170039574-A1), “Residential Fuel Tank Analysis and Management System,” and in further view of Maheshwari, (US 20100139050 A1), “Determining Implicit Transaction Consent Based on Biometric Data and Associated Context Data.”
Regarding claim 16, Heinonen teaches the method of claim 10, but Heinonen does not teach, Maheshwari teaches wherein the location data is gathered via cellular triangulation, (an activity (e.g., exercising, commuting, sleeping, etc.) of the user of the wearable computing device 204 may be derived based on collected location data (e.g., global positioning system (GPS) data, cellular tower triangulation data, etc.), time data, heart rate biometric data, and past behavior pattern data, etc. [0024]).
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of this application to modify Heinonen’s inspection process with the teachings of Maheshwari with the motivation to collect any available source of location data, [0024]. The claimed invention is a combination of existing elements and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that elements would continue to perform the same functions as they did separately and produce predictable results, in this case receiving inspection specifics and ensuring location data from any available source as part of the inspection.
Claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 16, therefore claim 7 is rejected with same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 16. In this claim, the addition of a system comprising an interface and one or more processors executing instructions stored on a memory does not change the rationale for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the referenced prior art.
Claims 17, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being taught by
Heinonen, (US-20150134387-A1), “Optimizing Inspection and Maintenance of Components Using Mobile Device,” in view of Brinton, (US 20060081697 A1), “Ensuring the Performance of Mandated Inspections Combined with the Collection of Ancillary Data,” in further view of Koerber, (US 20170039574-A1), “Residential Fuel Tank Analysis and Management System,” and in further view of Shen, (US 20170111760 A1), “Utilizing Mobile Wireless Devices to Analyze Movement of Crowds.”
Regarding claim 17, Heinonen teaches the method of claim 10, but Heinonen does not teach, Shen teaches, the method of claim 10 wherein the location data is received via WI-FI or BLUETOOTH®, (Since Wi-Fi is commonly and widely deployed, location data may be collected by existing (indoor) Wi-Fi infrastructure, although other positioning techniques which provide timestamp and location coordinates may be used, [0026]).
It would have been obvious before the earliest effective filing date of this application to modify Heinonen’s inspection process with the teachings of Shen with the motivation to collect common and widely deployed location data, [0026]. The claimed invention is a combination of existing elements and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that elements would continue to perform the same functions as they did separately and produce predictable results, in this case receiving inspection specifics and ensuring location data from any available source as part of the inspection.
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 17, therefore claim 8 is rejected with same rationale, reasoning and motivation as claim 17. In this claim, the addition of a system comprising an interface and one or more processors executing instructions stored on a memory does not change the rationale for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or the referenced prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1822, (michael.borowski@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights