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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is missing a preamble. While the preliminary amendment identifies a different set of Claims, the Claims itself do not start on a different document. Per MPEP 1824, Claims must commence on a new sheet.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Starting on line 1, “The product processing system of Claim 14” should read “The product processing system of Claim 13” in order to maintain proper dependency.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Starting on line 2, “the at least product receiving areas” should read “the at least two product receiving areas”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over multiple claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/449,537. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because any differences between the two applications can still be rejected for obviousness.
Current application 18/915,456
Application 18/449,537
(Claim 1) A product processing system, comprising:
(a) a sorting conveyor configured to guide a product along the sorting conveyor;
(b) at least two product pushing devices associated with the sorting conveyor, wherein each of the at least two product pushing devices is configured to move between a first position and a second position;
(c) at least two loading stations associated with the sorting conveyor such that each of the at least two loading stations is disposed adjacent to one of the at least two product pushing devices; and
(d) at least one processor configured to:
(i) control one or more sensors to capture sensor data regarding the product as the product moves through the product processing system;
(ii) determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, a product classification of the product;
(iii) select, based at least in part on the product classification, the second position for one of the at least two product pushing devices to guide the product into one of the at least two loading stations; and
(iv) control the one of the at least two pushing devices to be configured in the second position.
(Claim 1) A product processing system, comprising:
(a) a sorting conveyor configured to guide a product along the sorting conveyor;
(b) at least two product pushing devices associated with the sorting conveyor, wherein each of the at least two product pushing devices is configured to move between a first position and a second position;
(c) at least two loading stations associated with the sorting conveyor such that each of the at least two loading stations is disposed adjacent to one of the at least two product pushing devices; and
(d) at least one processor configured to:
(i) control one or more sensors to capture sensor data regarding the product as the product moves through the product processing system;
(ii) determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, a product classification of the product…
(iii) select, based at least in part on the product classification, the second position for one of the at least two product pushing devices to guide the product into one of the at least two loading stations; and
(iv) control the one of the at least two pushing devices to be configured in the second position…
(Claim 2) The product processing system of claim 1, further comprising a product classification device comprising at least one of the one or more sensors, wherein the at least one of the one or more sensors comprises at least one of a scale, a belt encoder, or an imaging device.
(Claim 2) The product processing system of claim 1, further comprising a product classification device comprising at least one of the one or more sensors, wherein the at least one of the one or more sensors comprises at least one of a scale, a belt encoder, or an imaging device.
(Claim 3) The product processing system of claim 1, wherein the product classification includes a confidence value, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to select the first or second position as a function of the confidence value.
(Claim 3) The product processing system of claim 1, wherein the product classification includes a confidence value, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to select the first or second position as a function of the confidence value.
(Claim 4) The product processing system of claim 1, further comprising a spacing conveyor configured to space the product from adjacent products.
(Claim 5) The product processing system of claim 1, further comprising a spacing conveyor configured to space the product from adjacent products.
(Claim 5) The product processing system of claim 1, wherein the at least two product pushing devices comprise pushing paddles or diverter arms.
(Claim 6) The product processing system of claim 1, wherein the at least two product pushing devices comprise pushing paddles or diverter arms.
(Claim 6) The product processing system of claim 1, comprising a robotic arm configured to move the product from the one of the at least two loading stations to a bulk package.
(Claim 7) The product processing system of claim 1, comprising a robotic arm configured to move the product from the one of the at least two loading stations to a bulk package.
(Claim 7) The product processing system of claim 1, further comprising a packed box conveyor configured to move a packed box from one of the at least two loading stations.
(Claim 8) The product processing system of claim 1, further comprising a packed box conveyor configured to move a packed box from one of the at least two loading stations.
(Claim 8) The product processing system of claim 1, wherein the system automates product sorting by meat cut type, weight, geometric features, and/or product specific features.
(Claim 9) The product processing system of claim 1, wherein the system automates product sorting by meat cut type, weight, geometric features, and/or product specific features.
(Claim 9) The product processing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to control sorting as a function of a plurality of properties.
(Claim 10) The product processing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to control sorting as a function of a plurality of properties.
(Claim 10) A product processing system, comprising:
(a) a sorting conveyor;
(b) at least one product pushing device associated with the sorting conveyor, wherein the at least one product pushing device is configured to move between a first position and a second position; and
(c) at least one processor configured to:
(i) control one or more sensors to capture sensor data regarding the product as the product moves through the product processing system;
(ii) determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, a product classification of the product, wherein the product classification includes a meat cut value;
(iii) select, based at least in part on the product classification, the second position for the at least one product pushing device to guide the product off of the sorting conveyor; and
(iv) control the at least one pushing device to be configured in the second position,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to select the at least one pushing device as a function of the meat cut value.
(Claim 1) A product processing system, comprising:
(a) a sorting conveyor…;
(b) at least two product pushing devices associated with the sorting conveyor, wherein each of the at least two product pushing devices is configured to move between a first position and a second position;…and
(d) at least one processor configured to:
(i) control one or more sensors to capture sensor data regarding the product as the product moves through the product processing system;
(ii) determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, a product classification of the product, wherein the product classification includes a meat cut value;
(iii) select, based at least in part on the product classification, the second position for one of the at least two product pushing devices to guide the product into one of the at least two loading stations; and
(iv) control the one of the at least two pushing devices to be configured in the second position,
wherein the at least one processor is configured to select one of the at least two loading stations as a function of the meat cut value.
(Claim 11) The product processing system of claim 10, further comprising at least one loading station or receiving space associated with the sorting conveyor such that the at least one loading station or receiving space is disposed adjacent to the at least one product pushing device.
(Claim 1) (c) at least two loading stations associated with the sorting conveyor such that each of the at least two loading stations is disposed adjacent to one of the at least two product pushing devices
(Claim 12) The product processing system of claim 10, further comprising a product classification device comprising at least one of the one or more sensors, wherein the at least one of the one or more sensors comprises at least one of a scale, a belt encoder, or an imaging device.
(Claim 2) The product processing system of claim 1, further comprising a product classification device comprising at least one of the one or more sensors, wherein the at least one of the one or more sensors comprises at least one of a scale, a belt encoder, or an imaging device.
(Claim 13) A product processing system, comprising:
(a) a sorting conveyor configured to receive a product;
(b) at least two product pushing devices associated with the sorting conveyor, wherein each of the at least two product pushing devices is configured to move between a first position and a second position;
(c) at least two product receiving areas associated with the sorting conveyor such that each of the at least two product receiving areas is disposed adjacent to one of the at least two product pushing devices, wherein the at least two product receiving areas comprise at least one loading station,
wherein the loading station comprises:
(i) a chute disposed adjacent to the sorting conveyor;
(ii) a product landing area disposed at the bottom of the chute; and
(iii) a takeaway conveyor disposed under the chute; and
(d) at least one processor configured to:
(i) control the at least one classification sensor and at least one additional sensor to capture sensor data regarding the product as the product moves through the product processing system;
(ii) determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, a product classification of the product;
(iii) select, based at least in part on the product classification, the second position for one of the at least two product pushing devices to guide the product into one of the at least two product receiving areas; and
(iv) control the one of the at least two pushing devices to be configured in the second position.
(Claim 11) A product processing system, comprising:…
(c) a sorting conveyor configured to receive the product from the product classification device;
(d) at least two product pushing devices associated with the sorting conveyor, wherein each of the at least two product pushing devices is configured to move between a first position and a second position;
(e) at least two product receiving areas associated with the sorting conveyor such that each of the at least two product receiving areas is disposed adjacent to one of the at least two product pushing devices, wherein the at least two product receiving areas comprise at least one loading station, wherein the loading station comprises:
(i) a chute disposed adjacent to the sorting conveyor;
(ii) a product landing area disposed at the bottom of the chute; and
(iii) a takeaway conveyor disposed under the chute; and
(f) at least one processor configured to:
(i) control the at least one classification sensor and at least one additional sensor to capture sensor data regarding the product as the product moves through the product processing system;
(ii) determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, a product classification of the product;
(iii) select, based at least in part on the product classification, the second position for one of the at least two product pushing devices to guide the product into one of the at least two product receiving areas; and
(iv) control the one of the at least two pushing devices to be configured in the second position.
(Claim 14) The product processing system of claim 14, wherein the at least two product receiving areas comprise at least one bulk container.
(Claim 13) The product processing system of claim 11, wherein the at least two product receiving areas comprise at least one bulk container.
(Claim 15) The product processing system of claim 14, further comprising a packed box conveyor disposed adjacent to the takeaway conveyor, wherein the packed box conveyor is configured to receive a packed box from the takeaway conveyor and transport the packed box away from the takeaway conveyor.
(Claim 15) The product processing system of claim 14, further comprising a packed box conveyor disposed adjacent to the takeaway conveyor, wherein the packed box conveyor is configured to receive a packed box from the takeaway conveyor and transport the packed box away from the takeaway conveyor.
(Claim 16) The product processing system of claim 14, further comprising an empty box conveyor associated with the at least product receiving areas.
(Claim 16) The product processing system of claim 11, further comprising an empty box conveyor associated with the at least product receiving areas.
(Claim 17) A product processing system, comprising:
(a) a stacked conveyor structure comprising:
(i) a sorting conveyor configured to receive a product, the sorting conveyor comprising at least two product pushing devices associated with the sorting conveyor, wherein each of the at least two product pushing devices is configured to move between a first position and a second position; and
(ii) a packed box conveyor disposed under the sorting conveyor, wherein the packed box conveyor is configured to transport at least one packed box;
(c) at least two product receiving areas disposed adjacent to the stacked conveyor structure such that each of the at least two product receiving areas is disposed adjacent to one of the at least two product pushing devices; and
(d) at least one processor configured to:
(i) control at least one classification sensor and at least one additional sensor to capture sensor data regarding the product as the product moves through the product processing system;
(ii) determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, a product classification of the product;
(iii) select, based at least in part on the product classification, the second position for one of the at least two product pushing devices to guide the product into one of the at least two product receiving areas; and
(iv) control the one of the at least two pushing devices to be configured in the second position.
(Claim 17) A product processing system, comprising:…
(b) a stacked conveyor structure comprising:
(i) a sorting conveyor configured to receive the product from the product classification device, the sorting conveyor comprising at least two product pushing devices associated with the sorting conveyor, wherein each of the at least two product pushing devices is configured to move between a first position and a second position; and
(ii) a packed box conveyor disposed under the sorting conveyor, wherein the packed box conveyor is configured to transport at least one packed box;
(c) at least two loading stations disposed adjacent to the stacked conveyor structure such that each of the at least two loading stations is disposed adjacent to one of the at least two product pushing devices; and
(d) at least one processor configured to:
(i) control the at least one classification sensor and at least one additional sensor to capture sensor data regarding the product as the product moves through the product processing system;
(ii) determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, a product classification of the product;
(iii) select, based at least in part on the product classification, the second position for one of the at least two product pushing devices to guide the product into one of the at least two loading stations; and
(iv) control the one of the at least two pushing devices to be configured in the second position.
(Claim 18) The product processing system of claim 17, further comprising:
(a) a product classification device comprising at least one of the at least one classification sensor; and
(b) a spacing conveyor configured to space a product from adjacent products and transport the product to the product classification device.
(Claim 17) (a) a product classification device comprising at least one classification sensor;
(Claim 18) The product processing system of claim 17, further comprising a spacing conveyor configured to space a product from adjacent products and transport the product to the product classification device.
(Claim 20) The product processing system of claim 17, wherein the stacked conveyor structure further comprises a rejected product conveyor disposed under the sorting conveyor.
(Claim 20) The product processing system of claim 17, wherein the stacked conveyor structure further comprises a rejected product conveyor disposed under the sorting conveyor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Cao (CN 211515240 U).
Regarding Claim 1, Cao teaches a beef quality grading device comprising:
(a) a sorting conveyor configured to guide a product along the sorting conveyor (conveyor belt 2 in Figure 1);
(b) at least two product pushing devices associated with the sorting conveyor, wherein each of the at least two product pushing devices is configured to move between a first position and a second position (executing components 6, described in the 3rd paragraph after the content of utility model, where it states “the executing component comprises a cylinder; the telescopic rod of the cylinder extends to the right; the telescopic rod is welded and fixed with a push plate; the rear end right side of the machine frame is equidistantly provided with multiple grading sliding grooves with the same number and position corresponding to the executing component.”);
(c) at least two loading stations associated with the sorting conveyor such that each of the at least two loading stations is disposed adjacent to one of the at least two product pushing devices (grading chute 7 are adjacent to executing components, described in the 14th paragraph after the content of utility model, where it states “a grading chute corresponding to the executing component position”); and
(d) at least one processor (PLC controller 5, which is known in the art to have a processor) configured to:
(i) control one or more sensors to capture sensor data regarding the product as the product moves through the product processing system (described in 7th and 8th paragraph after Embodiment 1, where it starts by stating “In this embodiment, the camera 33 through the signal line is connected with the image classification module 4…”);
(ii) determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, a product classification of the product (described in 7th paragraph after Embodiment 1, where it states “the camera 33 collected beef image transmitted to the image classification module 4, and through image classification module 4 to analyze the image and fast grading the beef.” Where grading of beef is product classification);
(iii) select, based at least in part on the product classification, the second position for one of the at least two product pushing devices to guide the product into one of the at least two loading stations (described in the 8th paragraph after Embodiment 1, where it states “the PLC controller 5 automatically controls the beef level corresponding to the execution component 6 in the cylinder 61, the cylinder 61 starts the beef to the position corresponding to the grading chute 7.”); and
(iv) control the one of the at least two pushing devices to be configured in the second position (described in 8th paragraph after Embodiment 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Cao further teaches a product classification device comprising at least one of the one or more sensors, wherein the at least one of the one or more sensors comprises at least one of a scale, a belt encoder, or an imaging device (image classification module 4 and imaging device 33, or camera).
Regarding Claim 5, Cao further teaches the at least two product pushing devices comprise pushing paddles or diverter arms (pushing paddles taught as push plate 62 in Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Cao further teaches the system automates product sorting by meat cut type, weight, geometric features, and/or product specific features (13th paragraph after the content of the utility model, where it says “The utility model is provided with an image collecting box and image grading module on the conveyor belt, the beef can automatically transmit and automatically grading, improving the grading accuracy, and grading is more refined”. Conventional grading of meat, particularly beef, involves product specific features such as % fat cover, or marbling).
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.
Claims 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 211515240 U) in view of Kuck (US 20230241776 A1).
Cao teaches the claim limitations of Claim 1 as above. They do not teach:
product classification including a confidence value or at least one processor selecting a position as a function of confidence value or
a robotic arm for removing product from a loading station to a package or a packed box conveyor that moves boxes from the loading station(s).
Kuck teaches an object partitioner for transport containers comprising:
Product classification including a confidence value (paragraph 0095 describes product classification including predefined stability threshold which is described in paragraph 0102 as a confidence value)
And wherein the at least one processor is configured to select the first or second position as a function of the confidence value (described in paragraph 0102).
A robotic arm (102) that moves items between stations
Packed box conveyors (105 and 110)
Regarding Claim 3, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the confidence value as a part of product classification and processor selection based on the confidence value of Kuck to the beef quality grading device of Cao. This would be for the purpose of ensuring products being processed by the beef quality grading device of Cao are within proper health and safety conditions for transport. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the confidence value determination and classification of Kuck to the beef quality grading device of Cao without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the confidence value determination and classification of Kuck to the device of Cao would produce the predictable results of assessing meat quality and sorting it for packaging and distribution.
Regarding Claim 6, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply robotic arm of Kuck to the loading stations of the beef quality grading device of Cao. This would be for the purpose of removing products from the loading stations so that the products can be moved to packaging for distribution. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the robotic arm of Kuck to the loading stations of the beef quality grading device of Cao without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the robotic arm of Kuck to the device of Cao would produce the predictable results of assessing meat quality and sorting it for packaging and distribution.
Regarding Claim 7, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the packed box conveyor of Kuck to the loading stations of the beef quality grading device of Cao. This would be for the purpose of moving packed boxes of meats processed by the quality grading device of Cao for transportation and distribution. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the packed box conveyor of Kuck to the loading stations of the beef quality grading device of Cao without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the packed box conveyor of Kuck to the device of Cao would produce the predictable results of assessing meat quality and sorting it for packaging and distribution.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 211515240 U) in view of American Conveyor Group (ACG), cited in the IDS file 01/08/2025, (https://web.archive.org/web/20170223184834/https://acgconveyors.com/partners/dorner-smartpace-conveyor/).
Cao teaches the claim limitations of Claim 1 as above. They do not teach a spacing conveyor configured to space the product from adjacent products.
ACG teaches a spacing conveyor configured to space products from adjacent products.
Regarding Claim 4, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the spacing conveyor of ACG to the beef quality grading device of Cao. This would be for the purpose of better spacing meat products being processed by the device of Cao so that there is no overlap in grading analysis when the device is in use. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the spacing conveyor of ACG to the beef quality grading device of Cao without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the spacing conveyor of ACG to the beef quality grading device of Cao would produce the predictable results of assessing meat quality and sorting it for packaging and distribution.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN 211515240 U) in view of Harris (US 20230347386 A1).
Cao teaches the claim limitations of Claim 1 as above. They do not teach the processor being configured to control sorting as a function of a plurality of properties. Harris teaches an automated sorting and packing system comprising:
A weight sensor (paragraph 0163)
Processing sorting as a function of a plurality of properties (described in paragraph 0179, where scanners and sensors generate the plurality of properties)
Regarding Claim 9, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the weight sensor and processing as a function of a plurality of properties of Harris to the beef quality grading device of Cao. This would then enable to device of Cao to assess the weight of meats being processed and sort the meats based on the properties generated by the applied weight sensor and the existing camera of Cao to improve sorting capabilities. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the weight sensor and processing as a function of a plurality of properties of Harris to the beef quality grading device of Cao without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the weight sensor and processing of Harris to the device of Cao would produce the predictable results of assessing meat quality and sorting it for packaging.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form or incorporated into an independent claim including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art: the beef grading device of Cao (CN 211515240 U) does not teach “a packed box conveyor disposed under the sorting conveyor, wherein the packed box conveyor is configured to transport at least one packed box…[and] the at least two product receiving areas comprise at least one of a loading station and a bulk container.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272 -9330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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.
/M.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655