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 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “determine a second set” in line 7. The examiner suggests changing it to “determining a second set” to be grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 11 and 17 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 5 recites the limitations “the direction of travel of the first object” and “the direction of travel of the second object” in lines 4 and 5, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitations have been interpreted as “the direction of movement of the first object” and “the direction of movement of the second object”
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the direction of travel of the first object” and “the direction of travel of the second object” in lines 6-7 and 7-8, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitations have been interpreted as “the direction of movement of the first object” and “the direction of movement of the second object”
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the direction of travel of the first object” and “the direction of travel of the second object” in lines 4 and 5, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitations have been interpreted as “the direction of movement of the first object” and “the direction of movement of the second object”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Us patent application publication no. 2018/0189600 to Astrom et al. (hereinafter Astrom).
For claim 1, Astrom as applied discloses a method for object tracking across video frames (see, e.g., FIG. 3), the method comprising:
receiving a first video stream from a first camera at a first site (see, e.g., pars. 37-38 and 51 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach receiving a first video from a first camera at a first site);
determining a first object is moving in the first video stream (see, e.g., pars. 39 and 51, and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach determining that the objects are moving in the first video);
determining a first set of object characteristics for the first object (see, e.g., pars. 39-44 and 52-53, and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach determining that the objects’ characteristics such as its color, height, speed and location);
receiving a second video stream from a second camera at a second site (see, e.g., pars. 45-46 and 54 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach receiving a second video from a second camera at a second site);
determining a second object is moving in the second video stream (see, e.g., pars. 47 and 54-55 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach determining that the objects are moving in the second video);
determining a second set of object characteristics for the second object (see, e.g., pars. 47-48 and 56 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach determining that the objects’ characteristics such as its color, height, speed and location); and
determining, based on the first set of object characteristics matching the second set of object characteristics, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 48, 57-58 and 64 and FIGS. 1, 2A and 2B, which teach determining, based on the object features in the first and second videos, that one or more objects in the first video are the same as one or more objects in the second video).
For claim 2, Astrom as applied discloses that determining a first set of object characteristics for the first object comprises:
determining a direction of movement of the first object in the first video stream (see, e.g., pars. 7, 57, 59, 68, and 92 and FIGS. 1, 2A and 3, which teach determining the object heading of the objects in the first video);
determining a second set of object characteristics for the second object comprises determining a direction of movement of the second object in the second video stream (see, e.g., pars. 7, 59, 73, and 92 and FIGS. 1, 2A and 3, which teach determining the object heading); and
determining, based on the direction of movement of the first object in the first video stream and the direction of movement of the second object in the second video stream, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 74-78 and FIG. 3, which teach determining that one or more objects in the first video are the same as one or more objects in the second video by comparing respective features of the objects, e.g., the movement directions of the objects in the videos).
For claim 3, Astrom as applied discloses that determining a first set of object characteristics for the first object comprises:
determining a speed of the first object in the first video stream (see, e.g., pars. 38-39, 52-53, and 68 and FIG. 2A and 3, which teach determining a speed of an object in the first video);
determining a second set of object characteristics for the second object comprises determining a speed of the second object in the second video stream (see, e.g., pars. 46-47, 55-56 and 73 and FIGS. 2A and 3, which teach determining a speed of an object in the second video); and
determining, based on the speed of the first object exiting from the first video stream and the speed of the second object entering the second video stream, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 48, 58 and 74-78 and FIG. 3, which teach determining that one or more objects in the first video are the same as one or more objects in the second video by comparing respective features of the objects, e.g., the speed of the objects in the videos).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 4, 6-10 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astrom in view of us patent application publication no. 2022/0067367 to Watanabe et al. (hereinafter Watanabe).
For claims 4 and 10, Astrom as applied teaches:
determining, based on one or more of the speed of the first object, the speed of the second object and the distance between the first site and the second site, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 48, 58 and 74-78 and FIG. 3, which teach determining that one or more objects in the first video are the same as one or more objects in the second video by comparing respective features of the objects, e.g., the speed of the objects in the videos).
While Astrom does not explicitly teach, Watanabe in the analogous art teaches determining a distance between the camera sites (see, e.g., par. 78 of Watanabe, which teaches determining a distance between the final position of the object in the previous site and the position of the current site).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom to determine the distance between the sites as taught by Watanabe because doing so would allow determining the timing of the object’s arrival and limiting the range for searching the object for more efficient and reliable search (see pars. 14, 20, 69, 97, and 104 of Watanabe).
For claim 6, Astrom as applied discloses a system for object tracking across video frames (see, e.g., FIG. 4), the system comprising:
a first bridge (see, e.g., pars. 85-93 and FIG. 4, which teach the object analyzer) and comprising:
a first memory storing a first set of instructions (see, e.g., pars. 94-98 and FIG. 5); and
a first processor configured to execute the first set of instructions (see, e.g., pars. 94-98 and FIG. 5) to:
receive a first video stream from a first camera at a first site; (see, e.g., pars. 37-38 and 51 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach receiving a first video from a first camera at a first site)
determine a first object is moving in the first video stream (see, e.g., pars. 39 and 51, and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach determining that the objects are moving in the first video);
determine a first set of object characteristics for the first object (see, e.g., pars. 39-44 and 52-53, and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach determining that the objects’ characteristics such as its color, height, speed and location); and
communicate the first video stream to a data center (see, e.g., FIG. 4, which shows the communication between components of the system via the network),;
a second bridge (see, e.g., pars. 85-93 and FIG. 4, which teach the object analyzer) comprising:
a second memory storing a second set of instructions (see, e.g., pars. 94-98 and FIG. 5); and
a second processor configured to execute the second set of instructions (see, e.g., pars. 94-98 and FIG. 5) to:
receive a second video stream from a second camera at a second site (see, e.g., pars. 45-46 and 54 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach receiving a second video from a second camera at a second site);
determine a second object is moving in the second video stream (see, e.g., pars. 47 and 54-55 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach determining that the objects are moving in the second video);
determine a second set of object characteristics for the second object (see, e.g., pars. 47-48 and 56 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach determining that the objects’ characteristics such as its color, height, speed and location); and
communicate the second video stream to the data center (see, e.g., FIG. 4, which shows the communication between components of the system via the network),
wherein the data center (see, e.g., pars. 85-93 and FIG. 4, which teach the video analytic platform and the video management system) comprises:
a third memory storing a third set of instructions (see, e.g., pars. 94-98 and FIG. 5); and
a third processor configured to execute the third set of instructions (see, e.g., pars. 94-98 and FIG. 5) to:
receive the first video stream and the second video stream (see, e.g., pars. 86-89 and FIG. 4, which teach receiving the video data from the video management systems/ and/or video cameras); and
determine, based on the first object moving, the second object moving, the first set of object characteristics and the second set of object characteristics, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 48, 57-58 and 64 and FIGS. 1, 2A and 2B, which teach determining, based on the object features in the first and second videos, that one or more objects in the first video are the same as one or more objects in the second video).
While Astrom teaches a system that teaches all the functional limitations of claim 1, it does not explicitly teach that the claimed object characteristic determination is performed at each bridge device. Watanabe in the analogous art teaches an object detection system that includes a central management server connected, via the network, to multiple object detection bridge apparatuses, each of which has the claimed hardware configuration and performs the claimed image capturing and object detection functions (see, e.g., pars. 35-47 and FIGS. 1-3 of Watanabe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom to be structured as taught by Watanabe because doing so would allow distributing the network and processing load and grasping the movement state of object or traffic volume over a wide range for high processing speed and high accuracy of recognition (see pars. 69-70 of Watanabe).
For claim 7, Astrom in view of Watanabe teaches that determining a first set of object characteristics for the first object comprises:
one or more of the first processor and the third processor is configured to determine a direction of movement of the first object in the first video stream (see, e.g., pars. 7, 57, 59, 68, and 92 and FIGS. 1, 2A and 3, which teach determining the object heading of the objects in the first video);
one or more of the second processor and the third processor is configured to determine a direction of movement of the second object in the second video stream (see, e.g., pars. 7, 59, 73, and 92 and FIGS. 1, 2A and 3, which teach determining the object heading); and
the third processor is configured to determine, based on the direction of movement of the first object in the first video stream and the direction of movement of the second object in the second video stream, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 74-78 and FIG. 3, which teach determining that one or more objects in the first video are the same as one or more objects in the second video by comparing respective features of the objects, e.g., the movement directions of the objects in the videos).
For claim 8, while Astrom as applied does not explicitly teach, Watanabe in the analogous art teaches that the third processor is configured to determine, based on a time between the first object exiting from the first video stream and the second object entering the second video stream, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 95-113 and FIGS. 9-11 of Watanabe, which teach determining that the object in the second imaging portion corresponds to the object in the first imaging portion based on the timing, at which the object exits the first imaging region and enters the second imaging region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom to determine the identity of the object based on its exit and entrance as taught by Watanabe because doing so would allow limiting the search range of the object for more efficient and reliable search (see pars. 14, 20, 69, 97, and 104 of Watanabe).
For claim 9, Astrom in view of Watanabe teaches that determining a first set of object characteristics for the first object comprises:
one or more of the first processor and the third processor is configured to determine a speed of the first object (see, e.g., pars. 38-39, 52-53 and 68 and FIG. 2A and 3 of Astrom, which teach determining a speed of an object in the first video);
one or more of the second processor and the third processor is configured to determine a speed of the second object (see, e.g., pars. 46-47, 55-56 and 73 and FIG. 2A and 3 of Astrom, which teach determining a speed of an object in the second video); and
the third processor is configured to determine, based on one or more of the speed of the first object and the speed of the second object, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 48, 58 and 74-78 and FIG. 3 of Astrom, which teach determining that one or more objects in the first video are the same as one or more objects in the second video by comparing respective features of the objects, e.g., the speed of the objects in the videos).
For claim 12, Astrom as applied teaches a method for determining camera nearness (see, e.g., pars. 3-5 and FIG. 3), the method comprising:
receiving a first video stream from a first camera at a first site (see, e.g., pars. 37-38 and 51 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach receiving a first video from a first camera at a first site);
determining a first object is moving in the first video stream (see, e.g., pars. 39 and 51, and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach determining that the objects are moving in the first video);
determining a first set of object characteristics for the first object (see, e.g., pars. 39-44 and 52-53 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach determining that the objects’ characteristics such as its color, height, speed and location);
receiving a second video stream from a second camera at a second site (see, e.g., pars. 45-46 and 54 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach receiving a second video from a second camera at a second site);
determining a second object is moving in the second video stream (see, e.g., pars. 47 and 54-55 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach determining that the objects are moving in the second video);
determining a second set of object characteristics for the second object (see, e.g., pars. 47-48 and 56 and FIGS. 1 and 2A, which teach determining that the objects’ characteristics such as its color, height, speed and location);
determining the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 48, 57-58 and 64 and FIGS. 1, 2A and 2B, which teach determining, based on the object features in the first and second videos, that one or more objects in the first video are the same as one or more objects in the second video).
While Astrom does not explicitly teach, Watanabe in the analogous art teaches determining a nearness between the first site and the second site based on the first object being the same object as the second object and a time between the first object exiting the first video stream and the second object entering the second video stream (see, e.g., pars. 58-60, 64 and 75-79 and FIGS. 5 and 8 of Watanabe, which teaches determining a distance between the final position of the object in the previous site and the position of the current site based on a timing at which the object exited the previous site/imaging region to reach the current site/imaging region, wherein the timing is estimated based on the movement information including the installation information of the cameras and final recognition information of the object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom to determine the distance between the sites as taught by Watanabe because doing so would allow determining the timing of the object’s arrival and limiting the range for searching the object for more efficient and reliable search (see pars. 14, 20, 69, 97, and 104 of Watanabe).
For claim 13, Astrom as applied teaches:
determining a direction of movement of the first object in the first video stream (see, e.g., pars. 7, 57, 59, 68, and 92 and FIGS. 1, 2A and 3, which teach determining the object heading of the objects in the first video);
determining a direction of movement of the second object in the second video stream (see, e.g., pars. 7, 59, 73 and 92 and FIGS. 1, 2A and 3, which teach determining the object heading).
While Astrom does not explicitly teach, Watanabe in the analogous art teaches determining the nearness between the first site and the second site based on the direction of movement of the first object in the first video stream and the direction of movement of the second object in the second video stream (see, e.g., pars. 48-51, 58-60, 63-64 and 75-79 and FIGS. 5 and 8 of Watanabe, which teaches determining a distance between the final position of the object in the previous site and the position of the current site based on a timing at which the object exits the previous site/imaging region and enters the current site/imaging region from the direction of the previous site/imaging region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom to determine the distance between the sites as taught by Watanabe because doing so would allow determining the timing of the object’s arrival and limiting the range for searching the object for more efficient and reliable search (see pars. 14, 20, 69, 97, and 104 of Watanabe).
For claim 14, while Astrom does not explicitly teach, Watanabe as applied teaches:
determining, based on a time between the first object exiting from the first video stream and the second object entering the second video stream, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 95-113 and FIGS. 9-11 of Watanabe, which teach determining that the object in the second imaging portion corresponds to the object in the first imaging portion based on the timing, at which the object exits the first imaging region and enters the second imaging region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom to determine the identity of the object based on its exit and entrance as taught by Watanabe because doing so would allow limiting the search range of the object for more efficient and reliable search (see pars. 14, 20, 69, 97, and 104 of Watanabe).
For claim 15, Astrom in view of Watanabe teaches:
determining a speed of the first object (see, e.g., pars. 38-39, 52-53, and 68 and FIGS. 2A and 3, which teach determining a speed of an object in the first video);
determining a speed of the second object; (see, e.g., pars. 46-47, 55-56 and 73 and FIGS. 2A and 3, which teach determining a speed of an object in the second video); and
determining, based on one or more of the speed of the first object and the speed of the second object, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 48, 58 and 74-78 and FIG. 3, which teach determining that one or more objects in the first video are the same as one or more objects in the second video by comparing respective features of the objects, e.g., the speed of the objects in the videos).
For claim 16, Astrom as applied teaches:
determining, based on one or more of the speed of the first object, the speed of the second object and the distance between the first site and the second site, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 48, 58 and 74-78 and FIG. 3, which teach determining that one or more objects in the first video are the same as one or more objects in the second video by comparing respective features of the objects, e.g., the speed of the objects in the videos).
While Astrom does not explicitly teach, Watanabe in the analogous art teaches determining a distance between the camera sites (see, e.g., par. 78 of Watanabe, which teaches determining a distance between the final position of the object in the previous site and the position of the current site).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom to determine the distance between the sites as taught by Watanabe because doing so would allow determining the timing of the object’s arrival and limiting the range for searching the object for more efficient and reliable search (see pars. 14, 20, 69, 97, and 104 of Watanabe).
Claim(s) 5, 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astrom in view of Watanabe and further in view of us patent application publication no. 2019/0043207 to Carranza et al. (hereinafter Carranza).
For claims 5 and 11, while Astrom in view of Watanabe does not explicitly teach, Carranza in the analogous art teaches:
determining a first camera direction for the first camera (see, e.g., pars. 39, 55-67 and 77-79 and FIGS. 4 and 5, which teach determining which camera provides the best perspective/angle of the object for identification; the examiner interprets the above teaching to read on the limitation because it suggests determining angles of all cameras);
determining a second camera direction for the second camera (see, e.g., pars. 39, 55-67 and 77-79 and FIGS. 4 and 5, which teach determining which camera provides the best perspective/angle and optimal condition of the object for identification; the examiner interprets the above teaching to read on the limitation because it suggests determining angles of all cameras); and
determining, based on one or more of the direction of travel of the first object relative to the first camera direction, the direction of travel of the second object relative to the second camera direction and the distance between the first site and the second site, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 57-67 and FIGS. 4 and 5 of Carranza, which teach continuously determining the object’s identity based on the object’s direction of travel with respect to a particular camera direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom in view of Watanabe to identify the object based on the relative angles as taught by Carranza because doing so would allow collecting images under the object under optimal conditions and best perspective, which would generate more accurate metadata for improved identification and tracking (see pars. 21, 22, 24, 39, and 55 of Carranza).
For claim 17, while Astrom in view of Watanabe does not explicitly teach, Carranza in the analogous art teaches:
determining a first camera direction for the first camera (see, e.g., pars. 39, 55-67 and 77-79 and FIGS. 4 and 5, which teach determining which camera provides the best perspective/angle of the object for identification; the examiner interprets the above teaching to read on the limitation because it suggests determining angles of all cameras);
determining a second camera direction for the second camera (see, e.g., pars. 39, 55-67 and 77-79 and FIGS. 4 and 5, which teach determining which camera provides the best perspective/angle and optimal condition of the object for identification; the examiner interprets the above teaching to read on the limitation because it suggests determining angles of all cameras); and
determining, based on one or more of the direction of travel of the first object relative to the first camera direction, the direction of travel of the second object relative to the second camera direction and the distance between the first site and the second site, that the first object and the second object are the same object (see, e.g., pars. 57-67 and FIGS. 4 and 5 of Carranza, which teach continuously determining the object’s identity based on the object’s direction of travel with respect to a particular camera direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Astrom in view of Watanabe to identify the object based on the relative angles as taught by Carranza because doing so would allow collecting images under the object under optimal conditions and best perspective, which would generate more accurate metadata for improved identification and tracking (see pars. 21, 22, 24, 39, and 55 of Carranza).
Additional Citations
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
Verwoerd et al. (us pat. pub. 2024/0378887)
Describes a method for timing and identifying objects in a sports event. In one embodiment, the method comprises receiving first information associated with first image(s) from a first camera at a first position along a track, the first image(s) comprising objects passing a virtual line, the first information comprising visual information about a first object where a passing time is based on the first image(s) but not identified based on the first image(s); receiving/retrieving second information associated with second image(s) from a second camera located at a second position, the second image(s) comprising objects in the event, the second information comprising visual information about object(s) identified based on the second image(s); and, identifying the first object using the first and second information to determine a second object in the second image(s) that matches the first object; and, if the second object is determined, identifying the first object based on visual information of the second object.
Madden et al. (us pat. pub. 2023/0169837)
Describes methods, systems, apparatus, and computer programs, for tracking objects are disclosed. In one aspect, a method is disclosed that includes actions of obtaining an image, determining that a user of a first monitoring system has opted-in for object tracking by a second monitoring system that is remote from the first monitoring system, and based on a determination that the user of the first monitoring system has opted-in for object tracking: determining whether the obtained image satisfies a predetermined level of similarity to a stored tracking object image model stored on a first device of the first monitoring system, and based on a determination that the obtained image satisfies a predetermined level of similarity to the stored tracking object image model, generating a tracking update notification, and transmitting the tracking update notification to the second monitoring system that is remote from the first monitoring system.
Sakito et al. (us pat. pub. 2020/0126407)
Describes a vehicle detection system. In one embodiment, the system including a server connected to communicably a plurality of cameras installed at each of a plurality of intersections, and a client terminal connected to communicably the server. The client terminal displays, on a display device, a visual feature of each of a plurality of vehicles passing through an intersection at a location where an incident occurred and map data indicating a passing direction of the each of the plurality of vehicles passing through the intersection and sends, in response to a designation of any one of the plurality of vehicles, an instruction to set the designated vehicle as a tracking target vehicle to the server. When the instruction is received, the server specifies a camera of an intersection at which the tracking target vehicle is highly likely to enter next based on at least a current time and a passing direction of the tracking target vehicle and sends camera information of the specified camera to the client terminal. When the camera information is received, the client terminal displays, on the display device, a position of a camera corresponding to the camera information to be superimposed on the map data identifiably.
Table 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Table 1 and form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/WOO C RHIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights