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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18961433, filed on 01/06/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Row 1 of Figure 2 recites “fetal”. It is unclear what this means. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “and accumulating the results of identifying”, which is already recited in claim 5, on which claim 6 depends: “accumulating results of identifying”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
“
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining regions of an image, without significantly more.
The claim recites: “A camera contaminant detection method comprising:
receiving an image through a camera;
pre-processing the inputted image; and
identifying a contamination region to which contaminants are attached and a normal region to which contaminants are not attached in the pre-processed image.”
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can identify a contamination region and a normal region in an image. The image receipt amounts to insignificant, extra-solution activity (data collection).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a camera, and pre-processing the image. The camera is recited at a high level of generality such that amounts to no more than a generic camera. The pre-processing is unspecified and recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to a well-known and routine activity. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality. It is therefore a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of performing a semantic segmentation for identifying opaque and translucent regions. This amounts to a mental process. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of accumulating region segmentation results of pixels in images and identifying contaminants based on the accumulated results and identification frequency. This amounts to a mental process. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a generically recited system for performing the steps of the abstract idea of claim 1. The system with units is recited at a high level of generality. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a method analogous to steps recited in claims 1 and 5. Claim 11 is therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 for analogous reasons to those described in the above rejections of claims 1 and 5. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: ‘input unit’, ‘pre-processing unit’, and ‘identification unit’ in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, and 11 contain a plurality of antecedence issues regarding “contaminants”. For example, claim 1 recites “identifying a contamination region to which contaminants are attached and a normal region to which contaminants are not attached” and claim 11 recites “identifying a contamination region to which contaminants are attached and a normal region to which contaminants are not attached… extracting contaminants based on the accumulated results of identifying.” The instances are generally interpreted as new elements or corresponding to previously recited instances based on context.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 10, these claims recite “the inputted image” which lacks antecedence and is being interpreted as “the image”.
Claims 2-9 are further rejected as dependent on one or more of the above recited claims.
Regarding claim 10, claim limitations ‘input unit’, ‘pre-processing unit’, and ‘identification unit’ invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Figure 1 shows the ‘input unit’ (labeled as ‘camera input unit’) and the ‘pre-processing unit’, however the Specification is silent on their corresponding structures. Paragraph 15 contains the only mention of an ‘identification unit’, and is also silent on corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herman (US20200094784A1).
Regarding claim 1, Herman teaches “A camera contaminant detection method comprising:
receiving an image through a camera;” (Herman, Figure 5 and Paragraph 52, “FIG. 5 shows an example image 500 received from a vehicle 100 camera sensor 130 that has an occlusion 510 a, 510 b, e.g., water, rain drop, fog, insect impact, bird byproduct, etc., on the sensor 130 exterior surface 250. For example, FIG. 5 shows an example rain drop occlusion 510 a and an example insect occlusion 510 b. As discussed above, occlusions 510 a, 510 b in the example image 500 are projections of occlusions on the exterior surface 250 and/or within the transparency of the sensor 130. Although FIG. 5 shows multiple occlusions, for convenience, only the occlusions 510 a, 510 b are numbered. Additionally or alternatively, an occlusion 510 a, 510 b may be an area of the optical path 230, e.g., in and/or on the lens 240, the windshield, etc., where an optical attribute of the optical path 230 deviates from a specified optical attribute. As is conventionally understood, optical attributes (or optical properties) of a material define how it interacts with light. Examples of optical attributes may include refraction, reflection, translucence, etc. In the context of an optical path 230, the optical attributes may include focal length, lens 240 distortion model parameter, convergence, etc. A deviation of an optical attribute may be a result of aging of the glass and/or plastic, physical damage, e.g., a scratch, a degradation of a physical component, e.g., glue, of the optical path 230 that causes a misalignment and/or an out-of-focus condition of the optical path 230. For example, the computer 110 may fail to detect a road 520, a building 530, other vehicles 540, etc. based on received image 500 data from a vehicle 100 sensor 130 that has occlusions 510 a, 510 b of the exterior surface 250.”)
“pre-processing the inputted image; and identifying a contamination region to which contaminants are attached and a normal region to which contaminants are not attached in the pre-processed image.” (Herman, Paragraph 57 and Figure 6, “In the present context, “segmentation” (or semantic segmentation) includes an image processing technique to classify the features in an image 500. The computer 110 may be programmed to associate a class and/or sub-class to each one or more of points (or pixels) of the image 500. In one example, the computer 110 may be programmed to perform the segmentation of the image 500 data based on an output of a neural network trained to detect multiple feature classes including at least an occlusion class. An occlusion class, in the present context, may include rain, fog, insects, etc.” Figure 6 shows segmented regions including normal regions without contamination (road, sky, fence, etc.) and contamination regions with attached contaminants (rain drops and insect). The preprocessing step is mapped to the inputting of the image into the segmentation neural network.)
Regarding claim 2, Herman teaches “The camera contaminant detection method of claim 1,”
“wherein the contamination region is divided into an opaque region where the field of vision is completely obstructed by contaminants, and a translucent region where the field of vision is imperfectly obstructed by contaminants.” (Herman, Figure 6 shows region “Insect” which corresponds to an opaque region where the field of vision is completely obstructed, as shown in element 510b of Figure 5. Figure 6 additionally shows region “Raindrops”, which corresponds to a translucent region where the field of vision is imperfectly obstructed, as shown in element 510a of Figure 5.)
Regarding claim 3, Herman teaches “The camera contaminant detection method of claim 2,”
“wherein the translucent region comprises a region that is occluded by transparent or translucent contaminants, or a periphery region in the opaque region through which light passes in part.” (Herman, Figures 5-6 show that the translucent region is a region occluded by translucent contaminants (raindrops).)
Regarding claim 4, Herman teaches “The camera contaminant detection method of claim 2,”
“wherein identifying comprises identifying the opaque region, the translucent region, and the normal region in the pre-processed image through semantic segmentation.” (Herman, Figures 5-6 and Paragraph 57 “In the present context, “segmentation” (or semantic segmentation) includes an image processing technique to classify the features in an image 500. The computer 110 may be programmed to associate a class and/or sub-class to each one or more of points (or pixels) of the image 500. In one example, the computer 110 may be programmed to perform the segmentation of the image 500 data based on an output of a neural network trained to detect multiple feature classes including at least an occlusion class. An occlusion class, in the present context, may include rain, fog, insects, etc.”)
Regarding claim 10, Claim 10 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the analogous steps in the corresponding method claim. Additionally, Herman teaches a system with devices/units (Herman, Paragraph 42 and Paragraph 84, first sentence, “Via the vehicle network, the computer 110 may transmit messages to various devices in the vehicle 100 and/or receive messages from the various devices, e.g., the sensor 130, actuators 120, etc. Alternatively or additionally, in cases where the computer 110 actually comprises multiple devices, the vehicle communication network may be used for communications between devices represented as the computer 110 in this disclosure. Further, as mentioned below, various controllers and/or sensors 130 may provide data to the computer 110 via the vehicle 100 communication network.”; “Computers generally each include instructions executable by one or more computing devices such as those identified above, and for carrying out blocks or steps of processes described above.”)
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) 5-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman in view of Weimer (DE 102021212020 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Herman teaches “The camera contaminant detection method of claim 4,”
While Herman teaches “identifying the opaque region, the translucent region, and the normal region” (see rejection of claims 1-2) and “extracting contaminants” (Herman, Figure 6), Herman does not expressly disclose accumulating the identification results and performing the extraction based on the accumulated results.
Weimer teaches accumulating contamination segmentation results and extracting contaminants based on the accumulation results (Weimer, Page 3 Paragraphs 12-13, “The steps of receiving the images and segmenting the image cells are preferably carried out successively and repeatedly. In other words, for example, an image is received and the image cells in it are segmented and then the steps are repeatedly carried out one after the other for all other received images. In the determination step, the matching contamination cells, which are the same in the received images, are determined using the processing unit in order to identify them (using the processing unit) as contamination on the lens unit. That is, in other words, the identified potential contamination cells are compared across the received images, and the potential contamination cells identified in all images are identified as actual contamination on the lens unit. In other words, the segmented image cells that have not changed or have remained segmented in the received images or the image series are identified as contamination.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to perform the segmentation result accumulation and contamination identification based on accumulation results of Weimer with respect to the opaque/translucent/normal segmentation and contamination extraction of Herman.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve identification accuracy by leveraging more data than just a single image. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Herman with the above teaching of Weimer to fully disclose “further comprising: accumulating results of identifying the opaque region, the translucent region, and the normal region; and extracting contaminants based on the accumulated results of identifying.”
Regarding claim 6, Herman in view of Weimer teaches “The camera contaminant detection method of claim 5,”
“wherein accumulating comprises identifying an opaque region, a translucent region, and a normal region for each pixel with respect to N images comprising a current image and past continuous images, and accumulating the results of identifying.” (See excerpt of Weimer and combination statement recited above in the rejection of claim 5 with rationale and motivation. The combination discloses performing the region segmentation of pixels for a plurality of images in sequence (i.e. a current image and past continuous images) then accumulating these results.)
Regarding claim 7, Herman in view of Weimer teaches “The camera contaminant detection method of claim 6,”
“wherein extracting comprises extracting, as contaminants, a pixel which is most frequently identified as an opaque region and a pixel which is most frequently identified as a translucent region in the N images.” (Weimer, Page 3 Paragraphs 12-13, “The steps of receiving the images and segmenting the image cells are preferably carried out successively and repeatedly. In other words, for example, an image is received and the image cells in it are segmented and then the steps are repeatedly carried out one after the other for all other received images. In the determination step, the matching contamination cells, which are the same in the received images, are determined using the processing unit in order to identify them (using the processing unit) as contamination on the lens unit. That is, in other words, the identified potential contamination cells are compared across the received images, and the potential contamination cells identified in all images are identified as actual contamination on the lens unit. In other words, the segmented image cells that have not changed or have remained segmented in the received images or the image series are identified as contamination.” The above was incorporated with motivation and rationale in the rejection of claim 5. As combined, the translucent and opaque regions are extracted according to these regions being identified in all images (i.e. most frequently identified).)
Regarding claim 11, Claim 11 recites a method with steps fully embodied in the steps recited in claims 1 and 5. Therefore, the recited steps of these claims are mapped to the analogous steps in the corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the references apply here.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herman in view of Weimer further in view of Xu (CN-107274413-A) further in view of Sun (US 20220335619 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Herman in view of Weimer teaches “The camera contaminant detection method of claim 5,”
While Herman in view of Weimer disclose pre-processing the input image (see claim 1 rejection), they do not expressly disclose that the pre-processing comprises performing histogram equalization and scaling.
Xu teaches pre-processing comprising performing histogram equalization (Xu, Page 3, Paragraphs 5-6, “S2.1.1: for colourful steel metallographic image F, using a conversion formula: the RGB colour space image into the YUV colour space image to obtain image P, wherein: r, g and b are values, y, u, v of the three colour components RGB colour space corresponding to the image are respectively the value of the component YUV colour space corresponding to the image; S2.1.2: independently performing histogram equalization to the Y channel of the YUV colour space image P after conversion to obtain image Q.”
Sun teaches pre-processing comprising image scaling (Sun, Paragraph 83, “In an example, before the original image is input into the segmentation network that has been trained, the original image may be first scaled to the preset size in the segmentation network.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the pre-preprocessing step of Herman in view of Weimer by incorporating the histogram equalization and scaling of Xu and Sun, respectively.
The motivation for incorporating the histogram equalization would have been to increase image contrast to clarify edges for the segmentation model for improved feature extraction. The motivation for incorporating the scaling would have been to standardize input image size for more consistent feature extraction. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Herman in view of Weimer with the above teachings of Xu and Sun to fully disclose “wherein pre-processing comprises performing histogram equalization and scaling with respect to the inputted image.”
Regarding claim 9, Herman in view of Weimer further in view of Xu further in view of Sun teaches “The camera contaminant detection method of claim 8,”
“wherein pre-processing comprises: converting the image from an RGB format to a YUV format and performing equalization with respect to a Y channel; and scaling an image size to a size sufficient to process semantic segmentation.” (Xu, Page 3, Paragraphs 5-6, “S2.1.1: for colourful steel metallographic image F, using a conversion formula: the RGB colour space image into the YUV colour space image to obtain image P, wherein: r, g and b are values, y, u, v of the three colour components RGB colour space corresponding to the image are respectively the value of the component YUV colour space corresponding to the image; S2.1.2: independently performing histogram equalization to the Y channel of the YUV colour space image P after conversion to obtain image Q.”; Sun, Paragraph 83, “In an example, before the original image is input into the segmentation network that has been trained, the original image may be first scaled to the preset size in the segmentation network.” Note that the above were incorporated with rationale and motivation in the rejection of claim 8.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON JOSEPH SORRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/AARON JOSEPH SORRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights