DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of JP2023-215800 filed 12/21/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/09/2024, 03/06/2026, 06/10/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
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:
communication system configured to communicably…claims 1, 6
storage section configured to store…claim 1
surrounding information acquisition section configured to acquire…claims 1, 6
route determination section configured to determine…claim 1
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. The following are the interpreted corresponding structures found within the specifications for some the above limitations:
communication system - Figure 4 - item 60, paragraph 0070
storage section – Figure 3 – item 31, paragraph 0021
surrounding information acquisition section – Figure 3 – item 32
route determination section – Figure 3 – item 33
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 § 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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims’ subject matter eligibility will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”).
With respect to claims 1 and 6.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claims 1 and 6 are directed to one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: the claim recites, inter alia:
“detect a surrounding state around the surrounding detection device": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally and/or physically provide information and services. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
"acquire surrounding information on the surrounding state based on a detection result from the surrounding detection device": A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally and/or physically create information for different aspects, i.e. sensing, prediction, management, planning, control. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes. “determine a route to the corresponding destination by search based on the destination information received from the movable-body control device, the movable-body map information, and the surrounding information”: A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally and/or physically create information for different aspects, i.e. sensing, prediction, management, planning, control. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
“search for the route based on the shared surrounding information”: A person of ordinary skill in the art can mentally and/or physically create information for different aspects, i.e. sensing, prediction, management, planning, control. Thus, this limitation is construed to be directed to the abstract idea of mental processes.
as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only limitations not treated above, “store control map information on a map of the movable area and to designate a destination to each of the plurality of movable bodies based on the control map information”, “connect the plurality of movable bodies to the movable-body control device”, “transmit destination information on a corresponding destination to each of the plurality of movable bodies via the communication system”, “store movable-body map information on the map of the movable area”, “perform an information sharing process of sharing at least some of respective pieces of surrounding information acquired by the plurality of movable bodies”, involves the mere gathering of data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In particular, the claim only recites additional elements that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of the “moveable-body control device” and “communication system” are recited at a high level of generality, and comprises only a processor to simply perform the generic computer functions. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The generic computer components in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: 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 element of using generic computer components to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the communication step is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims: Dependent claims(s) 2 and 4-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not provide any type of control aspect based on the determined route . Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 4-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 6. Therefore, claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (USPGPub 2026/0236030) in view of Wunderlich (USPGPub 2020/0014759). As per claim 1, Sato discloses an article transport facility, comprising: a plurality of movable bodies (see at least paragraph 0085; wherein a plurality of mobile robots 20) each configured to travel in a movable area and transport an article (see at least paragraph 0071; wherein a mobile robot such as an automated guided vehicle (AGV) is used to transport a workpiece, a raw material, or the like in a manufacturing factory or transport a part, a product, a raw material, or the like in a warehouse); a movable-body control device (see at least paragraph 0089; wherein route control unit 31) configured to store control map information on a map of the movable area (see at least paragraph 0090; wherein the map management unit 41 converts the real space in which the mobile robot 20 can move into a route graph and holds the route graph. The map management unit 41 acquires the position information of each mobile robot 20 from the robot control unit 33, and grasps the passage situation of each mobile robot 20 on the route graph) and to designate a destination to each of the plurality of movable bodies based on the control map information (see at least paragraph 0088; wherein the destination of each mobile robot 20 is determined by assigning a task to each mobile robot 20. The route control unit 31 acquires the position information of each mobile robot 20, executes the route plan of each mobile robot 20, and determines the movement route to the destination); and a communication system configured to communicably connect the plurality of movable bodies to the movable-body control device (see at least paragraph 0099; wherein the robot control unit 33 is a control unit that controls the mobile robot 20 via the communication unit 34), and wherein: the movable-body control device is configured to transmit destination information on a corresponding destination to each of the plurality of movable bodies via the communication system (see at least paragraph 0099; wherein the robot control unit 33 transmits the route plan of the mobile robot 20 supplied from the route determination unit 42 to the mobile robot 20 to be controlled via the communication unit 34), each of the plurality of movable bodies comprises: a surrounding detection device configured to detect a surrounding state around the surrounding detection device (see at least paragraph 0103; wherein The obstacle detection unit 62 includes, for example, a stereo camera having two imaging sensors, and generates a captured image obtained by imaging a subject and a depth image obtained by detecting a distance to an object to detect an object to be an obstacle); a surrounding information acquisition section configured to acquire surrounding information on the surrounding state based on a detection result from the surrounding detection device (see at least paragraph 0103; wherein The obstacle detection unit 62 includes, for example, a stereo camera having two imaging sensors, and generates a captured image obtained by imaging a subject and a depth image obtained by detecting a distance to an object to detect an object to be an obstacle); and a route determination section configured to determine a route to the corresponding destination by search based on the destination information received from the movable-body control device, the movable-body map information, and the surrounding information (see at least paragraph 0102; wherein the control unit 61 controls the entire operation of the mobile robot 20. In a case where the route plan is transmitted from the information processing apparatus 10 via the communication unit 65, the control unit 61 controls each unit of the mobile robot 20 to arrive at the destination according to the route plan. For example, in a case where the obstacle information indicating that the obstacle on the movement route has been detected is supplied from the obstacle detection unit 62, the control unit 61 transmits the obstacle information to the information processing apparatus 10 via the communication unit 65. The control unit 61 transmits the self-position (the position of the mobile robot 20) supplied from the self-position estimation unit 63 as its own position information to the information processing apparatus 10 via the communication unit 65. The control unit 61 determines its own moving direction on the basis of the route plan, the obstacle information, and the self-position information, and controls the drive unit 64), the communication system is configured to cause a plurality of movable bodies in a predetermined sharing range to perform an information sharing process of sharing at least some of respective pieces of surrounding information acquired by the plurality of movable bodies (see at least paragraph 0102; wherein in a case where the obstacle information indicating that the obstacle on the movement route has been detected is supplied from the obstacle detection unit 62, the control unit 61 transmits the obstacle information to the information processing apparatus 10 via the communication unit 65). Sato does not explicitly mention a storage section configured to store movable-body map information on the map of the movable area; and the route determination section of each of the plurality of movable bodies is configured to, in response to acquisition of shared surrounding information derived from another movable body in the information sharing process, search for the route based on the shared surrounding information. However Wunderlich does disclose: a storage section configured to store movable-body map information on the map of the movable area (see at least paragraph 0010; wherein autonomous connected vehicles and machines to collectively share information about current location and status, intended/desired route and/or motion paths, and information currently sensed by sensors. By sharing this information with one another via a mesh network open to nearby participating vehicles and/or machines, the participants in the mesh network may work together to collectively plan optimized motion paths for all mobile connected machines in the local environment associated with the mesh network. In some embodiments, collectively planning optimized routes and/or motion paths may include collectively creating and maintaining a collective uncertainty contour map that each machine in the network may use to determine a predicted likelihood of collision for a given location represented by the map); and the route determination section of each of the plurality of movable bodies is configured to, in response to acquisition of shared surrounding information derived from another movable body in the information sharing process, search for the route based on the shared surrounding information (see at least paragraph 0052; wherein machines 102a-102f may be heterogeneous autonomous machines (e.g., vehicles) that may communicate with other machines via their shared mesh networks in order to share information, to collectively generate a shared uncertainty map indicating risk levels associated with traveling into various locations of their surrounding environment, and to collectively plan navigational paths and plan navigational actions). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Wunderlich with the teachings as in Sato. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize cooperative actions among heterogeneous autonomous connected machines, see Wunderlich paragraph 0009. As per claim 3, Wunderlich discloses wherein: the communication system is configured to cause at least a plurality of movable bodies moving on respective routes in respective directions reverse to each other to perform the information sharing process (see at least paragraph 0052; wherein machines 102a-102f may be heterogeneous autonomous machines (e.g., vehicles) that may communicate with other machines via their shared mesh networks in order to share information, to collectively generate a shared uncertainty map indicating risk levels associated with traveling into various locations of their surrounding environment, and to collectively plan navigational paths and plan navigational actions). As per claim 4, Wunderlich discloses wherein: the information sharing process is performed to share at least information that influences movements of the plurality of movable bodies, from among the respective pieces of surrounding information acquired by the plurality of movable bodies (see at least paragraph 0052; wherein machines 102a-102f may be heterogeneous autonomous machines (e.g., vehicles) that may communicate with other machines via their shared mesh networks in order to share information, to collectively generate a shared uncertainty map indicating risk levels associated with traveling into various locations of their surrounding environment, and to collectively plan navigational paths and plan navigational actions). As per claim 5, Wunderlich discloses a work terminal device comprising a display section and carried by an operator (see at least paragraph 0127; wherein in addition to being configured to be relied upon by vehicles in the system to generate a collective navigation plan (as discussed elsewhere herein), the map may further be configured to be displayed on a display to a user of the system (e.g., a passenger in one of the automated vehicles, a system engineer, a city planning official, an emergency responder, etc.)), and wherein: the communication system causes at least part of surrounding information acquired by a given movable body to be also shared with the work terminal device in the sharing range in the information sharing process, and the work terminal device is configured to, in response to acquisition of the at least part of surrounding information shared in the information sharing process, display the at least part of surrounding information on the display section (see at least paragraph 0128; wherein one or more of the vehicles in the mesh network may generate, based on the map of the environment and on the broadcasted information, a collective plan for two or more of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to navigate the environment. That is, a plan for at least two vehicles to navigate the environment (e.g., by accelerating, braking, turning, etc.) may be generated in accordance with the shared map, the broadcasted status information, the broadcasted intent information, and/or the broadcasted sensor information. The navigational plan may, in some embodiments, be generated in accordance with any one or more algorithms and requirements for vehicle navigation, and may in some embodiments rely on a shared uncertainty map (e.g., the collectively generated map) in order to ensure that the navigation plan does not create a risk of collision that exceeds a predefined maximum acceptable risk level). As per claim 6, Sato discloses an article transport facility, comprising: a plurality of movable bodies (see at least paragraph 0085; wherein a plurality of mobile robots 20) each configured to travel in a movable area and transport an article (see at least paragraph 0071; wherein a mobile robot such as an automated guided vehicle (AGV) is used to transport a workpiece, a raw material, or the like in a manufacturing factory or transport a part, a product, a raw material, or the like in a warehouse); a movable-body control device (see at least paragraph 0089; wherein route control unit 31) configured to store control map information on a map of the movable area (see at least paragraph 0090; wherein the map management unit 41 converts the real space in which the mobile robot 20 can move into a route graph and holds the route graph. The map management unit 41 acquires the position information of each mobile robot 20 from the robot control unit 33, and grasps the passage situation of each mobile robot 20 on the route graph) and to designate a destination to each of the plurality of movable bodies based on the control map information (see at least paragraph 0088; wherein the destination of each mobile robot 20 is determined by assigning a task to each mobile robot 20. The route control unit 31 acquires the position information of each mobile robot 20, executes the route plan of each mobile robot 20, and determines the movement route to the destination); a communication system configured to communicably connect the plurality of movable bodies, the movable-body control device (see at least paragraph 0099; wherein the robot control unit 33 is a control unit that controls the mobile robot 20 via the communication unit 34), wherein: each of the plurality of movable bodies comprises: a surrounding detection device configured to detect a surrounding state around the surrounding detection device (see at least paragraph 0103; wherein The obstacle detection unit 62 includes, for example, a stereo camera having two imaging sensors, and generates a captured image obtained by imaging a subject and a depth image obtained by detecting a distance to an object to detect an object to be an obstacle); and a surrounding information acquisition section configured to acquire surrounding information on the surrounding state based on a detection result from the surrounding detection device (see at least paragraph 0103; wherein The obstacle detection unit 62 includes, for example, a stereo camera having two imaging sensors, and generates a captured image obtained by imaging a subject and a depth image obtained by detecting a distance to an object to detect an object to be an obstacle), the communication system is configured to cause a given movable body and the work terminal device in a predetermined sharing range to perform an information sharing process of sharing at least part of surrounding information acquired by the given movable body (see at least paragraph 0102; wherein in a case where the obstacle information indicating that the obstacle on the movement route has been detected is supplied from the obstacle detection unit 62, the control unit 61 transmits the obstacle information to the information processing apparatus 10 via the communication unit 65). Sato does not explicitly mention a work terminal device comprising a display section and carried by an operator; the work terminal device to each other; and the work terminal device is configured to, in response to acquisition of the at least part of the surrounding information thus shared in the information sharing process, display the at least part of the surrounding information on the display section. However Wunderlich does disclose: a work terminal device comprising a display section and carried by an operator (see at least paragraph 0127; wherein in addition to being configured to be relied upon by vehicles in the system to generate a collective navigation plan (as discussed elsewhere herein), the map may further be configured to be displayed on a display to a user of the system (e.g., a passenger in one of the automated vehicles, a system engineer, a city planning official, an emergency responder, etc.)); the work terminal device to each other (see at least paragraph 0127; wherein in addition to being configured to be relied upon by vehicles in the system to generate a collective navigation plan (as discussed elsewhere herein), the map may further be configured to be displayed on a display to a user of the system (e.g., a passenger in one of the automated vehicles, a system engineer, a city planning official, an emergency responder, etc.)), and the work terminal device is configured to, in response to acquisition of the at least part of the surrounding information thus shared in the information sharing process, display the at least part of the surrounding information on the display section (see at least paragraph 0128; wherein one or more of the vehicles in the mesh network may generate, based on the map of the environment and on the broadcasted information, a collective plan for two or more of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to navigate the environment. That is, a plan for at least two vehicles to navigate the environment (e.g., by accelerating, braking, turning, etc.) may be generated in accordance with the shared map, the broadcasted status information, the broadcasted intent information, and/or the broadcasted sensor information. The navigational plan may, in some embodiments, be generated in accordance with any one or more algorithms and requirements for vehicle navigation, and may in some embodiments rely on a shared uncertainty map (e.g., the collectively generated map) in order to ensure that the navigation plan does not create a risk of collision that exceeds a predefined maximum acceptable risk level). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Wunderlich with the teachings as in Sato. The motivation for doing so would have been to optimize cooperative actions among heterogeneous autonomous connected machines, see Wunderlich paragraph 0009.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to explicitly teach wherein: the communication system comprises: a plurality of radio transmission and reception sections provided for respective portions of the movable area; and a relay processing device connected to the plurality of radio transmission and reception sections, the sharing range is set to a communicable range of each of the plurality of radio transmission and reception sections, the relay processing device stores surrounding information shared in the information sharing process, and the relay processing device allows the surrounding information thus stored to be shared with another movable body entering the sharing range after the information sharing process is performed.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: USPGPub 2022/0009103 – Provide path planning safety guiding robots (SGR) for safely navigating and guiding humans through autonomous environments having other autonomous agents such as stationary and/or mobile robots.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD S ISMAIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00AM- 4:00PM.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights