DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are considered in this office action. Claims 1-16 are pending examination.
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
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
A receiver that receives should be a receiver configured to receive; a navigation system that generates should be a navigation system configured to; a mobility system that is operable should be a mobility system configured to operable; a sensory circuit that detects should be a sensory circuit that detects should be sensory circuit configured to detect in claims 1, 10 and 16.
Similarly in claim 2 and 11 transmitter that transmits should be transmitter configured to transmit.
Similarly in claim 6 a display device that is controlled should be display device configured to controlled.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
A receiver that receives a command; a navigation system that generates and a mobility system that is operable to transport in claim 1, 10 and 16.
A display device in claim 6 and 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. For the examination purpose, these claim limitations are being interpreted as disclosed in the specification in Para [0060]- for receiver; Para [0053-0054]-a navigation system and Para [0037]- a mobility system.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 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 1-2, 5, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakimenko (US11281905) in view of Boyle (US12045059) and herein after will be referred as Yakimenko and Boyle respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Yakimenko teaches an apparatus for searching for foreign-object debris on an airfield of an airport, the airfield comprising a runway where an aircraft takes off and lands, an apron where the aircraft parks between landing and taking off, and a taxiway that can be used by the aircraft to travel between the runway and the apron (Col.2 Line 63-66 : “Generally viewed, system 100 allows a user 110 to conduct an aerial inspection sweep a selected airport runway 116 surface for FOD, such as FOD 118, using a plurality of UAVs 114.”), the apparatus comprising:
a receiver that receives a command to conduct a search for foreign-object debris on a region of the airfield comprising at least one of the apron and the runway, wherein the command identifies the region of the airfield to be searched for the foreign-object debris (Col.2 Line 66-Col.3 Line 7: “ User 110 inputs the parameters of the inspection sweep onto computer system 102, for example, using input device 108, via one or more graphical user interfaces (GUIs) displayed to user 110 on display 106. During the sweep of selected runway 116 surface, UAVs 114 aerially traverse above the surface of runway 116, for example, in a line formation, and transmit live video images 126 of the surface of runway 116 captured by EO sensors 124 over network 112 to computer system 102”);
Yakimenko also teaches (ii) generates a coverage plan that defines a travel path to be traveled by the apparatus over the region of the airfield to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris (Col.4 Line56- Col.5 Line 7: “Third panel 306, labeled as “3. Sweep Settings,” allows a user to select a UAV sweep pattern. A sweep pattern is the path UAVs 114 will aerially traverse over the runway to inspect the runway for FOD. For example, a user can select between a full sweep, a partial sweep, and a curved sweep by clicking on a “Full sweep” button, a “Partial sweep” button, or a “Curved sweep” button. A full sweep corresponds to an inspection of the entire runway end-to-end. A partial sweep corresponds to an inspection of only a specific portion of the selected runway. A curved sweep corresponds to a simultaneous inspection of multiple areas of the selected runway and allows a user to specify UAV turn points between the areas to set a sweep route. In both the partial sweep and curved sweep, crosshairs will be displayed on an airport diagram displayed in sixth panel 312 allowing the user to select the start points and end points of the sweep pattern for FOD inspection. When a curved sweep is selected, additional UAV turning points can be displayed selected by the user.”);
Yakimenko does not expressly teaches a navigation system that: (i) generates a route to be traveled by the apparatus to reach the region of the airfield identified in the command received by the receiver, and a mobility system that is operable to transport the apparatus along the route to the region of the airfield, and to transport the apparatus along the travel path during a search for the foreign-object debris; sensor circuitry that detects: (i) an obstacle on the airfield encountered by the apparatus, and (ii) the foreign-object debris on the airfield; and a computing system comprising one or a plurality of computer processors that executes computer-executable instructions to: (i) control operation of the mobility system to avoid a collision between the apparatus and the obstacle on the airfield detected by the sensor circuitry, and (ii) identify and/or classify the foreign-object debris.
Boyle teaches a navigation system that: (i) generates a route to be traveled by the apparatus to reach the region of the airfield identified in the command received by the receiver (Col.2 Line 35-42: “The remote server comprises a routing algorithm capable of automatically generating the optimal routes from one point to another on the airfield using the hard surfaces, avoiding the obstacles, and staying within the defined boundaries. The remote server is configured to calculate the most efficient route from a current location of each of the mobile robots to the hard surface assigned along with the most efficient route to traverse the hard surface for FOD collection.”)
a mobility system that is operable to transport the apparatus along the route to the region of the airfield, and to transport the apparatus along the travel path during a search for the foreign-object debris (Col.3 Line 15-18: “The terrestrial robot is configured to travel on a specific path over a movement area surface, or adjacent to a movement area surface, at a specific speed.”);
sensor circuitry that detects: (i) an obstacle on the airfield encountered by the apparatus, and (ii) the foreign-object debris on the airfield (Col.4 Line 24-44: “The mobile robot 10 preferably comprises an edge processor capable of executing a machine learning model, one or more gimballed camera sensors and one or more LIDAR sensors, and a data connection. Alternatively, the mobile robot 10 comprises one or more gimballed camera sensors or one or more LIDAR sensors. The system further comprises a data center consisting of cloud services 30, an end user application 25, and a remote server 20. An airfield operations personnel 18 uses the end-user application 25 to direct a fleet of robots 10 a-10 c, as shown in FIG. 3 , to clear specific areas on an airfield 50, the end-user application 25 entering the request into the server based control system 35. The server based control system 35 calculates the most efficient route from current robot location to the hard surface assigned along with the most efficient route to traverse the hard surface for FOD collection. The server based control system 35 sends the calculated routing to the assigned robot at the assigned time. The mobile robot 10 executes the request to follow the route, detecting and avoiding unexpected obstacles along the way, and then returning to its assigned home position to dump the collected debris.”);
and a computing system comprising one or a plurality of computer processors that executes computer-executable instructions to: (i) control operation of the mobility system to avoid a collision between the apparatus and the obstacle on the airfield detected by the sensor circuitry, and (ii) identify and/or classify the foreign-object debris (Col.6 Line54-61: “The disclosed methods and systems, as illustrated in the foregoing description or any of its components, may be embodied in the form of a computer system. Typical examples of a computer system include a general-purpose computer, a programmed microprocessor, a microcontroller, a peripheral integrated circuit element, and other devices, or arrangements of devices that are capable of implementing the steps that constitute the method of the disclosure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yakimenko to incorporate the teachings of Boyle to include a navigation system that: (i) generates a route to be traveled by the apparatus to reach the region of the airfield identified in the command received by the receiver and a mobility system that is operable to transport the apparatus along the route to the region of the airfield, and to transport the apparatus along the travel path during a search for the foreign-object debris; sensor circuitry that detects: (i) an obstacle on the airfield encountered by the apparatus, and (ii) the foreign-object debris on the airfield; and a computing system comprising one or a plurality of computer processors that executes computer-executable instructions to: (i) control operation of the mobility system to avoid a collision between the apparatus and the obstacle on the airfield detected by the sensor circuitry, and (ii) identify and/or classify the foreign-object debris. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD on the runway.
Similarly, claim 16 is rejected on similar rational.
Regarding Claim 2, Yakimenko in view of Boyle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yakimenko also teaches further comprising a transmitter that transmits data indicative of a location where the foreign-object debris was found on the airfield for inclusion in a log entry of a ground maintenance database (Col.5 Line 48-51: “In the present example, candidate FOD information included in FOD field 316 for each candidate FOD includes: a FOD identifier (ID) generated by method 104; the location of the candidate FOD, as latitude and longitude; a size of the candidate FOD; a color of the candidate FOD; and a location of the candidate FOD relative to the start of the sweep.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Yakimenko in view of Boyle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yakimenko does not expressly teaches wherein the navigation system generates the coverage plan to include an adaptive route specific to the region of the airfield to be inspected for the foreign-object debris based on an environment of the region of the airfield to be inspected based on LiDAR data.
Boyle teaches the navigation system generates the coverage plan to include an adaptive route specific to the region of the airfield to be inspected for the foreign-object debris based on an environment of the region of the airfield to be inspected based on LiDAR data (Col.2 Line 49-65).
Regarding Claim 8, Yakimenko in view of Boyle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Boyle teaches wherein the sensor circuitry comprises a camera that captures an optical image that is analyzed by the computing system to detect the foreign-object debris on the airfield (Col.2 Line 60-Col.3 Line 10).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Shields (US5413225) and herein after will be referred as Shields respectively.
Regarding Claim 3, Yakimenko in view of Boyle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yakimenko does not expressly teaches further comprising a debris collector comprising a magnet that magnetically attracts ferromagnetic debris on the region of the airfield.
Shields teaches further comprising a debris collector comprising a magnet that magnetically attracts ferromagnetic debris on the region of the airfield (Col1 Line9-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yakimenko and Boyle to incorporate the teachings of Shields to include comprising a debris collector comprising a magnet that magnetically attracts ferromagnetic debris on the region of the airfield. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Ringer (US3004279) and herein after will be referred as Ringer respectively.
Regarding Claim 4, Yakimenko in view of Boyle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yakimenko does not expressly teaches further comprising a debris collector comprising at least one of a vacuum and a sweeper.
Ringer teaches a debris collector comprising at least one of a vacuum and a sweeper.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yakimenko and Boyle to incorporate the teachings of Boyle to include a debris collector comprising at least one of a vacuum and a sweeper. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Tan et al. (US2009/0323046) and herein after will be referred as Tan respectively.
Regarding Claim 6, Yakimenko in view of Boyle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yakimenko does not expressly teaches further comprising a display device that is controlled by the computing system to emit a visible signal in response to detection of the foreign-object debris by the sensor circuitry.
Tan teaches further comprising a display device that is controlled by the computing system to emit a visible signal in response to detection of the foreign-object debris by the sensor circuitry ( Para [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yakimenko and Boyle to incorporate the teachings of Tan to include a display device that is controlled by the computing system to emit a visible signal in response to detection of the foreign-object debris by the sensor circuitry. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Safai et al. (US2018/0085792) and herein after will be referred as Safai respectively.
Regarding Claim 7, Yakimenko in view of Boyle teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Yakimenko does not expressly teaches wherein the sensor circuitry comprises a light source that emits light and a sensor that detects a reflected portion of the light emitted by the light source to detect the foreign-object debris on the airfield.
Safai teaches the sensor circuitry comprises a light source that emits light and a sensor that detects a reflected portion of the light emitted by the light source to detect the foreign-object debris on the airfield (Para [0006] and [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yakimenko and Boyle to incorporate the teachings of Safai to include the sensor circuitry comprises a light source that emits light and a sensor that detects a reflected portion of the light emitted by the light source to detect the foreign-object debris on the airfield. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Kapadia et al. (US20020093433A1) and herein after will be referred as Kapadia.
Regarding Claim 9, Yakimenko in view of Boyle teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Yakimenko does not expressly teaches wherein the computing system establishes a scheduled time to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris based in part on a flight schedule at the airport.
Kapadia teaches wherein the computing system establishes a scheduled time to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris based in part on a flight schedule at the airport (Para [0018]: “The image data resulting from the monitoring devices may be compared to baseline image data stored in the database. This baseline image data may be indicative of active runway surfaces that have been predetermined to be sufficient, acceptable, or of a specific sufficiency level, e.g., ideal, near ideal, sufficient, marginal, unacceptable, etc. Based on this comparison, discrepancies such as the presence of FOD may be reported to, for example, a ground/tower controller or a pilot (depending on system specifications) and airport maintenance personnel may be alerted to, for example, remove FOD from the runway surface at a specified location. These operations may be performed on a customized schedule to ensure that departing and landing aircraft have a FOD free runway surface. Alternatively, or in addition, scanning may be initiated at the request of, for example, ground/tower controllers, pilots or airport maintenance personnel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yakimenko and Boyle to incorporate the teachings of Kapadia to include the computing system establishes a scheduled time to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris based in part on a flight schedule at the airport. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Tan.
Regarding Claim 10, As discussed above in Claim 1, Yakimenko in view of Boyle teaches all the limitations except a display device that is controlled by the computing system to emit a visible signal in response to detection of the foreign-object debris by the sensor circuitry.
Tan teaches a display device that is controlled by the computing system to emit a visible signal in response to detection of the foreign-object debris by the sensor circuitry (Para [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yakimenko and Boyle to incorporate the teachings of Tan to include a display device that is controlled by the computing system to emit a visible signal in response to detection of the foreign-object debris by the sensor circuitry. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Regarding Claim 11, Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Tan teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Yakimenko teaches a transmitter that transmits data indicative of a location where the foreign-object debris was found on the airfield for inclusion in a log entry of a ground maintenance database (Col.5 Line 48-51).
Regarding Claim 12, Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Tan teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Boyle teaches wherein the navigation system generates the coverage plan to include an adaptive route specific to the region of the airfield to be inspected for the foreign-object debris based on at least one of: a geography of the region of the airfield, and markings on the region of the airfield (Col.2 Line 49-65).
Regarding Claim 14, Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Tan teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Boyle teaches wherein the sensor circuitry comprises a camera that captures an optical image that is analyzed by the computing system to detect the foreign-object debris on the airfield (Col.2 Line 60-Col.3 Line 10).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Tan and in further view of Safai.
Regarding Claim 13, Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Tan teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Safai teaches wherein the sensor circuitry comprises a light source that emits light and a sensor that detects a reflected portion of the light emitted by the light source to detect the foreign-object debris on the airfield (Para [0006] and [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yakimenko, Boyle and Tan to incorporate the teachings of Safai to include the sensor circuitry comprises a light source that emits light and a sensor that detects a reflected portion of the light emitted by the light source to detect the foreign-object debris on the airfield. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Tan and in further view of Kapadia et al. (US20020093433A1) and herein after will be referred as Kapadia.
Regarding Claim 15, Yakimenko in view of Boyle and in further view of Tan teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Yakimenko does not expressly teaches wherein the computing system establishes a scheduled time to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris based in part on a flight schedule at the airport.
Kapadia teaches wherein the computing system establishes a scheduled time to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris based in part on a flight schedule at the airport (Para [0018]: “The image data resulting from the monitoring devices may be compared to baseline image data stored in the database. This baseline image data may be indicative of active runway surfaces that have been predetermined to be sufficient, acceptable, or of a specific sufficiency level, e.g., ideal, near ideal, sufficient, marginal, unacceptable, etc. Based on this comparison, discrepancies such as the presence of FOD may be reported to, for example, a ground/tower controller or a pilot (depending on system specifications) and airport maintenance personnel may be alerted to, for example, remove FOD from the runway surface at a specified location. These operations may be performed on a customized schedule to ensure that departing and landing aircraft have a FOD free runway surface. Alternatively, or in addition, scanning may be initiated at the request of, for example, ground/tower controllers, pilots or airport maintenance personnel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yakimenko and Boyle to incorporate the teachings of Kapadia to include the computing system establishes a scheduled time to conduct the search for the foreign-object debris based in part on a flight schedule at the airport. Doing so would optimize the process of detection of FOD and collecting it on the runway.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spriggs et al. (US7250849B2) discloses a device for detection of undesired objects on surfaces, for example airport runways co-ordinates sensed data from a plurality of sensor units. With radar sensors, synthetic aperture radar processing is found to be advantageous. A vehicle which is configured with a plurality of sensors may be either remotely controlled or autonomous. It may also be provided with communication equipment and debris retrieval apparatus and that includes both mobile sensing devices and fixed installations. A suitable mobile sensing device and a method for operating the debris detection system are also provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDHESH K JHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:0800-1700.
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, James J Lee can be reached at 571-270-5965. 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.
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668