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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 02/03/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/09/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Binder (US 20190154439 A1), hereinafter Binder.
Regarding claim 1, Binder discloses
a first radar transmitter arranged to transmit a first signal (See at least Figs. 5 and 7, Items 11a and 40a-40b, [0822] “A 40a and B 40b may be identical, similar, or different from each other. For example, the same technology may be used, such that both distance meters A 40a and B 40b use light waves, acoustic waves, or radar waves for distance measuring”) that propagates perpendicular to a direction of travel of first and second objects (See at least Fig. 16, Items 40a-40b, 164a-164d, [0898] “An arrangement 160 shown in FIG. 16 schematically illustrates the angle meter #1 55 that comprises the distance meter A 40a for measuring distance d1 along the line-of-sight 51a and the distance meter B 40b for measuring distance d2 along the line-of-sight 51a.”, [0904] “The angle meter 55 is installed or mounted in the land vehicle 185 so that the measurement plane is horizontal (or substantially horizontal), and the measuring lines 51a and 51b are perpendicular to the vehicle 185 normal forward progress direction at a speed V.” Binder discloses measurements perpendicular to the angle meter, additionally Binder discloses object direction of travel as a linear model where the object may travel in a perpendicular motion path. See also [0912]-[0915].);
a first radar receiver arranged to generate first data in response to receiving a first reflected signal corresponding to the first signal (See at least Figs. 5 and 7, Items 13a and 40a-40b, [0822] “A 40a and B 40b may be identical, similar, or different from each other. For example, the same technology may be used, such that both distance meters A 40a and B 40b use light waves, acoustic waves, or radar waves for distance measuring” See also [0848] and [0852]);
a second radar transmitter spaced apart from the first radar transmitter and arranged to transmit a second signal (See at least Figs. 5 and 7, Items 11b, 40a-40b, [0822] “A 40a and B 40b may be identical, similar, or different from each other. For example, the same technology may be used, such that both distance meters A 40a and B 40b use light waves, acoustic waves, or radar waves for distance measuring” See also [0848] and [0852]);
a second radar receiver arranged to generate second data in response to receiving a second reflected signal (See at least Figs. 5 and 7, Items 13b, 40a-40b, [0822] “A 40a and B 40b may be identical, similar, or different from each other. For example, the same technology may be used, such that both distance meters A 40a and B 40b use light waves, acoustic waves, or radar waves for distance measuring” See also [0848] and [0852]); and
a processor arranged to detect a space between the first object and the second object based on the first data and the second data (See at least Figs. 7 and 18a, and Item 61, [0905] “intercepts with the measurement line 51b at distance d2, and later at a time point t2 the vehicle 185a is at a location 188b where the vehicle 185a front end is at a point ‘B’ 187a and intercepts with the measurement line 51a at distance d1”, [0928] “The control block 61 may include a processor” Binder discloses calculating a traveled distance between a first and second object based on measured distances d1 and d2 wherein a first object is a vehicle at a first time and a second object is a vehicle at a second time.)
Regarding claim 2, Binder, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Binder additionally discloses
the processor is arranged to use the first data to detect the space between the first object and the second object (See at least Figs. 7 and 18a, and Item 61, [0905] “intercepts with the measurement line 51b at distance d2, and later at a time point t2 the vehicle 185a is at a location 188b where the vehicle 185a front end is at a point ‘B’ 187a and intercepts with the measurement line 51a at distance d1”, [0928] “The control block 61 may include a processor” Binder discloses calculating a traveled distance between a first and second object based on measured distances d1 and d2 wherein a first object may be a vehicle at a first time and a second object is a vehicle at a second time.)
Regarding claim 3, Binder, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Binder additionally discloses
the processor is arranged to use the second data to detect the space between the first object and the second object (See at least Figs. 7 and 18a, and Item 61, [0905] “intercepts with the measurement line 51b at distance d2, and later at a time point t2 the vehicle 185a is at a location 188b where the vehicle 185a front end is at a point ‘B’ 187a and intercepts with the measurement line 51a at distance d1”, [0928] “The control block 61 may include a processor” Binder discloses calculating a traveled distance between a first and second object based on measured distances d1 and d2 wherein a first object is a vehicle at a first time and a second object is a vehicle at a second time.)
Regarding claim 4, Binder, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Binder additionally discloses
the processor is arranged to detect an end of the first object and a beginning of the second object (See at least Figs. 16-16a, [0899] “At time point t1 169a, the front edge 162a of the object 161 is intercepting the distance meter B 40b measurement line 51b as shown by the dashed-line location 164a […] at a time point t4 169d the rear edge 162b reaches the measurement line 51a”)
Regarding claim 5, Binder, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Binder additionally discloses
the first object is a first vehicle and the second object is a second vehicle (See at least Figs. 7 and 18a, and Item 61, [0905] “intercepts with the measurement line 51b at distance d2, and later at a time point t2 the vehicle 185a is at a location 188b where the vehicle 185a front end is at a point ‘B’ 187a and intercepts with the measurement line 51a at distance d1” Binder discloses a first object is a vehicle at a first time and a second object is a vehicle at a second time. The Examiner notes that as claimed, the first and second object are not physically distinct.)
Regarding claim 6, Binder, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Binder additionally discloses
the first radar transmitter and the first radar receiver are arranged to create a first radar detection zone and wherein the second radar transmitter and the second radar receiver are arranged to create a second radar detection zone, and wherein the first radar detection zone is spaced apart and separate from the second radar detection zone (See at least Figs. 5 and 7, [0848] “distance measurement along the measurement line 51a, where the reflection of an object in response to the energy emitted by the emitter 11a is received by the sensor 13a and used for estimating or calculating the distance to the object. […] distance measurement along the measurement line 51b, where the reflection of an object in response to the energy emitted by the emitter 11b is received by the sensor 13a and used for estimating or calculating the distance to the object.” Binder discloses first and second measurement lines as radar detection zones)
Regarding claim 7, Binder, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 6. Binder additionally discloses
the processor is arranged to determine a duration of time the first object remains within the first radar detection zone and a duration of time the second object remains within the second radar detection zone (See at least Fig. 16a, [0905] “During the time difference Δt=t2−t1 the vehicle 185 has traveled a distance” See also [0900]-[0901]. Binder discloses calculating the change in distance and speed by utilizing the change in time between front and rear detection of a vehicle)
Regarding claim 8, Binder, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 6. Binder additionally discloses
the processor is arranged to determine a duration of time from when the first object enters the first radar detection zone to when the first object leaves the second radar detection zone (See at least Fig. 16a, [0901] “the distance meter B 40b, where the sensing time is dt=t3−t1” Binder discloses determining a change in time from when the first object enters the first radar detection zone to when the first object enters the second radar detection zone and additionally measures the duration of time from when the front of the vehicle enters the second zone to when the rear of the vehicle leaves the second zone.)
Regarding claim 19, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown 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.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder, in view of Mimeault (US 20140232566 A1), hereinafter Mimeault.
Regarding claim 9, Binder, as shown below, discloses a vehicle tracking system comprising the following limitations:
a first radar transceiver (See at least Figs. 5 and 7, Items 11a and 40a-40b, [0822] “A 40a and B 40b may be identical, similar, or different from each other. For example, the same technology may be used, such that both distance meters A 40a and B 40b use light waves, acoustic waves, or radar waves for distance measuring”) arranged to generate a first radar detection zone (See at least Figs. 5 and 7, [0848] “distance measurement along the measurement line 51a, where the reflection of an object in response to the energy emitted by the emitter 11a is received by the sensor 13a and used for estimating or calculating the distance to the object. […] distance measurement along the measurement line 51b, where the reflection of an object in response to the energy emitted by the emitter 11b is received by the sensor 13a and used for estimating or calculating the distance to the object.” Binder discloses first and second measurement lines as radar detection zones) oriented perpendicular to a direction of travel of a (See at least Fig. 16, Items 40a-40b, 164a-164d, [0898] “An arrangement 160 shown in FIG. 16 schematically illustrates the angle meter #1 55 that comprises the distance meter A 40a for measuring distance d1 along the line-of-sight 51a and the distance meter B 40b for measuring distance d2 along the line-of-sight 51a.”, [0904] “The angle meter 55 is installed or mounted in the land vehicle 185 so that the measurement plane is horizontal (or substantially horizontal), and the measuring lines 51a and 51b are perpendicular to the vehicle 185 normal forward progress direction at a speed V.” Binder discloses measurements perpendicular to the angle meter, additionally Binder discloses object direction of travel as a linear model where the object may travel in a perpendicular motion path. Additionally, while Binder does not disclose a series of vehicles, Binder does disclose detection of a vehicle at multiple position and time points, analogous to a series of vehicles. See also [0912]-[0915].); and
a second radar transceiver (See at least Figs. 5 and 7, Items 11b and 40a-40b, [0822] “A 40a and B 40b may be identical, similar, or different from each other. For example, the same technology may be used, such that both distance meters A 40a and B 40b use light waves, acoustic waves, or radar waves for distance measuring”) arranged to generate a second radar detection zone (See at least Figs. 5 and 7, [0848] “distance measurement along the measurement line 51a, where the reflection of an object in response to the energy emitted by the emitter 11a is received by the sensor 13a and used for estimating or calculating the distance to the object. […] distance measurement along the measurement line 51b, where the reflection of an object in response to the energy emitted by the emitter 11b is received by the sensor 13a and used for estimating or calculating the distance to the object.” Binder discloses first and second measurement lines as radar detection zones), wherein the second radar detection zone is separate from and spaced apart from the first radar detection zone (See at least Fig. 16, Items 40a-40b, 164a-164d, [0898] “An arrangement 160 shown in FIG. 16 schematically illustrates the angle meter #1 55 that comprises the distance meter A 40a for measuring distance d1 along the line-of-sight 51a and the distance meter B 40b for measuring distance d2 along the line-of-sight 51a.”, [0904] “The angle meter 55 is installed or mounted in the land vehicle 185 so that the measurement plane is horizontal (or substantially horizontal), and the measuring lines 51a and 51b are perpendicular to the vehicle 185 normal forward progress direction at a speed V.” Binder discloses measurements perpendicular to the angle meter, additionally Binder discloses object direction of travel as a linear model where the object may travel in a perpendicular motion path. See also [0912]-[0915].)
Binder does not explicitly disclose series of vehicles. However, Mimeault, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
series of vehicles (See at least Fig. 18, [0105] “Then, the system waits for the detection of the front of a vehicle 310 by the 3D sensor.” Mimeault discloses an iterative system that updates as each new vehicle enters frame.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle tracking system disclosed by Binder with the multiple vehicle system disclosed by Mimeault. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve classification (See at least [0114] “Fusion information can be also useful to improve classification”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Binder and Mimeault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Binder further discloses
a processor arranged to detect a respective space between each vehicle in the (See at least Figs. 7 and 18a, and Item 61, [0905] “intercepts with the measurement line 51b at distance d2, and later at a time point t2 the vehicle 185a is at a location 188b where the vehicle 185a front end is at a point ‘B’ 187a and intercepts with the measurement line 51a at distance d1”, [0928] “The control block 61 may include a processor” Binder discloses calculating a traveled distance between a first and second object based on measured distances d1 and d2 wherein a first object may be a vehicle at a first time and a second object is a vehicle at a second time).
Binder does not explicitly disclose series of vehicles. However, Mimeault, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
series of vehicles (See at least Fig. 18, [0105] “Then, the system waits for the detection of the front of a vehicle 310 by the 3D sensor.” Mimeault discloses an iterative system that updates as each new vehicle enters frame.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle tracking system disclosed by Binder with the multiple vehicle system disclosed by Mimeault. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve classification (See at least [0114] “Fusion information can be also useful to improve classification”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Binder and Mimeault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Binder further discloses
a processor arranged to detect a respective space between each vehicle in the (See at least Figs. 7 and 18a, and Item 61, [0905] “intercepts with the measurement line 51b at distance d2, and later at a time point t2 the vehicle 185a is at a location 188b where the vehicle 185a front end is at a point ‘B’ 187a and intercepts with the measurement line 51a at distance d1”, [0928] “The control block 61 may include a processor” Binder discloses calculating a traveled distance between a first and second object based on measured distances d1 and d2 wherein a first object is a vehicle at a first time and a second object is a vehicle at a second time.).
Binder does not explicitly disclose series of vehicles. However, Mimeault, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
series of vehicles (See at least Fig. 18, [0105] “Then, the system waits for the detection of the front of a vehicle 310 by the 3D sensor.” Mimeault discloses an iterative system that updates as each new vehicle enters frame.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle tracking system disclosed by Binder with the multiple vehicle system disclosed by Mimeault. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve classification (See at least [0114] “Fusion information can be also useful to improve classification”).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Binder and Mimeault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Binder further discloses
a processor arranged to detect a respective space between each vehicle in the (See at least Figs. 7 and 18a, and Item 61, [0905] “intercepts with the measurement line 51b at distance d2, and later at a time point t2 the vehicle 185a is at a location 188b where the vehicle 185a front end is at a point ‘B’ 187a and intercepts with the measurement line 51a at distance d1”, [0928] “The control block 61 may include a processor” Binder discloses calculating a traveled distance between a first and second object based on measured distances d1 and d2 wherein a first object may be a vehicle at a first time and a second object is a vehicle at a second time).
Binder does not explicitly disclose series of vehicles. However, Mimeault, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
series of vehicles (See at least Fig. 18, [0105] “Then, the system waits for the detection of the front of a vehicle 310 by the 3D sensor.” Mimeault discloses an iterative system that updates as each new vehicle enters frame.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle tracking system disclosed by Binder with the multiple vehicle system disclosed by Mimeault. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve classification (See at least [0114] “Fusion information can be also useful to improve classification”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Binder and Mimeault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 9 and 12. Binder further discloses
the processor is arranged to determine a space between each vehicle in the (See at least Figs. 7 and 18a, and Item 61, [0905] “intercepts with the measurement line 51b at distance d2, and later at a time point t2 the vehicle 185a is at a location 188b where the vehicle 185a front end is at a point ‘B’ 187a and intercepts with the measurement line 51a at distance d1”, [0928] “The control block 61 may include a processor” Binder discloses calculating a traveled distance between a first and second object based on measured distances d1 and d2 wherein a first object may be a vehicle at a first time and a second object is a vehicle at a second time).
Binder does not explicitly disclose series of vehicles. However, Mimeault, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
series of vehicles (See at least Fig. 18, [0105] “Then, the system waits for the detection of the front of a vehicle 310 by the 3D sensor.” Mimeault discloses an iterative system that updates as each new vehicle enters frame.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle tracking system disclosed by Binder with the multiple vehicle system disclosed by Mimeault. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve classification (See at least [0114] “Fusion information can be also useful to improve classification”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Binder and Mimeault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 9 and 12. Binder further discloses
the processor is arranged to detect an end of a first vehicle in the (See at least Figs. 16-16a, [0899] “At time point t1 169a, the front edge 162a of the object 161 is intercepting the distance meter B 40b measurement line 51b as shown by the dashed-line location 164a […] at a time point t4 169d the rear edge 162b reaches the measurement line 51a”).
Binder does not explicitly disclose series of vehicles. However, Mimeault, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
series of vehicles (See at least Fig. 18, [0105] “Then, the system waits for the detection of the front of a vehicle 310 by the 3D sensor.” Mimeault discloses an iterative system that updates as each new vehicle enters frame.)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle tracking system disclosed by Binder with the multiple vehicle system disclosed by Mimeault. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve classification (See at least [0114] “Fusion information can be also useful to improve classification”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Binder and Mimeault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 9 and 12. Binder further discloses
the processor is arranged to determine a duration of time a first vehicle remains within the first radar detection zone and a duration of time the first vehicle remains within the second radar detection zone (See at least Fig. 16a, [0905] “During the time difference Δt=t2−t1 the vehicle 185 has traveled a distance” See also [0900]-[0901]. Binder discloses calculating the change in distance and speed by utilizing the change in time between front and rear detection of a vehicle)
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Binder and Mimeault, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 9 and 12. Binder further discloses
the processor is arranged to determine a duration of time from when a first vehicle enters the first radar detection zone and when the first vehicle leaves the second radar detection zone (See at least Fig. 16a, [0901] “the distance meter B 40b, where the sensing time is dt=t3−t1” Binder discloses determining a change in time from when the first object enters the first radar detection zone to when the first object enters the second radar detection zone and additionally measures the duration of time from when the front of the vehicle enters the second zone to when the rear of the vehicle leaves the second zone.)
Claim 17-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binder, in view of Mimeault, in further view of Van Breen (US 20230004899 A1), hereinafter Van Breen.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Binder and Mimeault, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 9. The combination of Binder and Mimeault does not explicitly disclose the first radar detection zone is positioned adjacent an ordering location and wherein the second radar detection zone is positioned adjacent an order fulfillment location. However, Van Breen, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first radar detection zone is positioned adjacent an ordering location (See at least Figs. 8-10, Items SVI, SVR, SVD, [0057] “an order and fulfillment process within an O-D Vector may include, when a vehicle arrives at a QSR premises, the guest vehicle is recognized, for example, by a vehicle sensor 134”, [0076] “Vehicle detection sensors (SVD), for example, inductive and capacitive sensors and/or radar sensors”) and wherein the second radar detection zone is positioned adjacent an order fulfillment location (See at least Figs. 8-10, Items SVI, SVR, SVD, [0057] “an order and fulfillment process within an O-D Vector may include, when a vehicle arrives at a QSR premises, the guest vehicle is recognized, for example, by a vehicle sensor 134”, [0076] “Vehicle detection sensors (SVD), for example, inductive and capacitive sensors and/or radar sensors”, [0077] “pay and pick up the QSR orders and windows Q1” ).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle tracking system disclosed by Binder with the multiple vehicle system disclosed by Mimeault with the drive thru system disclosed by Van Breen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously efficiently manage traffic (See at least [0046] “designed and configured to efficiently provide both food and carwash services in an efficient manner and with an efficient use of commercial real-estate space”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Binder and Mimeault, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 9. The combination of Binder and Mimeault does not explicitly disclose the first radar detection zone is oriented 90 degrees relative to the second radar detection zone. However, Van Breen, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the first radar detection zone is oriented 90 degrees relative to the second radar detection zone (See at least Figs. 8-10, Items SVI, SVR, SVD, [0057] “an order and fulfillment process within an O-D Vector may include, when a vehicle arrives at a QSR premises, the guest vehicle is recognized, for example, by a vehicle sensor 134”, [0076] “Vehicle detection sensors (SVD), for example, inductive and capacitive sensors and/or radar sensors”, [0077] “pay and pick up the QSR orders and windows Q1” ).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the vehicle tracking system disclosed by Binder with the multiple vehicle system disclosed by Mimeault with the drive thru system disclosed by Van Breen. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously efficiently manage traffic (See at least [0046] “designed and configured to efficiently provide both food and carwash services in an efficient manner and with an efficient use of commercial real-estate space”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nemoto (US 20250116753 A1) - A radar system comprises a plurality of radar devices that detect an object by monitoring different areas. Each of the plurality of radar devices includes a display device. When the object is detected by any one of the plurality of radar devices, a display device of a first radar device that has detected the object produces a display indicating that the object has been detected, and a display device of a second radar device different from the first radar device produces a display indicating a position of the first radar device.
Manabe (US 20240264273 A1) - In this example, a radar system is such that normally, each of a plurality of radar devices 100-1 to 100-6 monitors the monitoring area for the same using a radar signal that has been frequency modulated within a first modulation band, and when one of the plurality of radar devices 100-1 to 100-6 fails, at least one radar device (for example, radar device 100-1) adjacent to the radar device (for example, radar device 100-2) that has failed monitors the monitoring area of the radar device that has failed using a radar signal that has been frequency modulated within a second modulation band that is narrower than the first modulation band. As a result, even if one of the radar devices fails, it is possible to continue monitoring the monitoring area of the radar device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights