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 .
Status of the Application
Prior to examination, claims 2-19 were cancelled and claims 20-38 were added. Accordingly, claims 1 and 20-38 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 8/21/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98(b)(5) and MPEP § 609.04(a) because required information (i.e. publisher, author, title, relevant pages, date of publication, place of publication) for non-patent literature documents 4 and 5 have not been provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 23-38 are objected to because caused is misspelled in the preamble of each claim. Claim 32 also contains a misspelled caused in the body of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 31 and 32 are further objected to because wherein wherein is repeated word use in the preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 29: Applicant claims the mobile robot that does not have proper antecedent basis in claims 21, 27 or 28 of which it depends. Corrective action or clarification is required.
In regards to claim 31: Applicant claims take the candidate laser stripe with the smallest distance as the valid laser strip. This is indefinite because what constitutes the distance is unclear in the claimed smallest distance. Further, the metes and bounds of the action take the candidate laser stripe is unclear and indefinite, and is not in conformity with the screen a valid laser stripe from the candidate laser stripes based on the theoretical position of claim 21 of which claim 31 depends.
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 and 20-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to:
1. An obstacle identification method, wherein the method comprises:
acquiring a laser image of a target area; (The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claimed acquiring is considered generic data gathering, a pre-solution activity, that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.)
extracting candidate laser strips from the laser image; (This is considered to be a data processing step that is considered a mental process performable by one of ordinary skill mentally, or by hand. A person viewing an image could identify/mark apparent laser stripes as an observation/evaluation mental process.)
obtaining a theoretical position of a reference laser line in the laser image; (This is considered to be a data processing step that is considered a mental process performable by one of ordinary skill mentally, or by hand. A person could determine/mark an expected/theoretical reference line position using geometry and/or geometric calculations mentally or by hand. It should also be noted that, in view of Applicant disclosure, this may also be considered an abstract mathematical concept.)
screening a valid laser stripe from the candidate laser stripes based on the theoretical position; (This is considered to be a data processing step that is considered a mental process performable by one of ordinary skill mentally, or by hand. A person could perform an evaluation/judgement comparing candidate laser stripes and perform a selection based on the prior evaluation mentally or by hand.)
and obtaining the position of an obstacle based on the position of the valid laser strip in a world coordinate system. (This is considered to be a data processing step that is considered a mental process performable by one of ordinary skill mentally, or by hand. A person could perform an evaluation/judgement determining an obstacle position based on the prior evaluation through geometry and/or geometric calculation mentally or by hand.)
Applying Step 1 of the Alice Analysis, the claims are understood to be directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, and therefore we proceed to step 2A.
Applying Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice analysis, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea (mental processes). Claim 1 is directed to a generic computer that analyzes a laser image by identifying candidate laser stripes in order to produce/obtain a position of an obstacle. Claim 1 does not claim any steps that cannot be performed mentally by one of ordinary skill in the art, but is merely performed on a generic computer, and therefore falls within the “mental processes” grouping. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Because we conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applying Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice analysis, we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not “directed to” the judicial exception.
Apart from the data analysis steps of the abstract idea above, the only additional element recited in claim 1 is acquiring an image, a pre-solution activity, that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 does not recite any limitation that even generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the language itself of claim 1 does not reflect an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. There is also no evidence that the claimed system recites an improvement to the functioning of the “computer system” itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Claim 1 also does not appear to use a judicial exception in conjunction with any particular machine. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, and we proceed to Step 2B.
Applying Step 2B of the Alice analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extrasolution activity. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Independent claim 20 claims a mobile robot performing the method of claim 1, further comprising a controller, an infrared laser emitter and a camera used to acquire a laser image of a target area, an inertial measurement unit used to obtain a posture of the mobile robot in a world coordinate system. The structural elements of the mobile robot, controller, infrared laser emitter, camera and IMU sensors are not meaningfully affected by the abstract idea outlined above and do not represent any meaningful applications of the abstract idea. Therefore claim 20 is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, outlined above.
Independent claim 21 is an electronic device performing the method of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Dependent claims 22-38 have been evaluated in a similar manner, and do not appear to overcome these deficiencies. It should be noted that dependent claims 22-38 further include abstract mathematical concepts as well as mental processes. Therefore, dependent claims 22-38 are rejected in the same or a similar manner as claims 1, 20 and 21, 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 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 pre-AIA 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, 20-22 and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrouzi et al. (US 20200225673 A1) herein Afrouzi, in view of Li et al. (CN211741574U) herein Li.
In regards to Claim 20, the most restrictive independent claim, Afrouzi discloses the following:
20. (Currently Amended) A mobile robot, (see at least Abstract “robot” and [0154] “a robot may include one or more autonomous or semi-autonomous robotic devices having communication, mobility, actuation and/or processing elements”) wherein the mobile robot comprises:
a robot body; (see at least [0154] “a robot may include… one or more of a casing, a chassis”)
a horizontal laser module disposed on the robot body, wherein the horizontal laser module includes an infrared laser emitter and a camera; (see at least Fig. 2A and [0163] “FIG. 2A illustrates an example of a robot including sensor windows 100 behind which sensors are positioned, sensors 101 (e.g., camera, laser emitter, TOF sensor, IR sensors, range finders, LIDAR, depth cameras, etc.),”)
and the horizontal laser module is used to acquire a laser image of a target area and send the laser image to a controller; (see at least 0201] “at least one infrared line laser positioned at a downward angle relative to a horizontal plane coupled with at least one camera may be used to determine the depth of multiple points across the uneven surfaces from captured images of the line laser projected onto the uneven surfaces of the object.”, see also [0155] “camera sensor that may be communicatively coupled with a microprocessor or microcontroller.”)
an inertial measurement unit disposed in the robot body and used to obtain a posture of the mobile robot in a world coordinate system and send the posture to the controller; (see at least [0154] “the robot may support proprioceptive sensors (e.g., independently or in fusion), odometry, optical tracking sensors, smart phone inertial measurement unit (IMU), and gyroscope.”, [0179] “the processor may determine a match between the new data and the previous data based on translation and rotation of the sensor between consecutive frames measured by an IMU.” and [0234] “IMU measurements in a multi-channel stream indicative of acceleration along three or six axes may be integrated over time to infer a change in pose of the robot,”)
and wherein the controller is configured to:
extract candidate laser strips from the laser image; (see at least [0201] “FIGS. 38A-38C illustrate another example of identifying an area of overlap using raw pixel intensity data and the combination of data at overlapping points…. The position of the laser line (or feature of a structured light pattern) in the image may be detected by finding pixels with intensity above a threshold.”)
Afrouzi is silent, but Li teaches the following:
obtain a theoretical position of a reference laser line in the laser image; (see at least [0066] “the reflected laser line is imaged within a fixed row of pixels on the imaging surface of the second image sensor. At the same time, after the laser line is reflected by an obstacle at a second distance from the laser for the first time, the reflected laser line is imaged within a fixed row of pixels.”, wherein “a fixed row of pixels” is equivalent to the claimed reference laser line. See also [0069] “the laser line after the first reflection is imaged within a fixed row of pixels on the imaging surface of the second image sensor 162. Therefore, during subsequent distance measurement, laser stripes within a fixed row of pixels can be effectively searched, and the searched laser stripes can be used as a reference object.”)
screen a valid laser stripe from the candidate laser stripes based on the theoretical position; (see at least [0067] “laser beam emitted by the laser is reflected at least twice by obstacles at different distances from it, and the laser beam after at least two reflections is imaged outside the fixed row pixel range.” and [0083] “the first effective fringe image 411 or the second effective fringe image 412 is the first reflection of the ground as an obstacle, and both are correct for point cloud reconstruction. However, the first invalid fringe image 413 or the second invalid fringe image 414 is a secondary reflection. If the point cloud is reconstructed using the first invalid fringe image 413 or the second invalid fringe image 414, the final measured distance will not be accurate enough”)
Afrouzi discloses the following:
and obtain the position of an obstacle based on the position of the valid laser strip in the world coordinate system. (see at least [0201] “In FIG. 38B, captured images 2504 and 2505 of the laser line projected onto the object surface for two different fields of view are shown… Projected laser lines with lower position, such as laser lines 2506 and 2507 in images 2504 and 2505 respectively, correspond to object surfaces 2500 and 2502… The position of the laser lines in image 2511, indicated by pixels with intensity value above a threshold intensity, may also be used to infer depth of surfaces of objects from the infrared illuminator and camera”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Li with the invention of Afrouzi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of navigating complex lighting problems, such as multiple reflections from obstacles, stray light on the ground, and severe light absorption by dark obstacles. These factors increase the difficulty of image processing for robots, leading to inaccurate point cloud extraction and misjudgments of obstacle distances. (Li, [0005])
In regards to Claim 1, Claim 1 is the method performed by the mobile robot of claim 20, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 20, above.
In regards to claim 21, claim 21 claims an electronic device comprising a processor and a memory for storing a program comprising the method of claim 1. Afrouzi further discloses a processor and a memory for storing a program (see at least [0154] “processor” and “a memory storing instructions”). Therefore claim 21 is rejected the same or similar to claim 20 above.
In regards to claim 22, claim 22 claims the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising the method of claim 1. Afrouzi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for a method (see at least [0154] “a memory storing instructions”). Therefore claim 22 is rejected the same or similar to claim 20 above.
In regards to Claim 27, Afrouzi discloses the following:
27. The electronic device according to claim 21, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the electronic device is caused to:
emit a horizontal line laser to the target area, wherein an angle between the horizontal line laser and a reference plane is greater than 0° and less than 90°; (see at least [0201] “infrared line laser positioned at a downward angle relative to a horizontal plane coupled with at least one camera may be used to determine the depth of multiple points across the uneven surfaces from captured images of the line laser projected onto the uneven surfaces of the object.” and obtain the laser image of the target area. (see at least [0201] “The position of the line laser in the captured image may be related to a distance from the surface upon which the line laser is projected”)
For the sake of compact prosecution, it should also be noted that Li also teaches claim 27. (see at least [0068] “laser 163 emits laser line 32 towards obstacle 31”, [0065] “optical axes of the first image sensor 161, the second image sensor 162, and the laser 163 in the ranging module 16 all intersect the horizontal plane where the ground is located at a certain angle” and [0073] “first image is acquired by a first image sensor, the second image is acquired by a second image sensor, the first image includes at least one or more laser stripes, and the second image includes a second laser stripe… the first image sensor uses a sub-window to crop the target image region from its own captured image as the first image, and the second image sensor uses a sub-window to crop the target image region from its own captured image as the second image.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Li with the invention of Afrouzi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of navigating complex lighting problems, such as multiple reflections from obstacles, stray light on the ground, and severe light absorption by dark obstacles. These factors increase the difficulty of image processing for robots, leading to inaccurate point cloud extraction and misjudgments of obstacle distances. (Li, [0005])
In regards to Claim 28, Afrouzi discloses the following:
28. The electronic device according to claim 27, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the electronic device is further caused to:
obtain a background image of the target area; (see at least [0364] “one image may be captured without active illumination and may use atmospheric illumination. This image may be used to provide some observations of the surroundings.”)
and after the laser image of the target area is obtained, perform background subtraction on the laser image based on the background image. (see at least [0364] “In a next timestamp, the image of the environment captured may be illuminated. In some embodiments, the processor may use a difference between the two images to extract additional information.”)
In regards to Claim 29, Afrouzi discloses the following:
29. The electronic device according to claim 28, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the electronic device is caused to:
for the mobile robot, (see previous citations) before background subtraction on the laser image is performed based on the background image, obtain motion information of the mobile robot; (see at least [0211] “images may be preprocessed before determining overlap. For instance, some embodiments may infer an amount of displacement of the robot between images, e.g., by integrating readings from an inertial measurement unit or odometer (in some cases after applying a Kalman filter), and then transform the origin for vectors in one image to match an origin for vectors in the other image based on the measured displacement, e.g., by subtracting a displacement vector from each vector in the subsequent image.”)
and perform motion compensation on the background image based on the motion information. (see at least [0364] “In a next timestamp, the image of the environment captured may be illuminated. In some embodiments, the processor may use a difference between the two images to extract additional information.”)
In regards to Claim 30, Afrouzi discloses the following:
30. The electronic device according to claim 21, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the electronic device is caused to:
extract pixel areas with pixel gray values greater than a preset gray value from the laser image as the candidate laser stripes. (see at least [0201] “FIGS. 38A-38C illustrate another example of identifying an area of overlap using raw pixel intensity data and the combination of data at overlapping points…. The position of the laser line (or feature of a structured light pattern) in the image may be detected by finding pixels with intensity above a threshold.”)
In regards to Claim 31, as best understood, Afrouzi is silent, but Li teaches the following:
31. The electronic device according to claim 21, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the electronic device is caused to:
obtain a distance between each candidate laser stripe and the theoretical position; and take the candidate laser stripe with the smallest distance as the valid laser strip. (see at least [0084] “the second effective stripe image 412 is imaged within the fixed row pixel range of the imaging surface of the second image sensor, and the second invalid stripe image 414 is imaged outside the fixed row pixel range.” and [0079] “the absolute pixel difference between the second laser stripe and the first laser stripe is less than a preset pixel threshold”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Li with the invention of Afrouzi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of navigating complex lighting problems, such as multiple reflections from obstacles, stray light on the ground, and severe light absorption by dark obstacles. These factors increase the difficulty of image processing for robots, leading to inaccurate point cloud extraction and misjudgments of obstacle distances. (Li, [0005])
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrouzi in view of Li, as applied, in further view of Xiao et al. (CN108981608A) herein Xiao.
In regards to claim 23, Afrouzi is silent, but Xiao teaches the following:
23. The electronic device according to claim 21, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the electronic device is caused to:
obtain a light plane equation of the laser in a camera coordinate system; (see at least [0049] and [0050] “The laser plane model is its plane equation expression in the camera coordinate system [is] assumed to be: Ax + By + Cz + D = 0”)
obtain a reference plane equation in the camera coordinate system; (see at least [0054] “The fifth step is to use the calibration plate plane… to find the target plane equation in the camera coordinate system.”, [0068] “A1x+B1y+C1z+D1＝0” and [0069] “Thus, the expression for the target plane in the camera coordinate system can be obtained.”)
and obtain an intersecting line expression of the light plane equation and the reference plane equation to obtain the theoretical position. (see at least [0056] “The collinearity condition refers to the mathematical condition that any three different planes in space must satisfy to have a common line of intersection.”, see also equations for X, Y and Z planes, and “all spatial points on the line satisfy these three plane equations”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Xiao with the invention of Afrouzi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving accuracy of calibration results that affect accuracy of subsequent image processing in a vision system detection model. (Xiao, [0005])
In regards to claim 24, Afrouzi is silent, but Xiao teaches the following:
24. The electronic device according to claim 23, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the electronic device is caused to:
based on a transformation matrix Twc from the camera coordinate system to the world coordinate system, convert coordinates of a plurality of points on a reference plane in the world coordinate system into coordinates in the camera coordinate system; (see at least [0048] “R and t are the rotation matrix and translation matrix”, [0065] “matrix R” and [0068] “A1x+B1y+C1z+D1＝0” and [0069] “Thus, the expression for the target plane in the camera coordinate system can be obtained.”)
and establish the reference plane equation in the camera coordinate system based on the converted coordinates of the plurality of points. (see at least [0069] “Thus, the expression for the target plane in the camera coordinate system can be obtained.”, see also [0054] “Zhang's calibration method, which is a plane… in the world coordinate system, to find the target plane equation in the camera coordinate system”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Xiao with the invention of Afrouzi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving accuracy of calibration results that affect accuracy of subsequent image processing in a vision system detection model. (Xiao, [0005])
Claims 32-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afrouzi in view of Li, as applied, in further view of Brandli et al. (US 20170003121 A1) herein Brandli.
In regards to claim 32: Afrouzi is silent but Brandli teaches the following:
32. The electronic device according to claim 21, wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the electronic device is caused to:
obtain the position of a central pixel point of the valid laser strip (see at least [0102] “To extract the laser stripe (area) 31, the last o score maps are averaged (M.sub.n,avg) and the maximum score s(u,v) and its v value are determined for each column (preferably, the columns extends across/perpendicular to the laser stripe/area 31 image). If the maximum value is above a threshold Φ.sub.peak it is considered to be a laser stripe pixel. If the neighboring pixels are also above the threshold, a weighted average is applied among them to determine the center of the laser stripe.”) in the world coordinate system (see at least [0004] “determine 3D (world) coordinates of said surface.” to obtain the position of the obstacle; (see at least [0002] “Motion planning in mobile robots requires knowledge of the terrain structure in front of and underneath the robot; possible obstacles have to be detected and their size has to be evaluated.”)
or
wherein the obstacle is a wall, and wherein when the instructions are executed by the processor, the electronic device is caused to:
obtain three-dimensional point cloud data of the wall in a first coordinate system, wherein the first coordinate system is a coordinate system established by the robot at a current position with the robot as an origin; (optional)
fuse the three-dimensional point cloud data into a robot-centered grid map to determine wall grid points in the grid map; (optional)
fit the wall grid points corresponding to the wall in the grid map to obtain a wall contour line; (optional)
and calculate a distance between the robot and the wall based on the wall contour line. (optional)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Brandli with the invention of Afrouzi, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of detecting and evaluating the size of obstacles in order to provide knowledge of the terrain structure in front of and underneath a robot, in order to allow steps and moving, as appropriate. (Brandli, [0002])
In regards to claims 33-38: Applicant claims 33-38 depend on claim 32, and further limit optional claim language of claim 32. As the limitations further limited of claim 32 are optional, the limitations of claim 33-38 are also considered optional. Therefore claims 33-38 are rejected in view of claim 32, as outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
In view of the prior art of record, Claim 25 and 26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Applicant should note that this is in view of the prior art only. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections and 25 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections outlined above must also be overcome in order for the application to proceed to allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
September 10, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
