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 .
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 26b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[14], [24-27], [124], [149], [181] & [188] recite “…when the rolls are installed differently…”, “…when the pitches are installed differently…”, and “…at least one of the roll and pitch is installed differently…”. It is unclear what is meant by a “roll” or a “pitch” that is installed differently.
[42] recites “…includes a driving unit may include…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[65] recites “…by using learning model”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[66] recites “…may be used to an infer result value…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[87-88] recites “artificial neural network 26b”, in which the underlined portion appears to be a typographical error.
[88] recites “…may learn the artificial neural network…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[120] recites “…assist the function to the self-driving vehicle 10b outside the self-driving vehicle 10b”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[162] recites “…when the pitches are installed with differently...”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[178] recites “If both the first lidar 50 and the second lidar 60 recognize the leg 102 of the cart 100, a failure of recognition can be transmitted to the processor 18”, which is unclear due to a possible typographical error in the underlined portion. It is unclear why a failure of recognition would be transmitted if both the first and second lidar recognize the leg of the cart.
[180] recites “…when both a pair of lidars…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[186] recites “…when only one of a pair of lidars…”
[205] recites “…sense the leg 102 of the cart 100”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect due to a comma splice.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, and 9-10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “…wherein the processor configured to…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Claim 4 recites “…in front surface…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Claims 9-10 recite “The method for operating a robot…”, which does not use the same terminology as the preamble of parent claim 8: “A method for controlling a robot…”. Examiner respectfully recommends changing “operating” to “controlling” in claims 9-10 for consistency.
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 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. See below.
Claim 8 recites “…in which at least one of the roll and pitch is installed differently…”. It is unclear what is meant by a roll or pitch that is “installed differently”, since “roll” and “pitch” are terms used to describe an orientation, as shown in at least [146] of the instant specification: “Roll y can be the angle of rotation with respect to the x-axis, pitch 0 can be the angle of rotation with respect to the y-axis…”.
NOTE: For examination purposes and in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret the limitation “…a first lidar and a second lidar in which at least one of the roll and pitch is installed differently…” from claim 8 to have the same meaning as the limitation “wherein at least one of a roll and pitch of the first and second lidars is different from each other” from claim 1 in view of [149-152] of the instant specification.
Furthermore, claim 8 recites “A method for controlling a robot…”. However, there is no robot recited in the claim aside from the preamble, and it is unclear whether the “driving module” recited in claims 8-10 is part of the robot recited in the preamble.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lustig of US 20230120781 A1, filed 12/19/2022, hereinafter “Lustig”, in view of Clarke of US 12227218 B1, filed 03/28/2022, hereinafter “Clarke”.
Regarding claim 1, Lustig teaches:
A robot comprising: a driving module; (See at least Fig. 3 & [0067]: “One or more of the units described with respect to FIG. 1A (including memory 120, controller 118, sensor units 114, user interface unit 112, actuator unit 108, communications unit 116, mapping and localization unit 126, and/or other units) may be integrated onto robot 102, such as in an integrated system” & [0054]: “Returning to FIG. 1A, operative units 104 may include various units that perform functions for robot 102. For example, operative units 104 include at least navigation units 106, actuator units 108, user interface units 112, sensor units 114, and communication units 116.”)
a first lidar disposed on one side of the driving module; a second lidar disposed spaced apart from the first lidar on the driving module, and (See at least Fig. 3 & [0077]: “FIG. 3 illustrates a side view of a robot 102, comprising a calibration LiDAR 302 and a reference LiDAR 304, navigating near a wall 312, according to an exemplary embodiment…For example, the reference LiDAR 304 may be mounted onto the robot 102 using more robust mechanical means than the calibration LiDAR 302 such that the reference LiDAR 304 is less subject to movement or deviation from a factory default position.”)
a processor configured to control the driving module according to sensing results of the first lidar and sensing results of the second lidar, (See at least [0099-0101]: “Block 602 illustrates the controller 118 collecting a scan comprising measurements from the calibration LiDAR 302 and the reference LiDAR 304. A scan may comprise a measurement from the calibration LiDAR 302 and reference LiDAR 304 across their respective fields of view of a surface, such as a wall 312 illustrated above in FIG. 3…If the number of scans of the surface does not exceed the minimum, the controller 118 may discard the remaining scans and start collecting more scans upon navigating near a new surface, as illustrated below in FIG. 9” & [0129-0131]: “Sensor vision lines 906 may be illustrative of the robot 102 collecting distance measurements from a calibration LiDAR 302 and a reference LiDAR 304. The robot 102 may collect a plurality of scans as it navigates nearby objects 904, wherein the plurality of scans are taken along surfaces 908 of the objects 904…One skilled in the art would appreciate that the systems and methods of the present disclosure for determining a pose of a calibration LiDAR 302 may be utilized as the robot 102 performs other tasks and navigates past objects 904. A robot 102 may determine an average pose of a calibration LiDAR 302 by navigating nearby objects 904 for the purpose of calibrating the calibration LiDAR 302.”)
wherein at least one of a roll and pitch of the first and second lidars is different from each other. (See at least [0037]: “Both the calibration LiDAR and reference LiDAR collect measurements along one or more measurement planes, wherein the measurement planes of both LiDAR sensors intersect, as illustrated below in FIG. 3” & [0099]: “A scan may comprise a measurement from the calibration LiDAR 302 and reference LiDAR 304 across their respective fields of view of a surface, such as a wall 312 illustrated above in FIG. 3.”)
Lustig does not explicitly teach:
a lift installed on an upper side of the driving module;
Clarke teaches:
a lift installed on an upper side of the driving module; (See at least col. 4, lines 34-41: “Among other components, the load handler 300 includes a load base 310, bumper rails 312 that extend along top corners or edges of the load base 310, and a lift table 320. The lift table 320 is designed to lift a cart, so that the cart can be transported by the robotic transport 100 to another location. The lift table 320 is illustrated in a raised position in FIG. 2, but the lift table 320 can also rest upon the top of the load base 310 as described below.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Lustig’s robot with Clarke’s lift installed on an upper side of the driving module. Doing so would be obvious so that “the cart can be transported and lowered to a new location by the robotic transport” and “to transport carts, carriers, or related equipment safely and reliably” (See col. 2, lines 54-55 & col. 3, lines 56-57 of Clarke).
Regarding claim 2, Lustig and Clarke in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Clarke additionally teaches:
wherein the processor configured to drive the driving module to a docking position of a cart if at least one of the first lidar and the second lidar normally recognizes a leg of the cart. (See at least col. 12, lines 7-15: “FIG. 5A illustrates an example alignment of the robotic transport 100 shown in FIG. 2 and the cart 900 shown in FIG. 4A. The robotic automation engine 520 of the robotic transport 100 can direct the drive system of the robotic transport 100 into the alignment shown in FIG. 5A, based on feedback obtained from the sensor array 400, the handler sensor array 450, and other data. Particularly, the robotic automation engine 520 can tunnel the load handler 300 under the cart 900” & col. 13, lines 12-21: “At step 602, the process includes the robotic automation engine 520 identifying alignment of the robotic transport 100 with the cart 900. The robotic automation engine 520 can identify when the lift pins 331-334 of the lift table 320 are aligned sufficiently with the recesses 960-963 under the cart 900, using computer-vision algorithms or other suitable techniques. In some cases, the cart 900 can include one or more fiducials printed or otherwise positioned on the underside of the cart 900, to assist the robotic automation engine 520 with accuracy in positioning.”)
Regarding claim 3, Lustig and Clarke in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lustig additionally teaches:
wherein the first lidar and the second lidar have the same yaw. (See at least Fig. 3, [0077]: “The calibration LiDAR 302 generates a plurality of measurements 306, illustrated by circles, corresponding to locations where individual beams of the calibration LiDAR 302 contact the wall 312. Similarly, the reference LiDAR 304 generates measurements 308, illustrated by crosses, along the wall 312. Both the reference LiDAR 304 and calibration LiDAR 302 illustrated comprise planar LiDAR sensors collecting distance measurements along a measurement plane. The bend in measurements 306 is intended to illustrate a three-dimensional scene, wherein measurements 306 are incident upon both wall 312 and a floor upon which the robot 102 is navigating.”)
Regarding claim 4, Lustig and Clarke in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Lustig additionally teaches:
wherein the first lidar and the second lidar are disposed spaced apart from each other in front surface of the driving module in a left and right direction, and wherein the first lidar is disposed to be inclined toward a front upper direction. (See at least Fig. 3, [0077]: “The calibration LiDAR 302 generates a plurality of measurements 306, illustrated by circles, corresponding to locations where individual beams of the calibration LiDAR 302 contact the wall 312. Similarly, the reference LiDAR 304 generates measurements 308, illustrated by crosses, along the wall 312. Both the reference LiDAR 304 and calibration LiDAR 302 illustrated comprise planar LiDAR sensors collecting distance measurements along a measurement plane. The bend in measurements 306 is intended to illustrate a three-dimensional scene, wherein measurements 306 are incident upon both wall 312 and a floor upon which the robot 102 is navigating” & [0099]: “A scan may comprise a measurement from the calibration LiDAR 302 and reference LiDAR 304 across their respective fields of view of a surface, such as a wall 312 illustrated above in FIG. 3.”)
Regarding claim 6, Lustig and Clarke in combination teach all the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above.
Lustig additionally teaches:
wherein the second lidar is disposed to be inclined toward a front lower direction. (See at least Fig. 3, [0077]: “The calibration LiDAR 302 generates a plurality of measurements 306, illustrated by circles, corresponding to locations where individual beams of the calibration LiDAR 302 contact the wall 312. Similarly, the reference LiDAR 304 generates measurements 308, illustrated by crosses, along the wall 312. Both the reference LiDAR 304 and calibration LiDAR 302 illustrated comprise planar LiDAR sensors collecting distance measurements along a measurement plane. The bend in measurements 306 is intended to illustrate a three-dimensional scene, wherein measurements 306 are incident upon both wall 312 and a floor upon which the robot 102 is navigating” & [0099]: “A scan may comprise a measurement from the calibration LiDAR 302 and reference LiDAR 304 across their respective fields of view of a surface, such as a wall 312 illustrated above in FIG. 3.”)
Claim(s) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lustig in view of Clarke and further in view of Rembisz of US 20200376689 A1, published 07/31/2019, hereinafter “Rembisz”.
Regarding claim 5, Lustig and Clarke in combination teach all the limitations of claim 4 as discussed above.
Lustig and Clarke in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein a maximum inclination angle of the first lidar is +1.5°.
However, Lustig does teach determining a new pose for the calibration LiDAR, in which a specification threshold “may set bounds for the yaw, pitch, roll, x-position, y-position, and z-position of the calibration LiDAR for the minimizer 806 based on reasonable physical constraints,” such as “threshold yaw, pitch, and roll values of a new pose that must not exceed 20° of a calibrated or default pose of the calibration LiDAR” (See at least [0116]). Furthermore, Rembisz teaches a lidar sensor that “may be mounted on a robot at carefully chosen position and orientation,” such that the “robot 700 may include 3D lidar sensor 702 with a vertical axis tilted backwards from vertical (e.g., by an angle of 18 degrees)” (See at least Fig. 7, [0025-0026] & [0085]). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it an obvious design choice to set the maximum inclination angle to be any particular value, which provides the benefit of “By optimizing the selection of sensors as well as the position and orientation of selected sensors on the robot, overall cost may be reduced while allowing the robot to achieve desired sensor coverage in regions of interest” (See [0024] of Rembisz).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Lustig and Clarke’s robot with Rembisz’s lidar sensor mounted at a specific orientation. Doing so would be obvious since “By optimizing the selection of sensors as well as the position and orientation of selected sensors on the robot, overall cost may be reduced while allowing the robot to achieve desired sensor coverage in regions of interest” (See [0024] of Rembisz).
Regarding claim 7, Lustig and Clarke in combination teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Lustig and Clarke in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein a maximum inclination angle of the second lidar is -1.5°.
However, Lustig does teach determining a new pose for the calibration LiDAR, in which a specification threshold “may set bounds for the yaw, pitch, roll, x-position, y-position, and z-position of the calibration LiDAR for the minimizer 806 based on reasonable physical constraints,” such as “threshold yaw, pitch, and roll values of a new pose that must not exceed 20° of a calibrated or default pose of the calibration LiDAR” (See at least [0116]). Furthermore, Rembisz teaches a lidar sensor that “may be mounted on a robot at carefully chosen position and orientation,” such that “the vertical axis of the 3D lidar sensor 506 may be tilted forward 16 degrees from vertical toward the front of the robot” (See at least Fig. 9, [0025-0026] & [0074]). Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it an obvious design choice to set the maximum inclination angle to be any particular value, which provides the benefit of “By optimizing the selection of sensors as well as the position and orientation of selected sensors on the robot, overall cost may be reduced while allowing the robot to achieve desired sensor coverage in regions of interest” (See [0024] of Rembisz).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Lustig and Clarke’s robot with Rembisz’s lidar sensor mounted at a specific orientation. Doing so would be obvious since “By optimizing the selection of sensors as well as the position and orientation of selected sensors on the robot, overall cost may be reduced while allowing the robot to achieve desired sensor coverage in regions of interest” (See [0024] of Rembisz).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aakær Iversen of US 20240172913 A1, filed 03/02/2022, hereinafter “Aakær”, in view of Lustig.
Regarding claim 8, Aakær teaches:
A method for controlling a robot, comprising: sensing a leg of a cart by a first lidar and a second lidar (See at least [0033]: “At the point of time illustrated in FIG. 4, AMR 100 is navigating toward cart 230 with an appropriate orientation for docking. Using sensor measurements from the regions that outside protective field 125, AMR 100 can recognize cart 230 and its orientation and—so long as protective field 125 remains clear—navigate accordingly” & [0019]: “Returning to the schematic representation, AMR 100 includes two sensors 115, 120. Sensors 115, 120 are positioned at opposite sides of AMR 100 and can sense the environment over a respective field of view around AMR 100…For example, if AMR 100 is designed to mount a cart on loading surface 110, the legs of the cart will generally obstruct sensors 115, 120.” See also [0013] regarding the sensors including LIDAR scanning systems.)
Aakær does not explicitly teach:
…in which at least one of the roll and pitch is installed differently…
Lustig teaches:
…in which at least one of the roll and pitch is installed differently… (See at least Fig. 3, [0077]: “The calibration LiDAR 302 generates a plurality of measurements 306, illustrated by circles, corresponding to locations where individual beams of the calibration LiDAR 302 contact the wall 312. Similarly, the reference LiDAR 304 generates measurements 308, illustrated by crosses, along the wall 312. Both the reference LiDAR 304 and calibration LiDAR 302 illustrated comprise planar LiDAR sensors collecting distance measurements along a measurement plane. The bend in measurements 306 is intended to illustrate a three-dimensional scene, wherein measurements 306 are incident upon both wall 312 and a floor upon which the robot 102 is navigating,” [0095]: “By way of illustration, a different configuration of a calibration LiDAR 302 and a reference LiDAR 304 is considered, wherein the two sensors comprise measurement planes that intersect on a floor. The reference LiDAR 304 may measure along the Y-Z plane for simplicity of explanation while the calibration LiDAR 302 may measure along a slanted plane” & [0099]: “A scan may comprise a measurement from the calibration LiDAR 302 and reference LiDAR 304 across their respective fields of view of a surface, such as a wall 312 illustrated above in FIG. 3.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Aakær’s method with Lustig’s calibration LiDAR and reference LiDAR having a different pitch. Doing so would be obvious so that “some LiDAR sensors of a robot may intersect to provide a robot with ample coverage of its surroundings” and to “enhance the ability of a robot to rely on sensor data for navigation, thereby enhancing the autonomy of the robot” (See [0028] & [0044] of Lustig).
NOTE: Claim 8 recites the following contingent limitation: “…and driving a driving module to a docking position of the cart…”. This limitation is contingent because it recites steps within a method claim that are only required to be performed if their conditions are met. For example, the aforementioned limitation only needs to be performed “if at least one of the first lidar and the second lidar normally recognizes the leg of the cart”. Therefore, the BRI of claim 8 only requires “sensing a leg of a cart by a first lidar and a second lidar in which at least one of the roll and pitch is installed differently” and does not require “driving a driving module to a docking position of the cart” if at least one of the first lidar and the second lidar do not normally recognize the leg of the cart.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aakær in view of Lustig and further in view of Clarke.
Regarding claim 9, Aakær and Lustig in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Aakær and Lustig in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising: raising a lift disposed on the driving module if the driving module reaches the docking position of the cart.
Clarke teaches:
further comprising: raising a lift disposed on the driving module if the driving module reaches the docking position of the cart. (See at least Fig. 6 & col. 13, lines 12-27: “At step 602, the process includes the robotic automation engine 520 identifying alignment of the robotic transport 100 with the cart 900. The robotic automation engine 520 can identify when the lift pins 331-334 of the lift table 320 are aligned sufficiently with the recesses 960-963 under the cart 900, using computer-vision algorithms or other suitable techniques. In some cases, the cart 900 can include one or more fiducials printed or otherwise positioned on the underside of the cart 900, to assist the robotic automation engine 520 with accuracy in positioning. At step 604, the process includes the robotic transport 100 lifting the cart 900. For example, the robotic automation engine 520 can direct the lift drive 395 to lift or raise the lift table 320 based on extension of the drive shaft 396 of the lift drive 395, as also described above with reference to FIGS. 3E and 3F.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Aakær and Lustig’s method with Clarke’s technique of raising a lift disposed on the driving module if the driving module reaches the docking position of the cart. Doing so would be obvious so that “the cart can be transported and lowered to a new location by the robotic transport” and “to transport carts, carriers, or related equipment safely and reliably” (See col. 2, lines 54-55 & col. 3, lines 56-57 of Clarke).
NOTE: Claim 9 recites the following contingent limitation: “…raising a lift disposed on the driving module…”. This limitation is contingent because it recites steps within a method claim that are only required to be performed if their conditions are met. For example, the aforementioned limitation only needs to be performed “if the driving module reaches the docking position of the cart”. Therefore, the BRI of claim 9 does not require “raising a lift disposed on the driving module” if the driving module has not reached the docking position of the cart.
Regarding claim 10, Aakær and Lustig in combination teach all the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Aakær and Lustig in combination do not explicitly teach:
further comprising: driving a driving module to a destination after the lift is raised.
Clarke teaches:
further comprising: driving a driving module to a destination after the lift is raised. (See at least Fig. 6 & col. 13, lines 37-45: “At step 606, the process includes transporting the cart 900 using the robotic transport 100. For example, the robotic automation engine 520 can direct the drive system of the robotic transport 100 to relocate the cart 900 to any suitable location. At step 608, the process includes the robotic transport 100 lowering the cart 900. Here, the robotic automation engine 520 can direct the lift drive 395 to lower the cart 900, by reversing the extension of the lift drive 395, as also described above with reference to FIGS. 3E and 3F.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Aakær and Lustig’s method with Clarke’s technique of driving a driving module to a destination after the lift is raised. Doing so would be obvious so that “the cart can be transported and lowered to a new location by the robotic transport” and “to transport carts, carriers, or related equipment safely and reliably” (See col. 2, lines 54-55 & col. 3, lines 56-57 of Clarke).
NOTE: Claim 10 recites the following contingent limitation: “…driving a driving module to a destination after the lift is raised”. This limitation is contingent because it recites steps within a method claim that are only required to be performed if their conditions are met. For example, the aforementioned limitation only needs to be performed after the lift is raised, and the lift is only raised “if the driving module reaches the docking position of the cart” (from parent claim 9 above). Therefore, the BRI of claim 10 does not require “driving a driving module to a destination after the lift is raised” if the lift is not raised, and, therefore, if the driving module has not reached the docking position of the cart.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200324976 A1 is directed to a robot that that attaches to a cart by raising its docking points to align with docking receptacles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikki Molina whose telephone number is (571) 272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT. 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, Aniss Chad, can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights