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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 8, the limitations “at least one of said first and second layers” should be amended to read --- at least one of said first and second substantially transparent layers---.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations” a plurality of photoelectric sensor elements (30)” should be amended to read --- a plurality of photoelectric sensor elements---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for determining a temperature of at least one of LEDs” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Page 6, lines 10-14, page 27, lines 15-20 of the Specification discloses that “means for determining a temperature comprises at least one temperature sensor arranged on at least one side of said carrier layer and electrically coupled to conductor paths on said conductor layer” and “there may be one or more temperature sensors 250, which may be thermistors (NTC or PTC), platinum resistance thermometers, or the like.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,983. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claim 19 is merely broader versions of patented claim 1. Below is a comparison between present claim 19 and patented claim 1.
Present claim 19
Patented claim 1
A monitoring system for monitoring a space inside and/or outside a motor vehicle comprising: a plurality of photoelectric sensor elements (30) adapted to generate a 3-dimensional mapping of objects in said space, sensor elements being electrically connected to a substantially transparent carrier layer adapted to be first and disposed between second substantially transparent layers to form a substantially transparent laminate structure for use in one or more windows and/or roof panel of said motor vehicle, or
an optoelectronic arrangement for use in a transparent glazing element of a vehicle, for example, the optoelectronic arrangement comprising: a substantially transparent carrier layer, at least one conductor layer comprising conductor paths provided on at least one side of said carrier layer, optoelectronic components comprising at least a plurality of LEDs arranged on the carrier layer and electrically coupled to conductor paths on said conductor layer, and means for determining a temperature of at least one of the LEDS, or
the optoelectronic arrangement comprising: at least one substantially transparent carrier layer, at least one conductor layer comprising conductor paths provided on at least one side of said carrier layer, at least one light emitting element arranged on the carrier layer and electrically coupled to conductor paths on said conductor layer, and at least one proximity and/or touch sensor arranged on at least one of said carrier layers, the arrangement further being couplable to a control module for controlling an operation of said at least one light emitting element in response to information from said at least one proximity and/or touch sensor.
An optoelectronic arrangement for use in a transparent glazing element of a vehicle,
the optoelectronic arrangement comprising: at least one substantially transparent carrier layer; at least one conductor layer comprising conductor paths provided on at least one side of said at least one substantially transparent carrier layer; at least one light emitting element arranged on the at least one substantially transparent carrier layer and electrically coupled to conductor paths on said conductor layer; at least one proximity and/or touch sensor arranged on said at least one substantially transparent carrier layer; at least one optical layer bonded to said at least one substantially transparent carrier layer over the at least one light emitting element for diffusing light from each light emitting element into a light patch of substantially uniform illuminance and of greater diameter than the at least one light emitting element; wherein the arrangement is couplable to a control module for controlling the operation of said at least one light emitting element in response to information from said at least one proximity and/or touch sensor; and wherein said at least one optical layer comprises an array of optical segments on an input surface and an array of optical segments on an output surface, wherein the array of optical segments on the output surface are larger than the array of optical segments on the input surface.
As can be seen above, the main difference between the claims is that the patented claim 1 recite more features in an optoelectronic arrangement. Therefore, present claim 19 is merely a broader version of patented claim 1, and thus is anticipated by patented claim 1. Therefore, present claim 19 is merely a broader version of patented claim 1, and thus is anticipated by patented claim 1.
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.
Claim 19 is 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.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “for example” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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, 3-6, 8-9, 11-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAY (US 2020/0269815) in view of Weber (US 2019/0078934).
Regarding claim 1, Day discloses a monitoring system for monitoring a space inside and/or outside a motor vehicle (Fig. 18; [0253], [0255]-[0260], [0283] e.g., one or more of sensors 173, 175, 177 can be configured as contact/proximity sensor for sensing an object inside a vehicle) comprising a plurality of photoelectric sensor elements adapted to detect objects in a space (Fig. 7; [0191], [0260], [0282], e.g., a plurality of photodiodes 11 adapted to detect proximity of objects),
sensor elements (Fig. 7; [0141]-[0142], [0170], e.g., photodiodes 11) being electrically connected to a substantially transparent carrier layer (Figs 1-2, [0141]-[0149], [0155], e.g., electrically connected to an optically transparent substrate 3) adapted to be disposed between first and second substantially transparent layers ([0171], e.g., between first and second substantially transparent layers 51 and 52) to form a substantially transparent laminate structure for use in one or more windows and/or roof panel of said motor vehicle ([0140], [0275], [0282]-[0283], e.g., use in one or more window of the vehicle).
Day does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of photoelectric sensor elements are adapted to generate a 3-dimensional mapping of objects in the space.
However, Weber discloses an optoelectronic sensor device (Fig. 1; [0046], e.g., device 1) comprising a plurality of photoelectric sensor elements adapted to generate a 3-dimensional mapping of objects in a space (Fig. 4; [0009], [0011], [0046]-[0047], [0058], e.g., a plurality of photodetectors 3 are used to generate three-dimensional mapping of objects 9 in the space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the invention to use the teachings of Weber in the invention of Day for generating a 3D mapping of objects in a space by using a plurality of photoelectric sensors in order to provide a device for monitoring a space inside and/or outside of a vehicle for a presence of an object ([0009], [0020] of Weber).
Regarding claim 3, Day further discloses a monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein said carrier layer is flexible ([0141], e.g., the substrate 3 is flexible).
Regarding claim 4, Day in view of Weber further discloses a monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein said sensor elements are configured to monitor a space using at least one of triangulation, structured light and time-of- flight (Weber, [0009], [0022], [0054], e.g., infrared-emitting semiconductor lasers and/or infrared-emitting LEDs can be used preferably for time-of-flight, proximity or other methods of three-dimensional detection or presence detection).
Regarding claim 5, Day in view of Weber further discloses a monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein said sensor elements, when mounted in said laminate structure in a motor vehicle, are arranged to generate a three- dimensional detection zone inside and/or outside said motor vehicle (Day, [0209], [0283]. [0020] of Weber, e.g., generate a three-dimensional detection zone inside and/or outside of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 6, Day further discloses a monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein said sensor elements are mounted on said carrier layer (see Figs 1-2; [0142], e.g., the photodiode 11 is mounted on the substrate 3).
Regarding claim 8, Day further discloses a monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein a bonding layer is provided between said carrier layer and at least one of said first and second layers (Fig. 7; [0176], e.g., a bonding layer 54 is provided between the carrier layer 3 and the first pane of glass 51).
Regarding claim 9, Day further discloses a monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein said carrier layer comprises wiring for power supply and signal carrier of said sensors (Fig. 1; [0152]-[0153]).
Regarding claim 11, Day in view of Weber further discloses a monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein said sensors comprise photoelectric emitter elements and photoelectric detector elements ([0154] and [0260] of Day e.g., each proximity sensor comprises one photoelectric emitter element and one photoelectric detector element. Weber, Fig. 4 and [0067], e.g., a plurality of laser diodes 2 and photodiodes 3).
Regarding claim 12, Day in view of Weber further discloses a monitoring system according to claim 11, wherein each said photoelectric emitter element and said photoelectric detector element comprises at least one lens adapted to provide a directional field of view (Bay, Fig. 1; [0142], e.g., the LED 9 comprises a lens assembly 10 for directing the beam of light in the required direction. Fig. 3 of Weber, e.g., lens 71).
Regarding claim 15, Day in view of Weber further a monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein said sensors operate in infrared wavelengths (Day, [0143]. [0009] of Weber).
Regarding claim 16, Day in view of Weber further discloses a transparent laminate structure for use in the windows and/or roof panel of a motor vehicle comprising a monitoring system according to claim 1 (Day, Fig. 18; [0255], [0260], e.g., the windscreen 170 comprises the sensing system. [0020] of Weber).
Regarding claim 17, Day further discloses a vehicle comprising a transparent laminate structure according to claim 16 (see Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 18, Day further discloses a vehicle according to claim 17, wherein said transparent laminate structure is comprises in at least two of a side window, a rear window, a front window and a roof panel of said motor vehicle (Fig. 18; [0275], e.g., a side window and a front window).
Regarding claim 19, Day discloses a monitoring system for monitoring a space inside and/or outside a motor vehicle (Fig. 18; [0253], [0255]-[0260], [0283] e.g., one or more of sensors 173, 175, 177 can be configured as contact/proximity sensor for sensing an object inside a vehicle) comprising:
a plurality of photoelectric sensor elements adapted to detect objects in a space (Fig. 7; [0191], [0260], [0282], e.g., a plurality of photodiodes 11 adapted to detect proximity of objects), sensor elements (Fig. 7; [0141]-[0142], [0170], e.g., photodiodes 11) being electrically connected to a substantially transparent carrier layer (Figs 1-2, [0141]-[0149], [0155], e.g., electrically connected to an optically transparent substrate 3) to form a substantially transparent laminate structure for use in one or more windows and/or roof panel of said motor vehicle ([0140], [0275], [0282]-[0283], e.g., use in one or more window of the vehicle), or
an optoelectronic arrangement for use in a transparent glazing element of a vehicle, for example, the optoelectronic arrangement comprising: a substantially transparent carrier layer, at least one conductor layer comprising conductor paths provided on at least one side of said carrier layer, optoelectronic components comprising at least a plurality of LEDs arranged on the carrier layer and electrically coupled to conductor paths on said conductor layer, and means for determining a temperature of at least one of the LEDs, or
the optoelectronic arrangement comprising:
at least one substantially transparent carrier layer, at least one conductor layer comprising conductor paths provided on at least one side of said carrier layer, at least one light emitting element arranged on the carrier layer and electrically coupled to conductor paths on said conductor layer, and at least one proximity and/or touch sensor arranged on at least one of said carrier layers, the arrangement further being couplable to a control module for controlling an operation of said at least one light emitting element in response to information from said at least one proximity and/or touch sensor.
Day does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of photoelectric sensor elements are adapted to generate a 3-dimensional mapping of objects in the space.
However, Weber discloses an optoelectronic sensor device (Fig. 1; [0046], e.g., device 1) comprising a plurality of photoelectric sensor elements adapted to generate a 3-dimensional mapping of objects in a space (Fig. 4; [0009], [0011], [0046]-[0047], [0058], e.g., a plurality of photodetectors 3 are used to generate three-dimensional mapping of objects 9 in the space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the invention to use the teachings of Weber in the invention of Day for generating a 3D mapping of objects in a space by using a plurality of photoelectric sensors in order to provide a device for monitoring a space inside and/or outside of a vehicle for a presence of an object ([0009], [0020] of Weber).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US 2020/0269815) in view of Weber (US 2019/0078934), and further in view of Mattes et al. (US 2014/0236454).
Regarding claim 2, Day in view of Weber does not specifically disclose a monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein said sensor elements are disposed on said carrier layer in a 2- dimensional arrangement.
However, Mattes discloses a monitoring system comprising a plurality of sensor elements disposed on a carrier layer in a 2-dimensional arrangement (Fig. 4; [0053], claim 25, e.g., photoelectric sensors 14 can be arranged on a circuit board in a 2-dimensional arrangement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Mattes in the invention of Day in view of Weber for disposing sensor elements on a carrier layer in a 2- dimensional arrangement in order to determine a three-dimensional position of an object.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US 2020/0269815) in view of Weber (US 2019/0078934), and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2016/0041663).
Regarding claim 7, Day in view of Weber does not specifically disclose a monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein said sensor elements are embedded in said carrier layer.
However, Chen discloses a device wherein sensor elements are embedded in a carrier layer (Fig. 14; [0058], e.g., light detectors 94B are embedded within a substrate 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Chen in the invention of Day in view of Weber for providing sensor elements formed from light sensors embedded within a carrier layer because as taught by Chen the light sensors can be used to implement a three-dimensional scanning system for detecting three-dimensional scans of people or objects (see [0059] of Chen).
Regarding claim 14, Day in view of Weber does not specifically disclose a monitoring system according to claim 1, wherein said sensors have dimensions no greater than 500µm, and preferably no greater than 200µm.
However, Chen discloses a device wherein sensors have dimensions no greater than 500µm, and preferably no greater than 200µm (Fig. 14; [0043], [0053], [0058], e.g., the lateral size W of light-emitting diodes 30 may be about 1-500 microns, 2-50 microns, 5-30 microns, less than 30 microns, 3-7 microns, more than 2 microns, or other suitable size. Photodetectors 80 have sizes comparable to light-emitting diodes 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Chen in the invention of Day in view of Weber for providing sensor elements having sizes no greater than 200µm so that the overall size of sensor elements is minimized.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US 2020/0269815) in view of Weber (US 2019/0078934), and further in view of Costello et al. (US 2017/0160427).
Regarding claim 10, Day in view of Weber does not specifically disclose a monitoring system according to claim 9, wherein said sensors are bonded to carrier layer via said wiring. 17
However, Costello discloses an optical device (Fig. 1; [0020], e.g., device 100) wherein a photosensor is bonded to carrier layer via wiring ([0021], [0023]-[0024], e.g., the photodetector 116 is bonded to a substrate 104 via wiring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Costello in the invention of Day in view of Weber for bonding sensors to a carrier layer via wiring in order to minimize the overall size of a sensing device (see [0023] of Costello).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Day (US 2020/0269815) in view of Weber (US 2019/0078934), and further in view of Costello et al. (US 2017/0160427) and Mattes et al. (US 2014/0236454).
Regarding claim 13, Day in view of Weber and Costello does not specifically disclose a monitoring system according to claim 10, wherein said sensors further comprise image processing and control circuitry for controlling at least one photoelectric emitter element and/or photoelectric detector element.
However, Mattes discloses a monitoring system comprising image processing and control circuitry for controlling at least one photoelectric emitter element and/or photoelectric detector element (Fig. 1; [0045], [0050]-[0053], e.g., the evaluation unit 16 controls at least one photoelectric emitter element 12 and/or photoelectric detector element 14 and determined a three-dimensional position of the object by means of a transmission time of the signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Mattes in the invention of Day in view of Weber and Costello for providing image processing and control circuitry for controlling at least one photoelectric emitter element and/or photoelectric detector element in order to determine a three-dimensional position of the finger.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inoue (US 2018/0129353) discloses an input device comprising a plurality of photo sensor elements adapted to generate a 3-dimensional mapping of objects.
Roth et al. (US 6,437,461) discloses However, Roth discloses a monitoring system for monitoring a space inside a motor vehicle comprising a plurality of photoelectric sensor elements adapted to generate a 3-dimensional mapping of objects in the space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-5372. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 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, BENJAMIN C LEE can be reached at 571-272-2963. 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.
/HONG ZHOU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights