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 .
Claims 1-14 are pending and are addressed below.
Priority
The instant application claims priority to International Patent Application No. PCT/EP2023/054309, filed February 21, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, ---a dedicated workspace area--- should read ---the dedicated workspace area--- to avoid insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 5, ---3D--- should be spelt out.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-14 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “a defined position point in an environment of the robot device”, however, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “a defined position point” and further how the claimed limitation is applied to define a position of a point in an environment of the robot device. Figure 2 and paragraph [0023] states that the defined position point or location in the environment of the robot that is closest or located next to the robot. However, the disclosure is silent regarding the definition of a point in an environment of the robot device and further how to determine a position or location of the point is the closest or next to the robot device. Therefore, this renders the claims indefinite. Claims 2-13 are also rejected under this section for being dependent on a rejected based claim.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, it is unclear whether the claimed “safety function configuration” is referring to “corresponding safety function configuration”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite.
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a software per se, i.e. a computer program product.
Claims 1-9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A method for automatically setting up a safety function configuration for a robot device, comprising:
obtaining a distance information, wherein the distance information is a distance between at least one moving part of the robot device and a defined position point in an environment of the robot device;
comparing the distance information with a minimum gap criterion that defines a minimum distance between the at least one moving part of the robot device and the defined position point in the environment of the robot device;
automatically determining a corresponding safety function configuration for the robot device in a dedicated workspace area depending on a deviation of the distance information and the minimum gap criterion.
101 Analysis - Step 1
The claim is directed to a process, machine, or manufacture. Therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I
The foregoing bolded limitations recited in the independent claims constitute abstract ideas falling under the "mental process" category. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim limitations cover performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, "comparing the distance information with a minimum gap criterion …" encompasses a person evaluating a distance between a robot and an object by comparing the distance with a threshold. "Automatically determining a corresponding safety function configuration for the robot device ..." encompasses a person evaluating the distance between the robot and the object with a threshold to determine which is most beneficial to the robot. Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
The foregoing underlined limitations recited in the independent claims constitute additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea. These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of "obtaining a distance information …”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extrasolution activities that merely data gathering.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above, the additional limitations of "obtaining a distance information …” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of "obtaining a distance information …" are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because these activities are a merely generic manner, such as gathering data. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-9 and 11-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims 2-4 recite additional limitations “wherein the distance information is obtained by at least one sensor system …”, “wherein the distance information is a safety-related distance information provided by the at least one sensor system”, and “wherein the sensor system is a robot-internal sensor system that is directly applied on the robot device …” The examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra solution activities that merely gathering data. In particular, the obtaining and providing steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “wherein the distance information is obtained by at least one sensor system …”, “wherein the distance information is a safety-related distance information provided by the at least one sensor system”, and “wherein the sensor system is a robot-internal sensor system that is directly applied on the robot device …” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because these are everyday tasks performed by general sensor for gathering data. Therefore, the dependent claims 2-9 and 11-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites an additional limitation of “… flexibly applying at least a safety function to the robot device depending on at least one of: a position parameter of the at least one robot device, an adapted functionality of the robot device; or an adapted environment parameter of the robot device …” This limitation makes the invention practical by applying a safety function to the robot device based on different conditions.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites an additional limitation of “…setting up at least one safety zone around the robot device that has at least one dedicated safety function that corresponds to the deviation of the obtained distance information and the minimum gap criterion.” This limitation makes the invention practical by setting a safety function and safety function to the robot device based on the deviation of the distance information and the minimum gap criterion.
Therefore, claims 1-9 and 12-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vu et al. (US 20220379474 A1, hereinafter “Vu”).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Vu discloses:
(Claim 1) A method for automatically setting up a safety function configuration for a robot device (Vu, see at least Figs. 1, 4, par. [0006, 0098-0098], a method for determining a safe-action for a robot 106, e.g., modulating the robot’s maximum velocity proportionally to the minimum distance between any point on the robot and any point in the relevant set of sensed objects to be avoided), comprising:
(Claim 14) A computer program product comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a computer processor, causes the computer to perform a method for automatically setting up a safety function configuration for a robot device (Vu, see at least Figs. 1, 3, 4, par. [0006, 0055-0057, 0098-0098]), comprising:
obtaining a distance information (Vu, see at least Figs. 1, 4, par. [0084], “Another condition that may be monitored is the distance between any object in the workcell and a machine”), wherein the distance information is a distance between at least one moving part of the robot device and a defined position point in an environment of the robot device (Vu, see at least Figs. 1, 4, par. [0087], “… a camera array 102 monitors the workcell 400, which includes a robot 402 … An object-monitoring system (OMS) 410 obtains information about objects from the cameras 102 and uses this sensor information to identify relevant objects in the workcell 400. OMS 410 communicates with robot controller 407 via any suitable wired or wireless protocol … Using information obtained from the robot (and, typically, cameras 102), OMS 410 determines the robot's current state. OMS 410 thereupon determines safe-action constraints for robot 402 given the robot's current state and all identified relevant objects. Finally, OMS 410 communicates the safe action constraints to robot 407 …”);
comparing the distance information with a minimum gap criterion that defines a minimum distance between the at least one moving part of the robot device and the defined position point in the environment of the robot device (Vu, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0099], “One approach to achieving this is to modulate the robot's maximum velocity (by which is meant the velocity of the robot itself or any appendage thereof) proportionally to the minimum distance between any point on the robot and any point in the relevant set of sensed objects to be avoided”);
automatically determining a corresponding safety function configuration for the robot device in a dedicated workspace area depending on a deviation of the distance information and the minimum gap criterion (Vu, see at least par. [0085], “Risk reduction is achieved by maintaining at least a protective separation distance between the human worker and robot during periods of robot motion. This protective separation distance is calculated using information including robot and human worker position and movement, robot stopping distance, measurement uncertainty, system latency and system control frequency. When the calculated separation distance decreases to a value below the protective separation distance, the robot system is stopped”; Fig. 5, par. [0099], “One approach to achieving this is to modulate the robot's maximum velocity (by which is meant the velocity of the robot itself or any appendage thereof) proportionally to the minimum distance between any point on the robot and any point in the relevant set of sensed objects to be avoided. The robot is allowed to operate at maximum speed when the closest object is further away than some threshold distance beyond which collisions are not a concern, and the robot is halted altogether if an object is within a certain minimum distance. Sufficient margin can be added to the specified distances to account for movement of relevant objects or humans toward the robot at some maximum realistic velocity”).
Regarding claim 2, Vu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Vu further teaches wherein the distance information is obtained by at least one sensor system (Vu, see at least Fig. 1, sensors 102), wherein the at least one sensor system provides at least one piece of information that is one of an environment-related information of the environment of the robot device and/or an exposed body region of a human in a dedicated workspace area of the robot device (Vu, see at least Figs. 1, 2, par. [0050-0051, 0052-0053, 0071], the cameras 102 are configured to provide a 3D representation of the workcell 100, which include the robot 106 and a person P that interacts with the robot 106 and a workpiece, such as classifying workcell regions as occupied, unoccupied (or empty), or unknown/potentially occupied by a human).
Regarding claim 3, Vu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Vu further teaches wherein the distance information is a safety-related distance information provided by the at least one sensor system (Vu, see at least Figs. 1, 4, par. [0084], “Another condition that may be monitored is the distance between any object in the workcell and a machine”; par. [0087], “… a camera array 102 monitors the workcell 400, which includes a robot 402 … An object-monitoring system (OMS) 410 obtains information about objects from the cameras 102 and uses this sensor information to identify relevant objects in the workcell 400. OMS 410 communicates with robot controller 407 via any suitable wired or wireless protocol … Using information obtained from the robot (and, typically, cameras 102), OMS 410 determines the robot's current state. OMS 410 thereupon determines safe-action constraints for robot 402 given the robot's current state and all identified relevant objects. Finally, OMS 410 communicates the safe action constraints to robot 407 …”).
Regarding claim 4, Vu teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 2 as discussed above. Vu further teaches wherein the sensor system is a robot-internal sensor system that is directly applied on the robot device (Vu, see at least par. [0087], “Using information obtained from the robot (and, typically, cameras 102), OMS 410 determines the robot's current state”) and/or the sensor system is a robot-external sensor-system that is applied in a certain distance to the robot device (Vu, see at least Figs. 1, 4, par. [0050, 0087], cameras 102).
Regarding claim 5, Vu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Vu further teaches wherein the distance information is obtained by a mathematic 3D-model of the robot device alone (Vu, see at least par. [0092], “The 3D pose of the robot may then be determined by combining provided joint positions with a static 3D model of each link to obtain the 3D shape of the entire robot 402”; par. [0095], “Reliable state analysis typically requires an accurate model of each robot link. This model can be obtained a priori, e.g. from 3D CAD files provided by the robot manufacturer or generated by industrial engineers for a specific project”) or wherein the 3D-model additionally includes the environment-related information of the environment of the robot device (Vu, see at least par. [0096], “In this case, it is possible for RSDM 420 to create the model itself, e.g., using cameras 102. This may be done in a separate training mode where robot 402 runs through a set of motions, e.g., the motions that are intended for use in the given application and/or a set of motions designed to provide cameras 102 with appropriate views of each link. It is possible, but not necessary, to provide some basic information about the robot a priori, such as the lengths and rotational axes of each link. During this training mode, RSDM 420 generates a 3D model of each link, complete with all necessary attachments. This model can then be used by RSDM 420 in conjunction with sensor images to determine the robot state”).
Regarding claim 6, Vu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Vu further teaches wherein an actual geometric parameter of the at least one moving part of the robot device is used for obtaining the distance information device (Vu, see at least par. [0095], “This model can be obtained a priori, e.g. from 3D CAD files provided by the robot manufacturer or generated by industrial engineers for a specific project”; par. [0096], “It is possible, but not necessary, to provide some basic information about the robot a priori, such as the lengths and rotational axes of each link”).
Regarding claim 8, Vu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Vu further teaches wherein the distance information is obtained at run-time during a production mode of the robot device (Vu, see at least par. [0098], “Here we are concerned with dynamic environments in which objects and people come, go, and change position; hence, safe actions are calculated by a safe-action determination module (SADM) 425 in real time based on all sensed relevant objects and on the current state of robot 402, and these safe actions may be updated each cycle”).
Regarding claim 9, Vu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Vu further teaches wherein the distance information is obtained during a trial run of a programmed production cycle of the robot device deployed in the environment which is an application environment (Vu, see at least par. [0095], “These image-based monitoring techniques often rely on being run at each system cycle, and on the assumption that the system was in a safe state at the previous cycle. Therefore, a test may be executed when robot 402 is started—for example, confirming that the robot is in a known, pre-configured “home” position and that all joint velocities are zero. It is common for automated equipment to have a set of tests that are executed by an operator at a fixed interval, for example, when the equipment is started up or on shift changes. Reliable state analysis typically requires an accurate model of each robot link. This model can be obtained a priori, e.g. from 3D CAD files provided by the robot manufacturer or generated by industrial engineers for a specific project”; par. [0096], “In this case, it is possible for RSDM 420 to create the model itself, e.g., using cameras 102. This may be done in a separate training mode where robot 402 runs through a set of motions, e.g., the motions that are intended for use in the given application and/or a set of motions designed to provide cameras 102 with appropriate views of each link. It is possible, but not necessary, to provide some basic information about the robot a priori, such as the lengths and rotational axes of each link. During this training mode, RSDM 420 generates a 3D model of each link, complete with all necessary attachments. This model can then be used by RSDM 420 in conjunction with sensor images to determine the robot state”).
Regarding claim 10, Vu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Vu further teaches wherein determining a safety function configuration comprises flexibly applying at least a safety function to the robot device depending on at least one of: a position parameter of the at least one robot device, an adapted functionality of the robot device (Vu, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0099], “One approach to achieving this is to modulate the robot's maximum velocity (by which is meant the velocity of the robot itself or any appendage thereof) proportionally to the minimum distance between any point on the robot and any point in the relevant set of sensed objects to be avoided. The robot is allowed to operate at maximum speed when the closest object is further away than some threshold distance beyond which collisions are not a concern, and the robot is halted altogether if an object is within a certain minimum distance”); or an adapted environment parameter of the robot device; and wherein the adapted environment parameter comprises the environment information of the environment in the dedicated workspace area of the robot device (Vu, see at least par. [0098], “Here we are concerned with dynamic environments in which objects and people come, go, and change position; hence, safe actions are calculated by a safe-action determination module (SADM) 425 in real time based on all sensed relevant objects and on the current state of robot 402, and these safe actions may be updated each cycle”).
Regarding claim 11, Vu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Vu further teaches wherein determining a safety function configuration comprises setting up at least one safety zone around the robot device that has at least one dedicated safety function that corresponds to the deviation of the obtained distance information and the minimum gap criterion (Vu, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0099], “One approach to achieving this is to modulate the robot's maximum velocity (by which is meant the velocity of the robot itself or any appendage thereof) proportionally to the minimum distance between any point on the robot and any point in the relevant set of sensed objects to be avoided. The robot is allowed to operate at maximum speed when the closest object is further away than some threshold distance beyond which collisions are not a concern, and the robot is halted altogether if an object is within a certain minimum distance … This is illustrated in FIG. 5. An outer envelope or 3D zone 502 is generated computationally by SADM 425 around the robot 504. Outside this zone 502, all movements of the person P are considered safe because, within an operational cycle, they cannot bring the person sufficiently close to the robot 504 to pose a danger. Detection of any portion of the person P's body within a second 3D zone 508, computationally defined within zone 502, is registered by SADM 425 but robot 504 is allowed to continue operating at full speed. If any portion of the person P crosses the threshold of zone 508 but is still outside an interior danger zone 510, robot 504 is signaled to operate at a slower speed. If any portion of the person P crosses into the danger zone 510 or is predicted to do so within the next cycle based on a model of human movement operation of robot 504 is halted. These zones may be updated if robot 504 is moved (or moves) within the environment”).
Regarding claim 12, Vu teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as discussed above. Vu further teaches wherein the at least one safety zone is flexibly configurable depending on at least a geometric parameter of the at least one moving part of the robot device and/or the detected environment parameter of the robot device (Vu, see at least par. [0167], “The possibility of collisions may be monitored as described above with respect to FIG. 5, using concentric 3D safety envelopes. The locations and 3D extents of these safety envelopes are updated at each time step as the machinery operates and humans or mobile machinery classified as intrusions move about and among safety envelopes 502, 508, 510. These updates are affected by refreshing the data structures that maintain, in real time, the location and trajectory of all objects in the workcell and the occlusions and unsafe spaces they generate as they move in the workcell and between zones. The volumes surrounding the moving objects (determined by their position and estimated trajectories) that are deemed unsafe for volumes of nearby objects to overlap are continuously checked for collisions or movements that bring them on a potential collision course”).
Regarding claim 13, Vu teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 10 as discussed above. Vu further teaches wherein the at least one safety zone comprises an overlapping zone part that results from an intersection of the dedicated workspace area of the robot device and an area that is accessible by humans (Vu, see at least Fig. 5, par. [0099], “This is illustrated in FIG. 5. An outer envelope or 3D zone 502 is generated computationally by SADM 425 around the robot 504. Outside this zone 502, all movements of the person P are considered safe because, within an operational cycle, they cannot bring the person sufficiently close to the robot 504 to pose a danger. Detection of any portion of the person P's body within a second 3D zone 508, computationally defined within zone 502, is registered by SADM 425 but robot 504 is allowed to continue operating at full speed. If any portion of the person P crosses the threshold of zone 508 but is still outside an interior danger zone 510, robot 504 is signaled to operate at a slower speed. If any portion of the person P crosses into the danger zone 510 or is predicted to do so within the next cycle based on a model of human movement operation of robot 504 is halted. These zones may be updated if robot 504 is moved (or moves) within the environment”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu et al. (US 20220379474 A1 , hereinafter “Vu”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Azizian et al. (US 20140163736 A1, hereinafter “Azizian”).
Regarding claim 7, Vu teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Vu further teaches a buffer area, i.e. a margin, to be added to a minimum distance between any point on the robot and any point in the relevant set of sensed objects to be avoided to account for movement of relevant objects or humans toward the robot at some maximum realistic velocity (Vu, see at least par. [0089]). Vu fails to specifically teach wherein a defined buffer area around at least one moving part of the robot device is used for obtaining the distance information.
Azizian, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a defined buffer area around at least one moving part of the robot device is used for obtaining the distance information object (Azizian, see at least Fig. 4, Figs. 1, 4, par. [0134], a robot arm is configured to automatically move from a current configuration to other configuration for minimizing a cost function for collision avoidance; wherein the cost function is based on a distance between the robot arm and the object that is measured between buffer regions surrounding the links of the robot arm and the object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Vu to include, wherein a defined buffer area around at least one moving part of the robot device is used for obtaining the distance information, as taught by Azizian. This modification allows to automatically performs collision avoidance of the robot arm without preventing the robot arm from performing its intended task and to further ensure safe operation in dynamic environments (Azizian, see at least par. [0009-0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kokubu (JP2016193473A) discloses a method and system for performing a safety operation for collision avoidance based on monitoring a distance between a robot and a human body.
Hofmann et al. (US 20240326250 A1) discloses a method and system for determining a distance from the hazardous part of the robot and the human based on a 3D buffer zone additionally surrounds the protected zone to a robot arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/TRANG DANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights