DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This Non-final communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2025, 2/04/2026, 4/14/2026, and 8/06/2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the Double Patenting rejection provided below was overcome or by the timely filing of a terminal disclaimer as described below.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Claims 21-28, 30-32, and 34-40 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,440,995 in view of Schoonmaker (US 20180179029 A1)
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in scope to the allowed claims and would be fully encompassed and/or anticipated by the issued U.S. Patent.
Specifically wherein;
Regarding independent claim 21, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A method of operating remotely operated equipment within a remote operating environment remote from an operator, the method comprising: identifying at least one position within the remote operating environment, the at least one position associated with an object in the remote operating environment; generating at least one virtual barrier associated with the object based on the at least one position within the remote operating environment; and responsive to a proximity of the remotely operated equipment to the at least one virtual barrier, selectively displaying a visual representation of the at least one virtual barrier to the operator as an overlay displayed over a real-time image of the remote operating environment within an operator interface of a remote control device.
The issued U.S. Patent does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Schoonmaker teaches:
monitoring a position of the remotely operated equipment relative to the at least one virtual barrier;
(Schoonmaker - [0070] In another embodiment, the positioning of the boom may be enhanced using a pointing device 700 on a base section of the boom 110. For example, the pointing device 700 may identify a location (and thus boom and swing angles) such as the top left or top right corner of the forbidden volume. This information may be recorded by the computer system 300, and may be combined with a distance determined between the end of the boom 110 (where a crane hook 150 naturally hangs down) …)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,440,995 with Schoonmaker in order to track the location of the mechanical arm in relationship to the virtual barriers. Giving the operator and system the knowledge of the arms location in relationship to the virtual barriers increases safety allows the system and operator to make more efficient operational decisions when operating the arm.
Regarding independent claim 28, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A method of operating remotely operated equipment within a remote operating environment remote from an operator, the method comprising: identifying at least one position within the remote operating environment, the at least one position associated with an object in the remote operating environment; generating at least one virtual barrier associated with the object based on the at least one position within the remote operating environment; and displaying a visual representation of the at least one virtual barrier to the operator as an overlay displayed over a real-time image of the remote operating environment within an operator interface of a remote control device.
The issued U.S. Patent does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Schoonmaker teaches:
monitoring a position of the remotely operated equipment relative to the at least one virtual barrier;
(Schoonmaker - [0070] In another embodiment, the positioning of the boom may be enhanced using a pointing device 700 on a base section of the boom 110. For example, the pointing device 700 may identify a location (and thus boom and swing angles) such as the top left or top right corner of the forbidden volume. This information may be recorded by the computer system 300, and may be combined with a distance determined between the end of the boom 110 (where a crane hook 150 naturally hangs down) …)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,440,995 with Schoonmaker in order to track the location of the mechanical arm in relationship to the virtual barriers. Giving the operator and system the knowledge of the arms location in relationship to the virtual barriers increases safety allows the system and operator to make more efficient operational decisions when operating the arm.
Regarding independent claim 36, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the issued U.S. Patent, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A method of operating remotely operated equipment within a remote operating environment remote from an operator, the method comprising: identifying at least one position within the remote operating environment, the at least one position associated with an object in the remote operating environment; generating at least one virtual barrier associated with the object based on the at least one position within the remote operating environment, responsive to determining that the position of the remotely operated equipment overlaps the at least one virtual barrier, generating an alert to the operator within an operator interface of a remote control device; and displaying a visual representation of the at least one virtual barrier to the operator as an overlay displayed over a real-time image of the remote operating environment within the operator interface of the remote control device.
The issued U.S. Patent does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Schoonmaker teaches:
wherein the at least one virtual barrier is larger than the object; (Schoonmaker - [0061] Note that the preferred embodiment is not expected to have the quasi-volume be coincident with the actual building object. The quasi-volume would be expected to have some buffer or distance away from the building object. The positioning of the hook block is actually indicating the buffer desired. …) ; monitoring a position of the remotely operated equipment relative to the at least one virtual barrier; (Schoonmaker - [0070] In another embodiment, the positioning of the boom may be enhanced using a pointing device 700 on a base section of the boom 110. For example, the pointing device 700 may identify a location (and thus boom and swing angles) such as the top left or top right corner of the forbidden volume. This information may be recorded by the computer system 300, and may be combined with a distance determined between the end of the boom 110 (where a crane hook 150 naturally hangs down) …)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,440,995 with Schoonmaker in order to track the location of the mechanical arm in relationship to the virtual barriers. Giving the operator and system the knowledge of the arms location in relationship to the virtual barriers increases safety allows the system and operator to make more efficient operational decisions when operating the arm.
Regarding dependent claims 24 -27, 30-32, 34-35, and 37-40 of the instant application, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in at least claims 1-10, 12, and 14-22 of the issued U.S. Patent.
Instant dependent claim 24 is not patentably distinct from portions of claim 9 of the issued patent
Instant dependent claim 25 is not patentably distinct from claim 8 of the issued patent
Instant dependent claim 26 is not patentably distinct from claim 19 of the issued patent
Instant dependent claim 27 is not patentably distinct from claim 2 of the issued patent
Instant dependent claim 30 is not patentably distinct from claim 12 of the issued patent
Instant dependent claim 31 is not patentably distinct from portions of claim 1 of the issued patent
Instant dependent claim 32 is not patentably distinct from portions of claim 1 of the issued patent
Instant dependent claim 34 is not patentably distinct from claim 4 of the issued patent
Instant dependent claim 35 is not patentably distinct from claim 4 of the issued patent
Instant dependent claim 37 is not patentably distinct from claim 12 of the issued patent
Instant dependent claim 38 is not patentably distinct from claim 12 of the issued patent
Instant dependent claim 39 is not patentably distinct from portions of claim 15 of the issued patent
Instant dependent claim 40 is not patentably distinct from portions of claim 15 of the issued patent
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical, they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
These remaining claims are further rejected by way of dependency on either independent Claim 21, 28 or 36.
Examiner further notes wherein the non-statutory double patenting rejection(s) provided herein would be overcome with 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 non-statutory 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-24, 27-28, 30, 32, and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benton (US 20180057318 A1) as modified by Sykes (US 20210331321 A1) in view of Schoonmaker (US 20180179029 A1)
Claim 21:
Benton teaches the following limitations:
identifying at least one position within the remote operating environment, the at least one position associated with an object in the remote operating environment;(Benton - [0025] The computing device 300 and controls may also control the movement of the rotating bed 8, which causes the boom 12 to swing left and swing right. The computing device and controls may also control the boom 12 to move up (boom-up) and move down (boom-down). These six directions (tele-out; tele-in; boom-up; boom-down; swing left; and swing right) may each be represented by a vector, each of which may be processed and tracked using appropriate algorithms as will be explained. Impact with obstacles on a worksite may be avoided by conducting vector analysis and continual monitoring of the orientation of the boom 12.) generating at least one virtual barrier associated with the object based on the at least one position within the remote operating environment; (Benton - [0060] FIG. 6 illustrates another embodiment in which the maximum horizontal working distance surface 34, 36 is combined with a working range limiter (WRL). The functioning of a working range limiter is described in the aforementioned U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/096,041 and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/974,812. With this combination, forbidden zones or obstacles are defined for the space around the crane. The forbidden zones or obstacles may be treated the same as the maximum horizontal working distance surface 34, 36 with the proximity vector pointing to the nearest of the forbidden zone and maximum horizontal working distance surface. A forbidden zone may be, for example, an area beyond the maximum horizontal working range. In addition, or alternatively, the load on a hook may be limited by boom stiffness as a boom lift angle increases. Thus, another forbidden zone may be near the crane corresponding to a relatively high lift angle and/or boom length. Another forbidden zone may be a volume substantially defining an obstacle, or plane defining, for example, a maximum lift height or a face of an obstacle, such as a building or other object at the worksite.)
responsive to a proximity of the remotely operated equipment to the at least one virtual barrier, (Benton - [0034] … The working range limiter 360 provides information for crane operators to ensure that the crane devices work safely outside of a restricted volume. The working range limiter 360 and the rated capacity limiter 365 may each monitor the operations of the crane through a plurality of sensors, and provide information regarding the limits of the crane 10 to an operator. … In some embodiments, the working range limiter 360 may also be adapted to act as a controller of the boom 12, the telescoping portion 14, and the rotating body 8.) selectively displaying a visual representation of the at least one virtual barrier to the operator as an overlay displayed over a real-time image of the remote operating environment within an operator interface of a remote control device. (Benton - [0065] The 3D model may include, for example, a representation of the coordinate system 32 based on the data representing the coordinate system, a representation of boom 42 based on the data representing the crane boom, and a representation of the maximum horizontal working distance based on the data representing the maximum horizontal working distance. The representation of the maximum horizontal working distance may be shown as, for example, 3D surfaces 34, 36, 38, 40. In one embodiment, the 3D surfaces are in the form of cylindrical sections. The 3D model may also include the ceiling height restriction 50. Further still, one or more of vectors 44a, 44b, 44c may be shown in the displayed 3D model. [0068] … As such, the operator may be able to easily determine a position of crane at a worksite relative to other worksite objects and a working range limit of the crane for a particular load and crane configuration. The 3D model may be updated at predetermined intervals and output to the display 370 at predetermined intervals. … )
Benton does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sykes teaches:
A method of operating remotely operated equipment within a remote operating environment remote from an operator, the method comprising:
(Sykes - [0006] A first embodiment of the invention is directed to a system for providing real-time, sensory information associated with a remote location to a user to allow for remote operation of machinery, the system comprising a boom assembly having a remote assembly,…)
Benton in combination with Sykes does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Schoonmaker teaches:
monitoring a position of the remotely operated equipment relative to the at least one virtual barrier; and
(Schoonmaker - [0070] In another embodiment, the positioning of the boom may be enhanced using a pointing device 700 on a base section of the boom 110. For example, the pointing device 700 may identify a location (and thus boom and swing angles) such as the top left or top right corner of the forbidden volume. This information may be recorded by the computer system 300, and may be combined with a distance determined between the end of the boom 110 (where a crane hook 150 naturally hangs down) …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benton to include a method for enabling the operator to control the robotic device from a remote location as taught in Sykes and to further provide a means for tracking the position of the remotely operated equipment as taught in Schoonmaker. Having the ability to locate the human operator at greater distance from the worksite improves safety and allows the operator to better observe the worksite. Additionally as the operator works farther from the worksite it becomes imperative to accurately track the position of the robotic device.
Claim 22:
Benton in combination with Sykes does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Schoonmaker teaches:
The method of claim 21, further comprising: identifying an origin position as a reference point associated with the remotely operated equipment.
(Schoonmaker - [0018] … coordinate data representing a coordinate system at the worksite having an origin at a base of an axis of rotation of the rotating bed and fixed relative to the mast, wherein the boom is rotatable on the axis of rotation,)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benton and Sykes to include coordinates and origin of the remotely operated equipment as taught in Schoonmaker. Having the ability to accurately rack the origin and position of the remotely operated device becomes imperative as the operator works farther from the worksite.
Claim 23:
Benton in combination with Sykes does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Schoonmaker teaches:
The method of claim 22, wherein the origin position is identified at a fixed base of an aerial device on which the remotely operated equipment is disposed.
(Schoonmaker - [0019] … a crane control system configured to control operation of the crane component, a processor in operable communication with the crane control system and memory in operable communication with the processor. The memory stores data including data representing a coordinate system having an origin at a base of an axis of rotation of the rotating bed and fixed relative to the mast, …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benton and Sykes to include coordinates and origin of the remotely operated equipment as taught in Schoonmaker. Having the ability to accurately rack the origin and position of the remotely operated device becomes imperative as the operator works farther from the worksite.
Claim 24:
Benton does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sykes teaches:
The method of claim 21, wherein the at least one position is identified based at least in part on one or more operator inputs.
(Sykes - [0006] A first embodiment of the invention is directed to a system for providing real-time, sensory information associated with a remote location to a user to allow for remote operation of machinery, the system comprising a boom assembly having a remote assembly,… [0069] … After bonding, the user may operate the robotic arm 28 using the input device 98 while viewing and hearing the operation of the robotic arm 28 using the head-mounted display 46. …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benton to include a method of identifying the position based on operator inputs a as taught in Sykes. Providing the ability for the operator to determine the position of the remotely operated equipment enhances the control and accuracy of the equipment’s positioning.
Claim 27:
Benton teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 21, further comprising: responsive to the proximity of the remotely operated equipment to the at least one virtual barrier, modifying at least one operation of the remotely operated equipment.
(Benton - [0010] In some embodiments, the method further includes saving data representing a forbidden zone near the crane, calculating a second, minimum vector between the forbidden zone and the boom, and limiting, by the computing device, movement of the boom to prevent the second vector from reaching a zero magnitude. In some embodiments, limiting movement of the boom includes establishing a threshold vector magnitude, changing a crane function responsive to the magnitude of the minimum vector between the hook and the working radius being less than the threshold vector magnitude. In some embodiments, changing the crane function comprises slowing down the movement of the boom in at least one direction that moves the hook closer to the working radius. In some embodiments, limiting movement of the boom further includes establishing a shutdown threshold vector magnitude, and stopping movement of the boom in response to the magnitude of the minimum vector between the hook and the working radius being less than the threshold vector magnitude.)
Claim 28:
Benton teaches the following limitations:
identifying at least one position within the remote operating environment, the at least one position associated with an object in the remote operating environment; (Benton - [0025] The computing device 300 and controls may also control the movement of the rotating bed 8, which causes the boom 12 to swing left and swing right. The computing device and controls may also control the boom 12 to move up (boom-up) and move down (boom-down). These six directions (tele-out; tele-in; boom-up; boom-down; swing left; and swing right) may each be represented by a vector, each of which may be processed and tracked using appropriate algorithms as will be explained. Impact with obstacles on a worksite may be avoided by conducting vector analysis and continual monitoring of the orientation of the boom 12.) generating at least one virtual barrier associated with the object based on the at least one position within the remote operating environment; (Benton - [0060] FIG. 6 illustrates another embodiment in which the maximum horizontal working distance surface 34, 36 is combined with a working range limiter (WRL). The functioning of a working range limiter is described in the aforementioned U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/096,041 and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/974,812. With this combination, forbidden zones or obstacles are defined for the space around the crane. The forbidden zones or obstacles may be treated the same as the maximum horizontal working distance surface 34, 36 with the proximity vector pointing to the nearest of the forbidden zone and maximum horizontal working distance surface. A forbidden zone may be, for example, an area beyond the maximum horizontal working range. In addition, or alternatively, the load on a hook may be limited by boom stiffness as a boom lift angle increases. Thus, another forbidden zone may be near the crane corresponding to a relatively high lift angle and/or boom length. Another forbidden zone may be a volume substantially defining an obstacle, or plane defining, for example, a maximum lift height or a face of an obstacle, such as a building or other object at the worksite.)
displaying a visual representation of the at least one virtual barrier to the operator as an overlay displayed over a real-time image of the remote operating environment within an operator interface of a remote control device.
(Benton - [0065] The 3D model may include, for example, a representation of the coordinate system 32 based on the data representing the coordinate system, a representation of boom 42 based on the data representing the crane boom, and a representation of the maximum horizontal working distance based on the data representing the maximum horizontal working distance. The representation of the maximum horizontal working distance may be shown as, for example, 3D surfaces 34, 36, 38, 40. In one embodiment, the 3D surfaces are in the form of cylindrical sections. The 3D model may also include the ceiling height restriction 50. Further still, one or more of vectors 44a, 44b, 44c may be shown in the displayed 3D model. [0068] … As such, the operator may be able to easily determine a position of crane at a worksite relative to other worksite objects and a working range limit of the crane for a particular load and crane configuration. The 3D model may be updated at predetermined intervals and output to the display 370 at predetermined intervals. … )
Benton does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sykes teaches:
A method of operating remotely operated equipment within a remote operating environment remote from an operator, the method comprising:
(Sykes - [0006] A first embodiment of the invention is directed to a system for providing real-time, sensory information associated with a remote location to a user to allow for remote operation of machinery, the system comprising a boom assembly having a remote assembly,…)
Benton in combination with Sykes does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Schoonmaker teaches:
monitoring a position of the remotely operated equipment relative to the at least one virtual barrier; and
(Schoonmaker - [0070] In another embodiment, the positioning of the boom may be enhanced using a pointing device 700 on a base section of the boom 110. For example, the pointing device 700 may identify a location (and thus boom and swing angles) such as the top left or top right corner of the forbidden volume. This information may be recorded by the computer system 300, and may be combined with a distance determined between the end of the boom 110 (where a crane hook 150 naturally hangs down) …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benton to include a method for enabling the operator to control the robotic device from a remote location as taught in Sykes and to further provide a means for tracking the position of the remotely operated equipment as taught in Schoonmaker. Having the ability to locate the human operator at greater distance from the worksite improves safety and allows the operator to better observe the worksite. Additionally as the operator works farther from the worksite it becomes imperative to accurately track the position of the robotic device.
Claim 30:
Benton teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 28, further comprising: responsive to a proximity of the remotely operated equipment to the at least one virtual barrier, automatically redirecting motion of the remotely operated equipment to prevent a collision of the remotely operated equipment with the object.
(Benton - [0010] In some embodiments, the method further includes saving data representing a forbidden zone near the crane, calculating a second, minimum vector between the forbidden zone and the boom, and limiting, by the computing device, movement of the boom to prevent the second vector from reaching a zero magnitude. In some embodiments, limiting movement of the boom includes establishing a threshold vector magnitude, changing a crane function responsive to the magnitude of the minimum vector between the hook and the working radius being less than the threshold vector magnitude. In some embodiments, changing the crane function comprises slowing down the movement of the boom in at least one direction that moves the hook closer to the working radius. In some embodiments, limiting movement of the boom further includes establishing a shutdown threshold vector magnitude, and stopping movement of the boom in response to the magnitude of the minimum vector between the hook and the working radius being less than the threshold vector magnitude.)
Claim 32:
Benton teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 28, further comprising: requesting selection of one or more virtual barrier points from the operator through operator interface.
(Benton - [0065] The 3D model may include, for example, a representation of the coordinate system 32 based on the data representing the coordinate system, a representation of boom 42 based on the data representing the crane boom, and a representation of the maximum horizontal working distance based on the data representing the maximum horizontal working distance. The representation of the maximum horizontal working distance may be shown as, for example, 3D surfaces 34, 36, 38, 40. In one embodiment, the 3D surfaces are in the form of cylindrical sections. The 3D model may also include the ceiling height restriction 50. Further still, one or more of vectors 44a, 44b, 44c may be shown in the displayed 3D model. [0068] … As such, the operator may be able to easily determine a position of crane at a worksite relative to other worksite objects and a working range limit of the crane for a particular load and crane configuration. The 3D model may be updated at predetermined intervals and output to the display 370 at predetermined intervals. … )
Claim 36:
Benton teaches the following limitations:
identifying at least one position within the remote operating environment, the at least one position associated with an object in the remote operating environment; (Benton - [0025] The computing device 300 and controls may also control the movement of the rotating bed 8, which causes the boom 12 to swing left and swing right. The computing device and controls may also control the boom 12 to move up (boom-up) and move down (boom-down). These six directions (tele-out; tele-in; boom-up; boom-down; swing left; and swing right) may each be represented by a vector, each of which may be processed and tracked using appropriate algorithms as will be explained. Impact with obstacles on a worksite may be avoided by conducting vector analysis and continual monitoring of the orientation of the boom 12.) generating at least one virtual barrier associated with the object based on the at least one position within the remote operating environment, (Benton - [0060] FIG. 6 illustrates another embodiment in which the maximum horizontal working distance surface 34, 36 is combined with a working range limiter (WRL). The functioning of a working range limiter is described in the aforementioned U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/096,041 and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/974,812. With this combination, forbidden zones or obstacles are defined for the space around the crane. The forbidden zones or obstacles may be treated the same as the maximum horizontal working distance surface 34, 36 with the proximity vector pointing to the nearest of the forbidden zone and maximum horizontal working distance surface. A forbidden zone may be, for example, an area beyond the maximum horizontal working range. In addition, or alternatively, the load on a hook may be limited by boom stiffness as a boom lift angle increases. Thus, another forbidden zone may be near the crane corresponding to a relatively high lift angle and/or boom length. Another forbidden zone may be a volume substantially defining an obstacle, or plane defining, for example, a maximum lift height or a face of an obstacle, such as a building or other object at the worksite.)
responsive to determining that the position of the remotely operated equipment overlaps the at least one virtual barrier, generating an alert to the operator within an operator interface of a remote control device; and (Benton - [0034] The rated capacity limiter 365 (also referred to as a moment limiter in the art) provides information for crane operators to ensure that the crane devices work safely in the range of design parameters. The working range limiter 360 provides information for crane operators to ensure that the crane devices work safely outside of a restricted volume. The working range limiter 360 and the rated capacity limiter 365 may each monitor the operations of the crane through a plurality of sensors, and provide information regarding the limits of the crane 10 to an operator. In some embodiments the functionality of the working range limiter 360 and the rated capacity limiter 365 may be combined into a single unit. When the crane 10 lifts objects, the reading changes continuously with the operation of the crane 10. The sensors provide information on the length and angle of the crane boom 10, the lifting height and range, the rated load, the lifted load, and so on. If the crane 10 works nearly beyond the permitted scope, the rated capacity limiter 365 and/or the working range limiter 360 may sound an alarm, may light an indicator, or modify the operation of the crane. In some embodiments, the working range limiter 360 may also be adapted to act as a controller of the boom 12, the telescoping portion 14, and the rotating body 8.) displaying a visual representation of the at least one virtual barrier to the operator as an overlay displayed over a real-time image of the remote operating environment within the operator interface of the remote control device. (Benton - [0065] The 3D model may include, for example, a representation of the coordinate system 32 based on the data representing the coordinate system, a representation of boom 42 based on the data representing the crane boom, and a representation of the maximum horizontal working distance based on the data representing the maximum horizontal working distance. The representation of the maximum horizontal working distance may be shown as, for example, 3D surfaces 34, 36, 38, 40. In one embodiment, the 3D surfaces are in the form of cylindrical sections. The 3D model may also include the ceiling height restriction 50. Further still, one or more of vectors 44a, 44b, 44c may be shown in the displayed 3D model. [0068] … As such, the operator may be able to easily determine a position of crane at a worksite relative to other worksite objects and a working range limit of the crane for a particular load and crane configuration. The 3D model may be updated at predetermined intervals and output to the display 370 at predetermined intervals. … )
Benton does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Sykes teaches:
A method of operating remotely operated equipment within a remote operating environment remote from an operator, the method comprising:
(Sykes - [0006] A first embodiment of the invention is directed to a system for providing real-time, sensory information associated with a remote location to a user to allow for remote operation of machinery, the system comprising a boom assembly having a remote assembly,…)
Benton in combination with Sykes does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Schoonmaker teaches:
wherein the at least one virtual barrier is larger than the object;
(Schoonmaker - [0061] Note that the preferred embodiment is not expected to have the quasi-volume be coincident with the actual building object. The quasi-volume would be expected to have some buffer or distance away from the building object. The positioning of the hook block is actually indicating the buffer desired. …) ;
monitoring a position of the remotely operated equipment relative to the at least one virtual barrier;
(Schoonmaker - [0070] In another embodiment, the positioning of the boom may be enhanced using a pointing device 700 on a base section of the boom 110. For example, the pointing device 700 may identify a location (and thus boom and swing angles) such as the top left or top right corner of the forbidden volume. This information may be recorded by the computer system 300, and may be combined with a distance determined between the end of the boom 110 (where a crane hook 150 naturally hangs down) …)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benton to include a method for enabling the operator to control the robotic device from a remote location as taught in Sykes and to further provide a means for tracking the position of the remotely operated equipment as taught in Schoonmaker. Having the ability to locate the human operator at greater distance from the worksite improves safety and allows the operator to better observe the worksite. Additionally as the operator works farther from the worksite it becomes imperative to accurately track the position of the robotic device.
Claim 37:
Benton teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 36, further comprising: responsive to determining that the position of the remotely operated equipment overlaps the at least one virtual barrier, automatically restricting at least one motion of the remotely operated equipment.
(Benton - [0010] In some embodiments, the method further includes saving data representing a forbidden zone near the crane, calculating a second, minimum vector between the forbidden zone and the boom, and limiting, by the computing device, movement of the boom to prevent the second vector from reaching a zero magnitude. In some embodiments, limiting movement of the boom includes establishing a threshold vector magnitude, changing a crane function responsive to the magnitude of the minimum vector between the hook and the working radius being less than the threshold vector magnitude. In some embodiments, changing the crane function comprises slowing down the movement of the boom in at least one direction that moves the hook closer to the working radius. In some embodiments, limiting movement of the boom further includes establishing a shutdown threshold vector magnitude, and stopping movement of the boom in response to the magnitude of the minimum vector between the hook and the working radius being less than the threshold vector magnitude.)
Claim 38:
Benton teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 36, further comprising: responsive to determining that the position of the remotely operated equipment overlaps the at least one virtual barrier, automatically redirecting at least one motion of the remotely operated equipment.
(Benton - [0010] In some embodiments, the method further includes saving data representing a forbidden zone near the crane, calculating a second, minimum vector between the forbidden zone and the boom, and limiting, by the computing device, movement of the boom to prevent the second vector from reaching a zero magnitude. In some embodiments, limiting movement of the boom includes establishing a threshold vector magnitude, changing a crane function responsive to the magnitude of the minimum vector between the hook and the working radius being less than the threshold vector magnitude. In some embodiments, changing the crane function comprises slowing down the movement of the boom in at least one direction that moves the hook closer to the working radius. In some embodiments, limiting movement of the boom further includes establishing a shutdown threshold vector magnitude, and stopping movement of the boom in response to the magnitude of the minimum vector between the hook and the working radius being less than the threshold vector magnitude.)
Claim 39:
Benton teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 36, further comprising: generating a second virtual barrier associated with a second object within the remote operating environment.
(Benton - [0060] FIG. 6 illustrates another embodiment in which the maximum horizontal working distance surface 34, 36 is combined with a working range limiter (WRL). The functioning of a working range limiter is described in the aforementioned U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/096,041 and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/974,812. With this combination, forbidden zones or obstacles are defined for the space around the crane. The forbidden zones or obstacles may be treated the same as the maximum horizontal working distance surface 34, 36 with the proximity vector pointing to the nearest of the forbidden zone and maximum horizontal working distance surface. A forbidden zone may be, for example, an area beyond the maximum horizontal working range. In addition, or alternatively, the load on a hook may be limited by boom stiffness as a boom lift angle increases. Thus, another forbidden zone may be near the crane corresponding to a relatively high lift angle and/or boom length. Another forbidden zone may be a volume substantially defining an obstacle, or plane defining, for example, a maximum lift height or a face of an obstacle, such as a building or other object at the worksite.)
Claim 40:
Benton teaches the following limitations:
The method of claim 39, further comprising: generating an equipment virtual barrier associated the remotely operated equipment.
(Benton – [0044] … In FIG. 3, a first maximum horizontal working distance 20 is defined to the right side of the crane 10, while a second maximum horizontal working distance 22 is defined to the rear of the crane 10. Other cylindrical or partially cylindrical 3D surfaces would exist to the front and left hand side of the crane 10, but are not shown here for the sake of clarity. While this particular example would have four disjointed cylindrical or partially cylindrical 3D surfaces, it is possible for there to be more or less than four cylindrical or partially cylindrical 3D surfaces. In some embodiments, the maximum horizontal working distance may be determined dynamically dependent upon the swing angle. ; [0059] FIG. 5 illustrates another 3D model of the crane boom 42 positioned relative to the maximum horizontal working distance surfaces 34, 36, 38, 40, but with multiple proximity vectors 44a, 44b. If the boom 12 were to swing clockwise as viewed from above, it would encounter a different maximum horizontal working distance surface 36, not accounted for in the first proximity vector 44a. Therefore, a second proximity vector 44b is used to affect the crane control system. With the addition of the second proximity vector 44b, the crane control system 300 may inhibit a clockwise swing movement until the boom were retracted such that it would no longer interfere with the different maximum horizontal working distance surface 36 when swung clockwise.)
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benton (US 20180057318 A1) as modified by Sykes (US 20210331321 A1) and Schoonmaker (US 20180179029 A1) in view of Park (US 20210107156 A1) and Mourlam (US 20240033925 A1)
Claim 25:
Benton in combination with Sykes and Schoonmaker does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Park teaches:
The method of claim 24, wherein the at least one position is identified based further in part on a [ coupled to the remotely operated equipment.
(Park - [0129] The robot 300 can include a manipulator 310 and a tool 320 coupled to the manipulator 310. According to embodiments, robot 300 can control the manipulator 310, and perform operations by using movements of the manipulator 310. For example, the robot 300 can move the tool 320 to a specific location by using the manipulator 310, and perform various operations by using the tool 320. ; [0140] The robot 300 can determine a location or positioning of the manipulator 310 and/or tool 320, generate an instruction for moving the manipulator 310 and/or tool 320 to the determined location and positioning, and control the manipulator 310 and/or tool 320 on the basis of the generated instruction. According to embodiments, the robot 300 can move the manipulator 310 and/or tool 320 from a first point to a second point. ; [0165] … According to embodiments, the processor 350 can monitor movements of the manipulator 310 during the teaching interval, and set a boundary by using points at which the manipulator 310 is located.)
Benton in combination with Sykes, Schoonmaker, and Park does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Mouriam teaches:
[picker tool [
(Mourlam - [0080] FIG. 7 depicts exemplary specialized tools 700 that may be used by robot unit 302 and high-capacity manipulator 304. … Various hot-stick tools may be adapted to couple to the manipulators to provide ease of use. … Any tools may be adapted or configured to couple to high-dexterity manipulators 310 and high-capacity manipulator 304.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benton, Sykes, and Schoonmaker to include a method for identifying the position of a tool being used by the robotic device as taught in Park and to further identify the position of a picker tool or (hot-stick) as taught in Mourlam. Having the ability to identify the position of the picker tool or (hot-stick) provides a known position for the placement of a virtual boundary and clearly marks the location as a position to be avoided.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benton (US 20180057318 A1) as modified by Sykes (US 20210331321 A1) and Schoonmaker (US 20180179029 A1) in view of Mourlam (US 20240033925 A1)
Claim 26:
Benton in combination with Sykes and Schoonmaker does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Mouriam teaches:
The method of claim 21, wherein the at least one position is identified automatically using computer-vision technique.
(Mourlam - [0052] In some embodiments, robot unit 302 may further comprise at least one depth camera 308 for capturing three-dimensional depth information. The three-dimensional data from depth camera 308 may be used to determine a position of an object in view such that high-capacity manipulator 304 and high-dexterity manipulators 310 may interact with the objects in view automatically or autonomously. Furthermore, in-depth information may be provided to operator 112 to gain a better understanding of the location of the objects in view.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benton, Sykes, and Schoonmaker to a method of using cameras and visual sensors to determine positions as taught in Mourlam. Having the ability to identify the positions of objects and the remotely operated device via computer-vision techniques increases the accuracy of the remotely controlled equipment and its position in relationship to virtual barriers.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benton (US 20180057318 A1) as modified by Sykes (US 20210331321 A1) and Schoonmaker (US 20180179029 A1) in view of Das (US 20160171862 A1)
Claim 29:
Benton in combination with Sykes and Schoonmaker does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Das teaches:
The method of claim 28, further comprising: updating the overlay of the visual representation of the at least one virtual barrier based at least in part on a proximity of the remotely operated equipment to the at least one virtual barrier.
(Das - [0064] Then, the server 102 determines shape and area of a dynamic virtual fence 318 for the vehicle 310 based on the values of the real-time operational parameters using the look-up table. Accordingly, the server 102 sends information on the dynamic virtual fence 316 to the mobile devices 124A-G of the personnel 312A-G. The information may include the shape and area of the dynamic virtual fence 316, the location of the vehicle 310, the value of the risk factor, and the equipment identifier of the vehicle 310. Each of the mobile devices 124A-G renders the dynamic virtual fence 316 around the vehicle 310 on the map 300 according to the shape and area and the value of the risk factor. Also, the server 102 determines that the personnel 312D and 312E are moving towards the direction of movement of the vehicle 310 based on the location of the mobile devices 124D and 124E. The server 102 sends a warning signal to the mobile devices 124D and 124E. Accordingly, the mobile devices 124D and 124E generate an alert to the personnel 312D and 312E, respectively. In this manner, the personnel 312D and 312E may be prevented from a potential hazard that may be caused from the vehicle 310.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benton, Sykes, and Schoonmaker to include a method for updating the position of the remotely operated equipment in relation to the virtual barriers as taught in Das. Having the ability to update the position of remotely operated equipment in relationship to the virtual boundary ensures that the equipment remains in a safe position during operation in the vicinity of the virtual boundary.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benton (US 20180057318 A1) as modified by Sykes (US 20210331321 A1) and Schoonmaker (US 20180179029 A1) in view of Tamanaha (US 20190088025 A1)
Claim 33:
Benton in combination with Sykes and Schoonmaker does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Tamanaha teaches:
The method of claim 28, further comprising: at least partially suppressing the overlay based on a state of the remotely operated equipment.
(Tamanaha - [0075] The mobile application also has a User Interface (UI) component that displays video feed in the background and overlays any AR graphics or AR objects. The UI also has an interface to allow a user to create, place, or delete AR objects. Other UI functions include taking pictures and videos of a particular scene, which include the AR graphics and objects. The UI may include different menus and toolbars to adjust drone functions (e.g., auto takeoff); turn on/off “return home” features; camera setting such as, but not limited to, camera settings; and adjust AR settings. The AR settings may include options and features to create, manipulate the AR graphics and objects; turning the AR display on and off (i.e., providing the user with the ability to change the display to add or remove AR objects from being presented on the display); and adjusting background contrast.)
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benton, Sykes, and Schoonmaker to include the ability to suppress the graphic overlay as taught in Tamanaha. Having the ability to suppress or remove graphical images during operation of the remotely operated equipment allows the operator to better control the visual output of the virtual worksite which enhances safety and provides greater control for the operator.
Claims 34 and 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benton (US 20180057318 A1) as modified by Sykes (US 20210331321 A1) and Schoonmaker (US 20180179029 A1) in view of Park (US 20210107156 A1)
Claim 34:
Benton in combination with Sykes and Schoonmaker does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Park teaches:
The method of claim 28, wherein the at least one virtual barrier comprises a capsule shape defined by a line segment and a radius.
(Park - [0164] The processor 350 can receive coordinates of at least one point from the user (for example, through an interface, such as a touch interface or an audio-based interface), and set a boundary on the basis of the coordinates of the at least one point. According to embodiments, the processor 350 can provide a screen enabling the user to select a shape of the region (cylinder or sphere, etc.) through a display device. The user can select a shape of the region, and input coordinates of at least one point associated with the selected shape. The processor 350 can determine a boundary by using the selected shape and coordinates of the at least one point associated therewith. For example, when the shape selected by the user is a “planar surface”, and coordinates of a first point, a second point, and a third point are input, the processor 350 can set a planar surface including the first to third points as a boundary. Meanwhile, in addition to a planar surface, the user can select the shape from various shapes such as pillars, cones, spheres, curved surfaces, lines, and polyhedrons, and examples of the present disclosure are not limited thereto.)
Examiner Note:
Examiner notes wherein gleaning from the teachings of Park, specifically as in at least paragraph [0164] wherein "the processor 350 can provide a screen enabling the user to select a shape of the region (cylinder or sphere, etc.)" and further wherein, "the user can select the shape from various shapes such as pillars, cones, spheres, curved surfaces, line, and polyhedrons, and examples of the present disclosure are not limited thereto", that the virtual boundary may take any one of a plethora of shapes. As such, Examiner contends wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a virtual boundary conformed to the shape of a particular and/or desired object, including a capsule/pill shaped virtual boundary for a cylindrically shaped object, since Park teaches wherein establishing such boundaries provides more efficient and accurate control of said robot/manipulator.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benton, Sykes, and Schoonmaker to include a method for creating a shape for the virtual boundary that conforms to the shape of the obstacle as taught in Park. Having the ability to create the desired shape for a virtual boundary more efficiently provides coverage for the volume of the obstacle, which further increases safety and allows for the efficient movement of the robotic arm.
Claim 35:
Benton in combination with Sykes and Schoonmaker does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however Park teaches:
The method of claim 34, wherein the line segment is determined based on the at least one position and the radius is determined based on a parameter of the object.
(Park - [0164] The processor 350 can receive coordinates of at least one point from the user (for example, through an interface, such as a touch interface or an audio-based interface), and set a boundary on the basis of the coordinates of the at least one point. According to embodiments, the processor 350 can provide a screen enabling the user to select a shape of the region (cylinder or sphere, etc.) through a display device. The user can select a shape of the region, and input coordinates of at least one point associated with the selected shape. The processor 350 can determine a boundary by using the selected shape and coordinates of the at least one point associated therewith. For example, when the shape selected by the user is a “planar surface”, and coordinates of a first point, a second point, and a third point are input, the processor 350 can set a planar surface including the first to third points as a boundary. Meanwhile, in addition to a planar surface, the user can select the shape from various shapes such as pillars, cones, spheres, curved surfaces, lines, and polyhedrons, and examples of the present disclosure are not limited thereto.)
Examiner Note:
Examiner notes wherein gleaning from the teachings of Park, specifically as in at least paragraph [0164] wherein "the processor 350 can provide a screen enabling the user to select a shape of the region (cylinder or sphere, etc.)" and further wherein, "the user can select the shape from various shapes such as pillars, cones, spheres, curved surfaces, line, and polyhedrons, and examples of the present disclosure are not limited thereto", that the virtual boundary may take any one of a plethora of shapes. As such, Examiner contends wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a virtual boundary conformed to the shape of a particular and/or desired object, including a capsule/pill shaped virtual boundary for a cylindrically shaped object, since Park teaches wherein establishing such boundaries provides more efficient and accurate control of said robot/manipulator.
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Benton, Sykes, and Schoonmaker to include a method for creating a shape for the virtual boundary that conforms to the shape of the obstacle as taught in Park. Having the ability to create the desired shape for a virtual boundary more efficiently provides coverage for the volume of the obstacle, which further increases safety and allows for the efficient movement of the robotic arm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Junio (US 20230113312 A1) describes systems, methods, and devices for defining a path for a robotic arm. One or more no-fly zones may be generated. The one or more no-fly zones correspond to a section of a work volume defined as inaccessible to a robotic arm and the work volume is defined as accessible to the robotic arm. A pose of an object may be determined and an obstacles map based on the determined pose and known dimensions of the object may be generated. A path for the robotic arm may be defined that avoids collision with the object identified in the obstacles map and avoiding the one or more no-fly zones.
Fujishima (US 5822891 A) describes a work area limitation control system for a construction machine which includes a second entrance forbidden area calculating portion which sets a second entrance forbidden area positioned closer to a front device than a first entrance forbidden area. A slowdown control calculating portion calculates distances between two monitoring points and the second and first entrance forbidden areas and modifies operation signals (pilot pressures) depending on the relation of the calculated distances with respect to a slowdown distance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW whose telephone number is (703)756-1854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 5.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270 5376. 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.
/ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights