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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No.JP2023-085606, filed on 05/24/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Control Unit – first recited in claim 1 see applicant’s specification paragraph 33 “The control unit 32 is a controller, and includes, for example, a microcomputer including a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), a RAM, aninput/output port, and the like, and various circuits”
Detection Unit – first recited in claim 1 see applicant’s specification paragraph 28 “The detection unit 12 may be a plurality of types of sensors, or the like.” Examiner submits that for examination purposes the Detection Unit will be interpreted as a sensor or the like.
Flight Control Unit – first recited in claim 7 see applicant’s specification paragraph 132 “The microcomputer 52 includes a suspicious object detection unit 53 and a flight control unit 54.” Examiner submits that for examination purposes the Flight Control Unit will be interpreted as a function of a processor/CPU or the like.
Suspicious Object Detection Unit – first recited in claim 7 see applicant’s specification paragraph 33 “The control unit 32 includes a suspicious object detection unit 35, a drone control unit 36, and a robot control unit 37.” Examiner submits that for examination purposes the Suspicious Object Detection Unit will be interpreted as a function of a controller/processor or the like.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehara (US 2019/0196514 A1) in view of Kominami (US 2022/0250747 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kanehara teaches a tracking robot comprising: a first tracking drone capable of tracking a suspicious object and tracking the suspicious object [(see at least paragraphs 20, 126) As in 20 “the autonomous mobile object may be provided with a small-size, battery-powered unmanned aircraft, which may be used to pursue a target object. This enables pursuit to be carried out without being affected by traffic conditions.” As in 126 “the autonomous vehicle 100 acquires information about features of a target person or a target vehicle and detects the target person or the target vehicle using captured images.”]; a robot main body capable of traveling autonomously in which the first tracking drone is capable of arriving and departing [(see at least paragraphs 20, 137) As in 137 “When the unmanned aircraft 801 is separated from the autonomous vehicle 100 by more than a certain distance during the pursuit, the autonomous vehicle 100 may move to follow the unmanned aircraft 801 .”]; a detection unit that detects a situation around the robot main body [(see at least paragraph 28) “the autonomous mobile object can be used as a surveillance camera that moves on a real-time basis.”];
Kanehara teaches a control unit that controls the first tracking drone and causes the robot main body to travel autonomously depending on the situation detected by the detection unit [(see at least paragraphs 9,68) As in 9 “a positional information sender configured to acquire positional information and send it to the server apparatus, and an operation controller configured to cause the autonomous mobile object to move autonomously on the basis of an operation command.”], wherein in a case where the suspicious object is detected, the control unit causes the first tracking drone to depart from the robot main body and tracking the first tracking drone toward the suspicious object. [(see at least paragraphs 133-142) As in 134 “The autonomous vehicle 100 according to the fourth embodiment is provided with a battery-powered unmanned, aircraft 801 equipped with a camera as shown in FIG. 8. The unmanned aircraft 801 is capable of sending images captured by its camera to the autonomous vehicle 100. The unmanned aircraft 801 can be charged on an aircraft base provided on the autonomous vehicle 100.” As in 135 “after the target detection part 1034 detects the target, the flight of the unmanned aircraft 801 is started. Images captured by the unmanned aircraft 801 are sent to the target detection part 1034 by wireless communication. The target detection part 1034 controls the flight of the unmanned aircraft 801 in such a way as to continuously capture the target found by the camera 106 in the frame of the camera of the unmanned aircraft 801” As in 136 “it is possible to continue pursuit of the target person or the target vehicle without being affected by traffic conditions.”]
Kanehara does not explicitly teach firing the tracking mark from the first tracking drone toward the suspicious object.
However, Kominami teaches firing the tracking mark from the first tracking done toward the suspicious object. [(see at least paragraphs 110-115) As in 110 “FIG. 7B shows an example of a controller 240 for a shooting control. The controller 240 of the present example is a controller for the shooting control, and the steering of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 may be performed by another controller. The controller 230 and the controller 240 may be separately used by two persons. In addition, while the steering of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 is performed automatically, the shooting control may be performed manually. On the contrary, while the steering of the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 is performed manually, the shooting control may be performed automatically.” As in 113 “Different contents are respectively assigned to the first shooting button 241 to the third shooting button 243. By pressing the first shooting button 241, a harmless content such as water is shot. By pressing the second shooting button 242, a paint material for marking is shot. By pressing the third shooting button 243, an irritant such as capsaicin is shot.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to incorporate the teachings of Kominami of firing the tracking mark from the first tracking done toward the suspicious object in order to efficiently follow and track a suspicious object/body. [(Kominami 124)]
Regarding claim 2, Modified Kanehara has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kanehara does not explicitly teach wherein the tracking mark acquires position information of the tracking mark and transmits the position information of the tracking mark.
However, Kominami teaches wherein the tracking mark acquires position information of the tracking mark and transmits the position information of the tracking mark. [(see at least paragraph 125) “the marking material 104. In the present example, by marking the living body 600, it is possible to identify the captured living body 600 with shooting data in the past, and authenticate the individual living body 600 that is captured. For example, the unmanned aerial vehicle 100 stores contents such as the content marked on the living body 600, the shooting region, or the shooting time. After the living body 600 is captured, by searching for the marking material 104 applied to the living body 600 in the database, it is possible to acquire information of the living body 600 such as ecology and a frequently appearing location.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Kanehara to further incorporate the teachings of Kominami of wherein the tracking mark acquires position information of the tracking mark and transmits the position information of the tracking mark in order to efficiently follow and track a suspicious object/body. [(Kominami 124)]
Regarding claim 4, Modified Kanehara has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kanehara further teaches wherein the control unit controls at least one of the robot main body and the first tracking drone to track the suspicious object [(see at least paragraphs 9,20, 126) As in 9 “] Specifically, the autonomous mobile object has an imaging unit configured to capture an image, a positional information sender configured to acquire positional information and send it to the server apparatus, and an operation controller configured to cause the autonomous mobile object to move autonomously on the basis of an operation command.” As in 20 “the autonomous mobile object may be provided with a small-size, battery-powered unmanned aircraft, which may be used to pursue a target object. This enables pursuit to be carried out without being affected by traffic conditions.” As in 126 “the autonomous vehicle 100 acquires information about features of a target person or a target vehicle and detects the target person or the target vehicle using captured images.”]
Kanehara does not explicitly teach tracking the suspicious object based on a predicted escape path predicted from position information of the tracking mark.
However, Kominami teaches tracking the suspicious object based on a predicted escape path predicted from position information of the tracking mark. [(see at least paragraphs 120-124) As in 120 “FIG. 8C shows an example of a procedure of shooting the content to the living body 600. FIG. 8C shows a situation which occurs after the example shown in FIG. 8B, and in which another content is selected to drive away the living body 600. The living body 600 of the present example has learned that the content 101 is harmless; however, a content 103, which is more irritating than the content 101, is shot and the living body 600 escapes.” As in 124 “The marking material 104 is, in an example, fluorescent paint for coloring the living body 600. The marking material 104 may be a material for following a track of the living body 600, or may be a material for following an odor.”]
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Kanehara to further incorporate the teachings of Kominami of tracking the suspicious object based on a predicted escape path predicted from position information of the tracking mark in order to track by searching for the marking material applied to the living body/suspicious object in the database, it is possible to acquire information of the living body/suspicious object. [(Kominami 125)]
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehara in view of Kominami and in further view of Cellerier (US 2023/0168332 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Kanehara has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kanehara does not explicitly teach wherein position information of the tracking mark is transmitted to a second tracking drone having a longer flight distance than the first tracking drone, and the second tracking drone flies to track the suspicious object based on the position information of the tracking mark.
However, Cellerier teaches wherein position information of the tracking mark is transmitted to a second tracking drone having a longer flight distance than the first tracking drone, and the second tracking drone flies to track the suspicious object based on the position information of the tracking mark. [(see at least Figs.4-5, paragraphs 82-91) As in 82 “each search sub-zone is associated with a route plan across said sub-zone, every route plan being based on the calculation of a shortest path for covering the associated sub-zone depending on at least one element belonging to the group comprising at least the capabilities of the patroller to which said sub-zone is assigned, the type of detector carried by said patroller, the topology of the terrain, the current aerology.” As in 88 “The inputs of such a calculation correspond to the number of patrollers configured to actively detect a signal representative of an avalanche victim, and, for each patroller, to the autonomy thereof in terms of electronic search equipment, the performance thereof such as the speed of movement thereof, the capacity thereof to rise in altitude, the types and performance of the electronic equipment such as the type and performance of the detectors/sensors, meteorological and aerological data including in particular the wind speed and direction, the surface area to be covered including the surface area due to the terrain”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Kanehara to incorporate the teachings of Cellerier of wherein position information of the tracking mark is transmitted to a second tracking drone having a longer flight distance than the first tracking drone, and the second tracking drone flies to track the suspicious object based on the position information of the tracking mark in order to detect a signal representative of the presence of a victim/suspicious object. [(Cellerier 94)]
Regarding claim 6, Modified Kanehara has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Modified Kanehara teaches a tracking system comprising: the tracking robot according to claim 1. [(see at least rejection for claim 1)]
Kanehara does not explicitly teach a second tracking drone having a longer flight distance than the first tracking drone.
However, Cellerier teaches a second tracking drone having a longer flight distance than the first tracking drone. [(see at least Fig.4, paragraphs 86-91) As in 90 “ such a concatenation begins with a ground patroller equipped with an electronic equipment E called AVDALD for the application of a search for an avalanche victim, associated with a capacity of traveled distance DP[1] and an achievable coverage C[1], continues with a drone patroller 1 associated with a capacity of traveled distance DP[2] and an achievable coverage C[2], followed by a drone patroller 2 associated with a capacity of traveled distance DP[3] and an achievable coverage C[3], followed by a drone patroller 3 associated with a capacity of traveled distance DP[4] and an achievable coverage C[4], etc. until all patrollers are taken into account so as to obtain the total achievable coverage and the total route capacity which can be provided by the plurality of patrollers.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Kanehara to incorporate the teachings of Cellerier of a second tracking drone having a longer flight distance than the first tracking drone in order to obtain the total achievable coverage and the total route capacity which can be provided by the plurality of patrollers. [(Cellerier 90)]
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehara in view of Kominami and in further view of Weinheber (WO 2022/234574 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Kanehara has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Kanehara does not explicitly teach wherein at least one piece of information relating to a traveling path of the robot main body, a flight path of the first tracking drone, and a flight path of a second tracking drone having a longer flight distance than the first tracking drone is generated by a text generation model.
However, Weinheber teaches wherein at least one piece of information relating to a traveling path of the robot main body, a flight path of the first tracking drone, and a flight path of a second tracking drone having a longer flight distance than the first tracking drone is generated by a text generation model. [(see at least page 7 lines 3-7, page 12 lines 1-8) As in page 7 “ the first drone and/or the second drone are detected and tracked using one or more Machine Learning (ML) models trained to predict the position of the first drone and/or of the second drone based on a flight pattern of the first drone and/or of the second drone respectively identified based on analysis of the second image stream and/or the first image stream respectively.” As in page 12 “The position of the drone(s) may be predicted based on its position detected in one or more previous images of its respective image stream(s), for example, periodically extracted images. Predicting the drones’ position may be done using one or more prediction methods, algorithms and/or models, for example, statistical model, machine learning models and/or the like which may be configured, adapted and/or trained to predict the position of drones based on their previous positions and/or identified flight pattern.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Kanehara to incorporate the teachings of Weinheber of wherein position information of the tracking mark is transmitted to a second tracking drone having a longer flight distance than the first tracking drone, and the second tracking drone flies to track the suspicious object based on the position information of the tracking mark in order to effectively ensure increased range, improved reliability, advanced control and/or the like which inevitably leads to increased availability of cost effective drone solutions. [(Weinheber Page 1)]
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehara in view of Kerzner (US 2018/0165504 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kanehara teaches a drone comprising: an airframe capable of flying autonomously; a suspicious object detection unit that detects a suspicious object [(see at least paragraphs 20, 126) As in 20 “the autonomous mobile object may be provided with a small-size, battery-powered unmanned aircraft, which may be used to pursue a target object. This enables pursuit to be carried out without being affected by traffic conditions.” As in 126 “the autonomous vehicle 100 acquires information about features of a target person or a target vehicle and detects the target person or the target vehicle using captured images.”]; and a flight control unit that causes the airframe to fly autonomously to fly along a flight path that tracks the suspicious object [(see at least paragraphs 20, 137) As in 137 “When the unmanned aircraft 801 is separated from the autonomous vehicle 100 by more than a certain distance during the pursuit, the autonomous vehicle 100 may move to follow the unmanned aircraft 801 .”]
Kanehara does not explicitly teach blocks an escape direction of the suspicious object in a case where the suspicious object is detected.
However, Kerzner teaches blocking an escape direction of the suspicious object in a case where the suspicious object is detected. [(see at least paragraph 24) “For example, the monitoring system provides on-demand monitoring and pre-surveillance of portions of one or more properties without detection of an alarm event and within instructing the drone to navigate to a particular sensor location. Such a system can reduce crimes by stopping a person from traveling along a path whether a potential trespasser, hazard, or other threat may have been detected by the drone.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to incorporate the teachings of Kerzner of blocking an escape direction of the suspicious object in a case where the suspicious object is detected in order to stop a suspicious object/person from traveling along a certain path. [(Kerzner 24)]
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanehara in view of Cao (WO 2018/188362 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kanehara teaches a tracking robot comprising: a drone capable of tracking a suspicious object [(see at least paragraphs 20, 126) As in 20 “the autonomous mobile object may be provided with a small-size, battery-powered unmanned aircraft, which may be used to pursue a target object. This enables pursuit to be carried out without being affected by traffic conditions.” As in 126 “the autonomous vehicle 100 acquires information about features of a target person or a target vehicle and detects the target person or the target vehicle using captured images.”]; a robot main body capable of traveling autonomously in which the drone is capable of arriving and departing [(see at least paragraphs 20, 137) As in 137 “When the unmanned aircraft 801 is separated from the autonomous vehicle 100 by more than a certain distance during the pursuit, the autonomous vehicle 100 may move to follow the unmanned aircraft 801 .”]; a detection unit that detects a situation around the robot main body [(see at least paragraph 28) “the autonomous mobile object can be used as a surveillance camera that moves on a real-time basis.”]; and a control unit that controls the drone and causes the robot main body to travel autonomously depending on the situation detected by the detection unit, [(see at least paragraphs 9,68) As in 9 “a positional information sender configured to acquire positional information and send it to the server apparatus, and an operation controller configured to cause the autonomous mobile object to move autonomously on the basis of an operation command.”]
Kanehara does not explicitly teach wherein the robot main body includes a body portion, a leg portion movably attached to the body portion, and a roller that is provided on the leg portion and that moves the robot main body, and the control unit is capable of switching between first traveling by movement of the leg portion and second traveling by the roller.
However, Cao teaches wherein the robot main body includes a body portion, a leg portion movably attached to the body portion, and a roller that is provided on the leg portion and that moves the robot main body, and the control unit is capable of switching between first traveling by movement of the leg portion and second traveling by the roller. [(see at least Figs.4-6, Summary of Invention paragraphs 1-4) “the present invention provides a robot motion mechanism including a connection assembly, a rolling assembly connected to the connection assembly, and a walking assembly connected to the connection assembly; the motion mechanism can be in the first working state and the second Switching between working states; when the moving mechanism is in the first working state, the bottom of the rolling component contacts the ground, and the bottom of the walking component leaves the ground; when the moving mechanism is in the second working state, the bottom of the walking component contacts the ground, and the rolling component The bottom is off the ground.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kanehara to incorporate the teachings of Cao of wherein the robot main body includes a body portion, a leg portion movably attached to the body portion, and a roller that is provided on the leg portion and that moves the robot main body, and the control unit is capable of switching between first traveling by movement of the leg portion and second traveling by the roller in order for the robot to efficiently adapt to various complicated terrains. [(Cao Background)]
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2020/0073385 A1) Jobanputra - APPLICATIONS AND SKILLS FOR AN AUTONOMOUS UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE
(US 2019/0324460 A1) Egner - Methods And Apparatus For Regulating A Position Of A Drone
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA whose telephone number is (571)272-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 with flex.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
