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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on May 6, 2026 for the patent application 17/386,975 originally filed on July 28, 2021. Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 13-18, and 20 are amended. Claim 19 is canceled. Claims 1-18, 20, and 21 remain pending. The first office action of August 13, 2024, the second office action of March 7, 2025, the third office action of October 1, 2025, and the fourth office action of February 26, 2026 are fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on March 17, 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments are not sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 12-18 under 35 USC 103, for reasons set forth below.
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-11, 20, and 21 under 35 USC 103. However, new prior art rejections under 35 USC 103 are set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor et al. (hereinafter “O’Connor,” US 2006/0025894) in view of Posselius et al. (hereinafter “Posselius,” US 2010/0066517), and in further view of Foster et al. (hereinafter “Foster,” US 2010/0042297).
Regarding claim 1, O’Connor discloses a material loading vehicle (O’Connor Abstract, “A vehicle control system”; also O’Connor [0037] and [0043], showing by example that the vehicle may be a harvester), comprising:
…
identify one or more tutorial contents based on the tutorial-related criterion (O’Connor [0099], “Due to the complexity of the wheel angle calibration process, the user is provided with a tutorial, or an interactive set of instruction describing the process,” identifying the tutorial for display); and
a control system configured to control the material loading vehicle based on the one or more tutorial contents (O’Connor [0100], “The functions of the interactive calibration screen (FIG. 38) are described in the tutorial,” showing operator interface display of a tutorial screen).
O’Connor does not explicitly teach every limitation of a material conveyance subsystem configured to perform a material transfer operation that conveys material from the material loading vehicle to a receiving vehicle through a spout; a tutorial condition detection system configured to: detect … a state of the material transfer operation of the material loading vehicle that conveys the material from the material loading vehicle to the receiving vehicle; identify a tutorial-related criterion based on … the state of the material transfer operation.
While O’Connor paragraphs [0037] and [0043] describes by example that the vehicle may be a harvester, it does not explicitly teach that the vehicle performs a material transfer operation through use of a spout. Further, O’Connor paragraph [0099] teaches providing the user with a tutorial with interactive instructions describing the process of calibration for the vehicle (“Due to the complexity of the wheel angle calibration process, the user is provided with a tutorial, or an interactive set of instruction describing the process”), but does not specifically describe a material transfer operation or conditions for detecting a material transfer operation.
However, Posselius discloses a material conveyance subsystem configured to perform a material transfer operation that conveys material from the material loading vehicle to a receiving vehicle through a spout; a tutorial condition detection system configured to: detect … a state of the material transfer operation of the material loading vehicle that conveys the material from the material loading vehicle to the receiving vehicle; identify a tutorial-related criterion based on … the state of the material transfer operation (Posselius [0046], “One basic manner of informing the tractor driver is through a warning light 15 in the tractor dashboard: e.g. a green light 15 indicates a correct position of the grain cart 13 below the unloading tube 11 and a red light 15 indicates a bad position. Another manner of informing the operator is by showing the information graphically on the tractor display as shown in FIG. 8. The exit position of the unload tube 11 is depicted together with a symbolic presentation of the tractor 12 and grain cart 13 and shows any variations of their relative positions. As long as the unloading tube 11 is above the save zone 14 a green indicator or other confirmation is shown. However, as soon as the exit of the unloading tube 11 moves outside the save zone a red indicator is turned on and instructions 15 are presented to the driver in the form of arrows indicating the correct direction to steer. Other combinations of colors, lights and auditive instructions may be used to inform the tractor driver,” wherein sensors detect when the unloading tube moves outside the save zone [tutorial condition detection], in which case instructions are presented to the driver indicating the correct direction to steer [a tutorial]; also Posselius [0048], noting that “The spout of the forage harvester is the unloading tube 11”).
Posselius is analogous to O’Connor, as both are drawn to the art of agricultural equipment. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor, to include a material conveyance subsystem configured to perform a material transfer operation that conveys material from the material loading vehicle to a receiving vehicle through a spout; a tutorial condition detection system configured to: detect … a state of the material transfer operation of the material loading vehicle that conveys the material from the material loading vehicle to the receiving vehicle; identify a tutorial-related criterion based on … the state of the material transfer operation, as taught by Posselius, since it uses a known technique to improve similar devices (harvesters) in the same way. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
O’Connor in view of Posselius does not explicitly teach one or more configurable settings that control a state of the material transfer operation.
However, Foster discloses one or more configurable settings that control a state of the material transfer operation (Foster [0036], “The output performance portion 28 includes various operation controls C1 through Cn for controlling various operations or actions of the agricultural equipment. For a harvester, such controls C1 through Cn may, for example, include equipment and controls for setting or adjusting the harvester's speed, steerage, height of cutting or harvesting implements, distribution of crop residue, and positioning in the field, among numerous other possible actions, such as positioning of the harvester unloading device, including, by way of example, the unload tube of a combine harvester. For other agricultural equipment, such as grain transports and transporters, such controls may include various other controls. Typically, most, if not all, of such agricultural equipment will include at least speed and steerage controls, and many may also have controls for determining or updating the GPS position of the equipment and effecting communications with other equipment, including long distance communications”).
Foster is analogous to O’Connor in view of Posselius, as both are drawn to the art of agricultural equipment. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor in view of Posselius, to include one or more configurable settings that control a state of the material transfer operation, as taught by Foster, in order to facilitate the coordination of activities between and among various individual pieces or machines of agricultural equipment (Foster [0004]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, O’Connor does not explicitly teach wherein the tutorial condition detection system comprises: a detector configured to detect … the state of the material transfer operation and generate a detector signal indicative of the tutorial-related criterion.
However, Posselius discloses wherein the tutorial condition detection system comprises: a detector configured to detect … the state of the material transfer operation and generate a detector signal indicative of the tutorial-related criterion (Posselius [0046], “As long as the unloading tube 11 is above the save zone 14 a green indicator or other confirmation is shown. However, as soon as the exit of the unloading tube 11 moves outside the save zone a red indicator is turned on and instructions 15 are presented to the driver in the form of arrows indicating the correct direction to steer.,” wherein sensors detect when the unloading tube moves outside the save zone [detector], in which case instructions are presented to the driver indicating the correct direction to steer [tutorial]).
Posselius is analogous to O’Connor, as both are drawn to the art of agricultural equipment. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor, to include wherein the tutorial condition detection system comprises: a detector configured to detect … the state of the material transfer operation and generate a detector signal indicative of the tutorial-related criterion, as taught by Posselius, since it uses a known technique to improve similar devices (harvesters) in the same way. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
O’Connor in view of Posselius does not explicitly teach one or more configurable settings that control the state of the material transfer operation.
However, Foster discloses one or more configurable settings that control the state of the material transfer operation (Foster [0036], “The output performance portion 28 includes various operation controls C1 through Cn for controlling various operations or actions of the agricultural equipment. For a harvester, such controls C1 through Cn may, for example, include equipment and controls for setting or adjusting the harvester's speed, steerage, height of cutting or harvesting implements, distribution of crop residue, and positioning in the field, among numerous other possible actions, such as positioning of the harvester unloading device, including, by way of example, the unload tube of a combine harvester. For other agricultural equipment, such as grain transports and transporters, such controls may include various other controls. Typically, most, if not all, of such agricultural equipment will include at least speed and steerage controls, and many may also have controls for determining or updating the GPS position of the equipment and effecting communications with other equipment, including long distance communications”).
Foster is analogous to O’Connor in view of Posselius, as both are drawn to the art of agricultural equipment. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor in view of Posselius, to include one or more configurable settings that control the state of the material transfer operation, as taught by Foster, in order to facilitate the coordination of activities between and among various individual pieces or machines of agricultural equipment (Foster [0004]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster discloses wherein the tutorial condition detection system comprises: a user experience generation system configured to display an operator actuatable representation of tutorial content, of the identified filtered set of one or more tutorial contents, and to play the tutorial content, of the one or more tutorial contents, on an operator interface mechanism based on operator actuation of the operator actuatable representation of the tutorial content (see O’Connor Figs. 29-37; also O’Connor [0099], “In the first screen, the user has the option to "Skip Tutorial," which will skip the tutorial screens and bring the user directly to the interactive calibration screen (FIG. 38). This is useful for trained or experienced users who are familiar with the wheel angle calibration and do not require the tutorial. As with most of the calibration screens, the user is also able to "Cancel" the calibration and return to the main menu of the system. After pressing the "Continue" button, the user will be guided through the tutorial. The remaining tutorial screens allow the user to move forward or backwards through the calibration tutorial screens or cancel the calibration.”).
Regarding claim 7, O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster discloses wherein the one or more tutorial contents comprises video tutorial content and wherein the tutorial condition detection system comprises: a video playing system configured to play the video tutorial content, of the one or more tutorial contents (O’Connor [0028], “a guide can contain video and/or audio”).
Regarding claim 9, O’Connor and Foster does not teach wherein the material loading vehicle includes an automatic fill control system configured to automatically position the spout and wherein the detector comprises: a fill settings detector configured to detect a setting of the automatic fill control system and generate, as the detector signal indicative of the tutorial-related criterion, a setting signal indicative of the detected setting.
However, Posselius discloses wherein the material loading vehicle includes an automatic fill control system configured to automatically position the spout and wherein the detector comprises: a fill settings detector configured to detect a setting of the automatic fill control system and generate, as the detector signal indicative of the tutorial-related criterion, a setting signal indicative of the detected setting (Posselius [0048], “This system may be used on all Agricultural and Construction Equipment combinations where the knowledge of the relative position of a vehicle container combination 3 and a utility vehicle 5 having an unloading apparatus 11 is required. For instance unloading forage harvesters also require continuous interaction between the tractor driver and the harvester operator. The spout of the forage harvester is the unloading tube 11. Cold planers (to remove asphalt) load haul trucks via a folding "loading conveyor". It is required that the truck is positioned correctly with respect to the conveyor and during the loading of the truck the relative position will have to change within the boundaries of the container in order to evenly fill the truck,” detecting position and boundaries of the container to evenly fill the truck).
Posselius is analogous to O’Connor and Foster, as both are drawn to the art of agricultural equipment. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor and Foster, to include wherein the material loading vehicle includes an automatic fill control system configured to automatically position the spout and wherein the detector comprises: a fill settings detector configured to detect a setting of the automatic fill control system and generate, as the detector signal indicative of the tutorial-related criterion, a setting signal indicative of the detected setting, as taught by Posselius, since it uses a known technique to improve similar devices (harvesters) in the same way. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, O’Connor in view of Posselius does not explicitly teach wherein the material loading vehicle includes one or more operator interface mechanisms configured to receive operator input that define the one or more configurable settings that control the state of the material transfer operation.
However, Foster discloses wherein the material loading vehicle includes one or more operator interface mechanisms configured to receive operator input that define the one or more configurable settings that control the state of the material transfer operation (Foster [0036], “The output performance portion 28 includes various operation controls C1 through Cn for controlling various operations or actions of the agricultural equipment. For a harvester, such controls C1 through Cn may, for example, include equipment and controls for setting or adjusting the harvester's speed, steerage, height of cutting or harvesting implements, distribution of crop residue, and positioning in the field, among numerous other possible actions, such as positioning of the harvester unloading device, including, by way of example, the unload tube of a combine harvester. For other agricultural equipment, such as grain transports and transporters, such controls may include various other controls. Typically, most, if not all, of such agricultural equipment will include at least speed and steerage controls, and many may also have controls for determining or updating the GPS position of the equipment and effecting communications with other equipment, including long distance communications”).
Foster is analogous to O’Connor in view of Posselius, as both are drawn to the art of agricultural equipment. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor in view of Posselius, to include wherein the material loading vehicle includes one or more operator interface mechanisms configured to receive operator input that define the one or more configurable settings that control the state of the material transfer operation, as taught by Foster, in order to facilitate the coordination of activities between and among various individual pieces or machines of agricultural equipment (Foster [0004]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster discloses wherein the control comprises control of an operator interface mechanism to render an indication of the one or more tutorial contents (see O’Connor Figs. 5-12 and [0011], “FIGS. 5-12 are illustrations of screen displays from a calibration wizard of an embodiment guiding a user through a system test.”).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster, and in further view of Maru et al. (hereinafter “Maru,” US 2014/0164394).
Regarding claim 3, O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster does not teach wherein the one or more tutorial contents comprises a plurality of tutorial contents, and the tutorial condition detection system is configured to: filter the plurality of tutorial contents based on a recency threshold to identify a filtered set of one or more tutorial contents.
However, Maru discloses wherein the one or more tutorial contents comprises a plurality of tutorial contents, and the tutorial condition detection system is configured to: filter the plurality of tutorial contents based on a recency threshold to identify a filtered set of one or more tutorial contents (Maru Abstract, “serving content in response to content queries or requests. When a request is received, for content to be presented to a specified user, candidate content items are identified, possibly based on matches between attributes of the specified user and attributes of the items' target audiences. For each item, a history indicating the frequency (e.g., total number) and/or recency with which impressions of the candidate item (and/or related items) were previously presented to the specified user is retrieved and used to filter out candidate content items and/or collections of content items that have been already been served to the specified user a threshold number of times. Each remaining item's estimated value is computed, the results are ranked and the top-ranked item(s) are served,” selecting content by recency threshold).
Maru is analogous to O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster, as both are drawn to the art of content recommendation. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster, to include wherein the one or more tutorial contents comprises a plurality of tutorial contents, and the tutorial condition detection system is configured to: filter the plurality of tutorial contents based on a recency threshold to identify a filtered set of one or more tutorial contents, as taught by Maru, so that a single content item (tutorial) is served a sufficient number of times to elicit user action, but not so frequently that the user becomes annoyed with it (Maru [0007]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster does not teach wherein the tutorial condition detection system is configured to: detect presence of the recency threshold, wherein the presence of the recency threshold is indicative of at least one of: whether the operator has previously accessed a tutorial content, of the plurality of tutorial contents; or whether a tutorial content, of the plurality of tutorial contents, has been presented within a recency time threshold.
However, Maru discloses wherein the tutorial condition detection system is configured to: detect presence of the recency threshold, wherein the presence of the recency threshold is indicative of at least one of: whether an operator has previously accessed a tutorial content, of the plurality of tutorial contents; or whether a tutorial content, of the plurality of tutorial contents, has been presented within a recency time threshold (Maru Abstract, “serving content in response to content queries or requests. When a request is received, for content to be presented to a specified user, candidate content items are identified, possibly based on matches between attributes of the specified user and attributes of the items' target audiences. For each item, a history indicating the frequency (e.g., total number) and/or recency with which impressions of the candidate item (and/or related items) were previously presented to the specified user is retrieved and used to filter out candidate content items and/or collections of content items that have been already been served to the specified user a threshold number of times. Each remaining item's estimated value is computed, the results are ranked and the top-ranked item(s) are served,” detecting recency; also Maru [0042], “Users' behavior regarding content items served/presented to them is also recorded. A user's behavior may include clicking on a content item, requesting more information regarding a subject of the content item, requesting re-presentation of the item, requesting a similar or related item, and/or other activity that reflects an interest in the content item, a theme or subject of the content item or a provider or sponsor of the item,” tracking user access to content items; also Maru [0049], “any or all of the stored details may be used to determine whether or not to refrain from serving particular content to a user… otherwise suitable content for serving in response to a request may be filtered to eliminate content items based on various criteria or details,” refrain from serving particular content to the user based on stored details).
Maru is analogous to O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster, as both are drawn to the art of content recommendation. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster, to include wherein the tutorial condition detection system is configured to: detect presence of the recency threshold, wherein the presence of the recency threshold is indicative of at least one of: whether an operator has previously accessed a tutorial content, of the plurality of tutorial contents; or whether a tutorial content, of the plurality of tutorial contents, has been presented within a recency time threshold, as taught by Maru, so that a single content item (tutorial) is served a sufficient number of times to elicit user action, but not so frequently that the user becomes annoyed with it (Maru [0007]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster does not explicitly teach wherein the tutorial condition detection system is configured to: detect presence of the recency threshold, wherein the presence of the recency threshold is indicative of whether a tutorial content, of the plurality of tutorial contents, has previously been presented at the material loading vehicle.
However, Maru discloses wherein the tutorial condition detection system is configured to: detect presence of the recency threshold, wherein the presence of the recency threshold is indicative of whether a tutorial content, of the plurality of tutorial contents, has previously been presented at the material loading vehicle (Maru Abstract, “serving content in response to content queries or requests. When a request is received, for content to be presented to a specified user, candidate content items are identified, possibly based on matches between attributes of the specified user and attributes of the items' target audiences. For each item, a history indicating the frequency (e.g., total number) and/or recency with which impressions of the candidate item (and/or related items) were previously presented to the specified user is retrieved and used to filter out candidate content items and/or collections of content items that have been already been served to the specified user a threshold number of times. Each remaining item's estimated value is computed, the results are ranked and the top-ranked item(s) are served,” frequency, or total number, with which impressions were previously presented).
Maru is analogous to O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster, as both are drawn to the art of content recommendation. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster, to include wherein the tutorial condition detection system is configured to: detect presence of the recency threshold, wherein the presence of the recency threshold is indicative of whether a tutorial content, of the plurality of tutorial contents, has previously been presented at the material loading vehicle, as taught by Maru, so that a single content item (tutorial) is served a sufficient number of times to elicit user action, but not so frequently that the user becomes annoyed with it (Maru [0007]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster, and in further view of Huster et al. (hereinafter “Huster,” US 2009/0044505).
Regarding claim 8, O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster does not teach wherein the material loading vehicle comprises a camera that has a field of view and that is configured to capture an image of the receiving vehicle and wherein the detector comprises: a camera view detector configured to detect an orientation of the field of view of the camera and generate, as the detector signal indicative of the tutorial-related criterion, a camera view output signal indicative of the detected orientation of the field of view of the camera.
However, Huster discloses wherein the material loading vehicle comprises a camera that has a field of view and that is configured to capture an image of the receiving vehicle and wherein the detector comprises: a camera view detector configured to detect an orientation of the field of view of the camera and generate, as the detector signal indicative of the tutorial-related criterion, a camera view output signal indicative of the detected orientation of the field of view of the camera (see Huster Fig. 1 and [0016], “A technically simple conversion of the detection of the transport vehicle is achieved when the electro-optical device is designed as a camera which generates a three-dimensional image at least of the storage container to be filled, so that the stream of crop to be conveyed into the storage container can be controlled very precisely, in terms of optimum filling, as a function of the spatial conditions,” wherein the electro-optical device is a camera, a three dimensional image is an image, and a transport vehicle is a receiving vehicle; also Huster [0022], “provision is made… for electro-optical devices to be assigned to the transport vehicle and/or the storage container, the signal process device taking into consideration the information signals from these electro-optical devices when analysing the information signals from the further electro-optical device,” wherein a signal process device is a camera view detector and an information signal from an electro-optical device is an output signal; see also Huster Fig. 5 and [0024], “characteristic lines and/or orientation points to be visualised in the video sequence, the characteristic lines and/or the orientation points simulating at least the upper side wall edges,” detecting an orientation of the field of view of the camera).
Huster is analogous to O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster, as both are drawn to the art of agricultural vehicles. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster, to include wherein the material loading vehicle comprises a camera that has a field of view and that is configured to capture an image of the receiving vehicle and wherein the detector comprises: a camera view detector configured to detect an orientation of the field of view of the camera and generate, as the detector signal indicative of the tutorial-related criterion, a camera view output signal indicative of the detected orientation of the field of view of the camera, as taught by Huster, in order to simplify the image analysis and for faster detection of critical conditions (Huster [0024]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor in view of Posselius and Foster, and in further view of Christiansen et al. (hereinafter “Christiansen,” US 2022/0019240).
Regarding claim 11, O’Connor in view of Foster does not teach an alert condition detection system configured to sense an alert condition indicative of a travel speed change or a travel direction change of the material loading vehicle and generate an alert output signal indicative of the sensed alert condition.
However, Posselius discloses an alert condition detection system configured to sense an alert condition indicative of a travel speed change or a travel direction change of the material loading vehicle and generate an alert output signal indicative of the sensed alert condition (Posselius [0003], “the present invention may be used to particular advantage in automatic guidance systems… for synchronizing the movement /speed of a combine-harvester and a tractor equipped with a crop-loading wagon, to ensure a precise relative positioning of the two vehicles, and hence of the crop feed tube from the combine-harvester with respect to the crop-loading wagon.”; also Posselius [0046-0047], “As long as the unloading tube 11 is above the save zone 14 a green indicator or other confirmation is shown. However, as soon as the exit of the unloading tube 11 moves outside the save zone a red indicator is turned on and instructions 15 are presented to the driver in the form of arrows indicating the correct direction to steer. Other combinations of colors, lights and auditive instructions may be used to inform the tractor driver… In a further development the relative position data of the unloading apparatus 11 and the grain cart 13 may be used in tractor autoguidance and speed control systems, which will control the direction and speed of the tractor 12 to maintain the grain cart 13 below the exit of the unloading tube 11.”).
Posselius is analogous to O’Connor in view of Foster, as both are drawn to the art of agricultural equipment. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor in view of Foster, to include an alert condition detection system configured to sense an alert condition indicative of a travel speed change or a travel direction change of the material loading vehicle and generate an alert output signal indicative of the sensed alert condition, as taught by Posselius, since it uses a known technique to improve similar devices (harvesters) in the same way. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
O’Connor in view of Foster and Posselius further does not explicitly teach a communication system that communicates the alert output signal to a mobile application running on a mobile device in the receiving vehicle.
However, Christiansen discloses a communication system that communicates the alert output signal to a mobile application running on a mobile device in the receiving vehicle (Christiansen [0046], “the one or more computing devices has reference to the controller 44, including multiple devices that, taken together, may constitute the controller 44 as explained above. It will be appreciated, though, that in other embodiments the one or more computing devices may be separate from, but in communication with, the harvester 10. In those embodiments the one or more computing devices may include computing devices associated with a portable electronic device, such as a laptop computer, a tablet computer or a smartphone, may include computing devices embedded in another agricultural machine, such as a receiving vehicle, or both. Furthermore, in some embodiments the one or more computing devices may include computing devices from multiple machines or devices, such as a computing device on the harvester 10 and a computing device on the receiving vehicle.”).
Christiansen is analogous to O’Connor in view of Foster and Posselius, as both are drawn to the art of agricultural equipment. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor in view of Foster and Posselius, to include a communication system that communicates the alert output signal to a mobile application running on a mobile device in the receiving vehicle, as taught by Christiansen, in order to assist machine operators in maintaining the desired relative positions of the harvester and the receiving vehicle (Christiansen [0035]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posselius in view of Christiansen.
Regarding claim 12, Posselius discloses a material loading vehicle, comprising:
a material conveyance subsystem configured to convey material from the material loading vehicle to a receiving vehicle through a spout (Posselius [0048], noting that “The spout of the forage harvester is the unloading tube 11”);
an alert condition detection system configured to: identify a vehicle travel change comprising at least one of: a travel speed change of the material loading vehicle, or a travel direction change of the material loading vehicle; sense an alert condition based on the vehicle travel change relative to an alert criterion; and generate an alert output signal indicative of the sensed alert condition (Posselius [0003], “the present invention may be used to particular advantage in automatic guidance systems… for synchronizing the movement /speed of a combine-harvester and a tractor equipped with a crop-loading wagon, to ensure a precise relative positioning of the two vehicles, and hence of the crop feed tube from the combine-harvester with respect to the crop-loading wagon.”; also Posselius [0046-0047], “As long as the unloading tube 11 is above the save zone 14 a green indicator or other confirmation is shown. However, as soon as the exit of the unloading tube 11 moves outside the save zone a red indicator is turned on and instructions 15 are presented to the driver in the form of arrows indicating the correct direction to steer. Other combinations of colors, lights and auditive instructions may be used to inform the tractor driver… In a further development the relative position data of the unloading apparatus 11 and the grain cart 13 may be used in tractor autoguidance and speed control systems, which will control the direction and speed of the tractor 12 to maintain the grain cart 13 below the exit of the unloading tube 11.”); and
Posselius does not explicitly teach a communication system that communicates the alert output signal to a mobile application running on a mobile device in the receiving vehicle.
However, Christiansen discloses a communication system that communicates the alert output signal to a mobile application running on a mobile device in the receiving vehicle (Christiansen [0046], “the one or more computing devices has reference to the controller 44, including multiple devices that, taken together, may constitute the controller 44 as explained above. It will be appreciated, though, that in other embodiments the one or more computing devices may be separate from, but in communication with, the harvester 10. In those embodiments the one or more computing devices may include computing devices associated with a portable electronic device, such as a laptop computer, a tablet computer or a smartphone, may include computing devices embedded in another agricultural machine, such as a receiving vehicle, or both. Furthermore, in some embodiments the one or more computing devices may include computing devices from multiple machines or devices, such as a computing device on the harvester 10 and a computing device on the receiving vehicle.”).
Christiansen is analogous to Posselius, as both are drawn to the art of agricultural equipment. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Posselius, to include a communication system that communicates the alert output signal to a mobile application running on a mobile device in the receiving vehicle, as taught by Christiansen, in order to assist machine operators in maintaining the desired relative positions of the harvester and the receiving vehicle (Christiansen [0035]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Posselius in view of Christiansen discloses wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to: compare the vehicle travel change to a travel change threshold; detect occurrence of the alert condition based on the vehicle travel change satisfying the travel change threshold; and generate the alert output signal in response to the occurrence of the alert condition (Posselius [0046], “as soon as the exit of the unloading tube 11 moves outside the save zone a red indicator is turned on and instructions 15 are presented to the driver in the form of arrows indicating the correct direction to steer,” the unloading tube is connected to the driving vehicle, and wherein detecting the unloading tube moving outside the save zone is detecting the vehicle travel change).
Regarding claim 15, Posselius in view of Christiansen discloses wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: a travel direction change detector configured to detect whether a travel direction of the material loading vehicle changes by a threshold amount, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert output signal, a travel direction change signal indicative of the travel direction change (Posselius [0046-0047], “as soon as the exit of the unloading tube 11 moves outside the save zone a red indicator is turned on and instructions 15 are presented to the driver in the form of arrows indicating the correct direction to steer… In a further development the relative position data of the unloading apparatus 11 and the grain cart 13 may be used in tractor autoguidance and speed control systems, which will control the direction and speed of the tractor 12 to maintain the grain cart 13 below the exit of the unloading tube 11,” sensors measure changes in speed and travel direction. When the unloading tube moves too far as a result of the travel, instructions are provided including direction to steer indicative of travel direction change).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posselius in view of Christiansen, and in further view of Goldman-Shenhar (US 10,252,729).
Regarding claim 14, Posselius in view of Christiansen does not teach wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: a travel speed change detector configured to detect whether a travel speed of the material loading vehicle changes by a threshold amount, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert output signal, a travel speed change signal indicative of the travel speed change.
However, Goldman-Shenhar discloses wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: a travel speed change detector configured to detect whether a travel speed of the material loading vehicle changes by a threshold amount, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert output signal, a travel speed change signal indicative of the travel speed change (Goldman-Shenhar col. 7 lines 31-34, “when longitudinal acceleration indicates a speeding-up rate that exceeds a recommended acceleration threshold value, a high-acceleration alert is included in alert data 208,” wherein an acceleration is a speed change, a recommended acceleration threshold value is a threshold amount, and wherein a high-acceleration alert is a speed change signal).
Goldman-Shenhar is analogous to Posselius in view of Christiansen, as both are drawn to the art of vehicle alert systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Posselius in view of Christiansen, to include wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: a travel speed change detector configured to detect whether a travel speed of the material loading vehicle changes by a threshold amount, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert output signal, a travel speed change signal indicative of the travel speed change, as taught by Goldman-Shenhar, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, Posselius in view of Christiansen does not teach wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: an obstacle detector configured to detect whether the material loading vehicle encounters an obstacle, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert input signal, an obstacle signal indicative of encountering the obstacle.
However, Goldman-Shenhar discloses wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: an obstacle detector configured to detect whether the material loading vehicle encounters an obstacle, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert input signal, an obstacle signal indicative of encountering the obstacle (Goldman-Shenhar col. 8 lines 16-40, “a risk calculator 226 and an adaptive threshold module 218 are additionally included so that alert determination module 202 operates on adaptive threshold data 204 that has been adapted depending on driving conditions… the risk calculator 226 is configured to receive driving context data 228. The driving context data 228 represents conditions in which the vehicle 10 is driving… Vision system 74 is configured to image… an environment at least partly surrounding the vehicle 10. The vision system 74 is configured to localize and classify objects… in image data from one or more imaging sources (e.g. optical cameras, radar and/or lidar scanners, etc.) and to output classified and localized vision system data,” wherein the risk calculator and the vision system are an obstacle detector and an obstacle is an object classified by the vision system).
Goldman-Shenhar is analogous to Posselius in view of Christiansen, as both are drawn to the art of vehicle alert systems. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Posselius in view of Christiansen, to include wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: an obstacle detector configured to detect whether the material loading vehicle encounters an obstacle, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert input signal, an obstacle signal indicative of encountering the obstacle, as taught by Goldman-Shenhar, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posselius in view of Christiansen, and in further view of Steffen (US 4,068,223).
Regarding claim 17, Posselius in view of Christiansen does not teach wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: a clog detector configured to detect whether the material loading vehicle clogs, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert output signal, a clog signal indicative of the detected clog.
However, Steffen discloses wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: a clog detector configured to detect whether the material loading vehicle clogs, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert output signal, a clog signal indicative of the detected clog (Steffen col. 2 lines 54-59, “Should the duct become clogged, the cotton no longer flows so that pulses or signals caused by the passing cotton are eliminated or changed to produce an output signal for indicating that the cotton flow has failed for one reason or another, such as a clogged or partially blocked condition in the duct, or failure of the picker”).
Steffen is analogous to Posselius in view of Christiansen, as both are drawn to the art of agricultural vehicles. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Posselius in view of Christiansen, to include wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: a clog detector configured to detect whether the material loading vehicle clogs, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert output signal, a clog signal indicative of the detected clog, as taught by Steffen, so that the operator can be immediately alerted if a clog occurs (Steffen col. 1 lines 35-50). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posselius in view of Christiansen, and in further view of Swift et al. (hereinafter “Swift,” US 2020/0339132).
Regarding claim 18, Posselius in view of Christiansen does not teach wherein the material loading vehicle includes a controller area network (CAN) with a CAN bus and wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: a CAN message detector configured to detect a message on the CAN bus indicative of the alert condition, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert output signal, a CAN message signal indicative of the detected message.
However, Swift discloses wherein the material loading vehicle includes a controller area network (CAN) with a CAN bus and wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: a CAN message detector configured to detect a message on the CAN bus indicative of the alert condition, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert output signal, a CAN message signal indicative of the detected message (Swift [0050-0051], “The information linking device 102 is coupled to and/or communicates with other industrial vehicle system components via a suitable vehicle network bus 154… the vehicle network bus 154 may comprise a controller area network (CAN) bus… the controller 144 of the information linking device 102 connects with, understands and is capable of communication with native vehicle electronic components, such as traction controllers, hydraulic controllers, modules, devices, bus enabled sensors, displays, lights, light bars, sound generating devices, headsets, microphones, haptic devices, etc., collectively referred to as control module(s) 156. As such, the controller 144 can modify vehicle performance, e.g., by limiting a maximum travel speed, setting a maximum lift height, lift weight, etc., by communicating set points, performance tuning parameters, etc., to the appropriate control module 156 via the vehicle network bus 154,” wherein understanding communication from native vehicle electronic components is detecting a message on the CAN bus, and communicating with native vehicle electronic components generating a message signal indicative of the detected message).
Swift is analogous to Posselius in view of Christiansen, as both are drawn to the art of vehicle control. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Posselius in view of Christiansen, to include wherein the material loading vehicle includes a controller area network (CAN) with a CAN bus and wherein the alert condition detection system comprises: a CAN message detector configured to detect a message on the CAN bus indicative of the alert condition, and wherein the alert condition detection system is configured to generate, as the alert output signal, a CAN message signal indicative of the detected message, as taught by Swift, in order to allow electronic components of a vehicle to communicate with each other (Swift [0050]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor in view of Posselius, and in further view of Maru.
Regarding claim 20, O’Connor discloses a computer implemented method of controlling a material loading vehicle (O’Connor Abstract, “A vehicle control system”; also O’Connor [0037] and [0043], showing by example that the vehicle may be a harvester), the computer implemented method comprising:
…
controlling the material loading vehicle to render an indication of filter set of one or more tutorial contents through an operator interface mechanism (O’Connor [0099], “Due to the complexity of the wheel angle calibration process, the user is provided with a tutorial, or an interactive set of instruction describing the process,” identifying the tutorial for display; also O’Connor [0100], “The functions of the interactive calibration screen (FIG. 38) are described in the tutorial,” showing operator interface display of a tutorial screen).
O’Connor does not explicitly teach every limitation of operating a material conveyance subsystem to perform a material transfer operation that conveys material from the material loading vehicle to a receiving vehicle through a spout; dynamically detecting one or more variables related to a state of the material transfer operation of the material loading vehicle that conveys the material from the material loading vehicle to the receiving vehicle; identify a tutorial-related criterion based on the one or more variables related to the state of the material transfer operation.
While O’Connor paragraphs [0037] and [0043] describes by example that the vehicle may be a harvester, it does not explicitly teach that the vehicle performs a material transfer operation through use of a spout. Further, O’Connor paragraph [0099] teaches providing the user with a tutorial with interactive instructions describing the process of calibration for the vehicle (“Due to the complexity of the wheel angle calibration process, the user is provided with a tutorial, or an interactive set of instruction describing the process”), but does not specifically describe a material transfer operation or conditions for detecting a material transfer operation.
However, Posselius discloses a material conveyance subsystem to perform a material transfer operation that conveys material from the material loading vehicle to a receiving vehicle through a spout; dynamically detecting one or more variables related to a state of the material transfer operation of the material loading vehicle that conveys the material from the material loading vehicle to the receiving vehicle; identify a tutorial-related criterion based on the one or more variables related to the state of the material transfer operation (Posselius [0046], “One basic manner of informing the tractor driver is through a warning light 15 in the tractor dashboard: e.g. a green light 15 indicates a correct position of the grain cart 13 below the unloading tube 11 and a red light 15 indicates a bad position. Another manner of informing the operator is by showing the information graphically on the tractor display as shown in FIG. 8. The exit position of the unload tube 11 is depicted together with a symbolic presentation of the tractor 12 and grain cart 13 and shows any variations of their relative positions. As long as the unloading tube 11 is above the save zone 14 a green indicator or other confirmation is shown. However, as soon as the exit of the unloading tube 11 moves outside the save zone a red indicator is turned on and instructions 15 are presented to the driver in the form of arrows indicating the correct direction to steer. Other combinations of colors, lights and auditive instructions may be used to inform the tractor driver,” wherein sensors detect when the unloading tube moves outside the save zone [tutorial condition detection], in which case instructions are presented to the driver indicating the correct direction to steer [a tutorial]; also Posselius [0048], noting that “The spout of the forage harvester is the unloading tube 11”).
Posselius is analogous to O’Connor, as both are drawn to the art of agricultural equipment. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor, to include a material conveyance subsystem to perform a material transfer operation that conveys material from the material loading vehicle to a receiving vehicle through a spout; dynamically detecting one or more variables related to a state of the material transfer operation of the material loading vehicle that conveys the material from the material loading vehicle to the receiving vehicle; identify a tutorial-related criterion based on the one or more variables related to the state of the material transfer operation, as taught by Posselius, since it uses a known technique to improve similar devices (harvesters) in the same way. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
O’Connor in view of Posselius does not explicitly teach every limitation of identifying a plurality of tutorial contents, based on the tutorial-related criterion; filter the plurality of tutorial contents based on a recency threshold to identify a filtered set of one or more tutorial contents.
However, Maru discloses identifying a plurality of tutorial contents, based on the tutorial-related criterion; filter the plurality of tutorial contents based on a recency threshold to identify a filtered set of one or more tutorial contents (Maru Abstract, “serving content in response to content queries or requests. When a request is received, for content to be presented to a specified user, candidate content items are identified, possibly based on matches between attributes of the specified user and attributes of the items' target audiences. For each item, a history indicating the frequency (e.g., total number) and/or recency with which impressions of the candidate item (and/or related items) were previously presented to the specified user is retrieved and used to filter out candidate content items and/or collections of content items that have been already been served to the specified user a threshold number of times. Each remaining item's estimated value is computed, the results are ranked and the top-ranked item(s) are served,” selecting content by recency threshold).
Maru is analogous to O’Connor in view of Posselius, as both are drawn to the art of content recommendation. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by O’Connor in view of Posselius, to include identifying a plurality of tutorial contents, based on the tutorial-related criterion; filter the plurality of tutorial contents based on a recency threshold to identify a filtered set of one or more tutorial contents, as taught by Maru, so that a single content item (tutorial) is served a sufficient number of times to elicit user action, but not so frequently that the user becomes annoyed with it (Maru [0007]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on May 6, 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed below.
Regarding the claim rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the claim rejection of claim 12 under 35 USC 103, Applicant respectfully argues, “Posselius has not been shown to teach or suggest that the alleged material loading vehicle (cited combine harvester 5) includes ‘an alert condition detection system configured to: identify a vehicle travel change comprising at least one of: a travel speed change of the material loading vehicle, or a travel direction change of the material loading vehicle.’”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Referencing Posselius Fig. 6, the material loading vehicle is shown as combine harvester 5. In Posselius, the spout is connected to the harvester 5, and the position of the spout is monitored for changes in positioning that result from changes in direction and/or speed of the harvester and/or tractor 12. The Applicant points out in Posselius paragraph [0003] that the speed and direction of the tractor 12, and not the harvester, is controlled by the driver. However, the claims recite “a communication system that communicates the alert output signal to a mobile application running on a mobile device in the receiving vehicle,” wherein the “receiving vehicle” is the tractor 12 pulling the grain cart 13 in Posselius. Therefore, Posselius still reads on the recited claims, and the outstanding 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 12-18 are maintained.
Regarding the claim rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC 103, Applicant respectfully argues, “the proposed modification of O'Connor using Posselius is to provide an instruction to the driver of the correct direction to steer. There has been no showing of a motivation or rationale, let alone a reasonable expectation of success, to identify ‘a plurality of tutorial contents’ based on the alleged criterion. That is, there has been no showing of any rationale for another alleged ‘tutorial’ (direction to steer) other than the ‘correct direction to steer.’ Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art when faced with the alleged O'Conner/ Posselius combination would find no teaching or suggestion of ‘identifying a plurality of tutorial contents, based on the tutorial-related criterion [based on the one or more variables related to the state of the material transfer operation]’.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. O’Connor discloses determining when to present a “calibration tutorial” to the driver. Posselius is relied upon mainly for its teaching of controlling the vehicle so that a material transfer spout remains properly positioned. The guidance provided to the driver of how to steer the vehicle reads on the claimed “tutorial contents.”
The Examiner notes that claim 20 recites “identifying a plurality of tutorial contents,” not “identifying a plurality of tutorials” (emphasis added). A single tutorial can reasonably be interpreted as having a plurality of tutorial contents.
Nonetheless, the amended claim 20 now includes the limitation “filter the plurality of tutorial contents based on a recency threshold to identify a filtered set of one or more tutorial contents,” and is now further combined with the Maru reference. Though a “plurality of tutorial contents” is still claimed (instead of “plurality of tutorials”), with the combination with Maru, this argument is now moot, since Maru teaches recency filtering of a plurality of tutorials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hindryckx et al. (US 2010/0071329) Control system for an agricultural harvesting machine
Acheson et al. (US 2016/0330906) System and method for adjusting harvest characteristics
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights