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
The effective filing date is recognized as 12/21/2018, in continuity with GB1820986.6. However, applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB1820986.6. application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 06/21/2021 and 02/15/2024 have each been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
In response to Applicant’s amendments, dated July 16, 2025, Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, withdraws the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, issues new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, and identifies allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, dated July 16, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 30-39, 41-43, 46-47, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of Claims 40, 44-45 and 48 using Alves (US 20150049914 A1), previously of record, have been fully considered and are persuasive. There is insufficient motivation for combination with the newly cited references. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claim 40, 44, 45 and 48 are withdrawn. For similar reasons, Claims 42-43, relying on Gibson (US 20190206009), previously of record, are also allowable.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 30 recites, “a first computer-readable storage medium” and “a second non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. The claim language thus implies that the first computer-readable storage medium is also non-transitory. Examiner suggests, --a first non-transitory computer-readable storage medium--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 30-35, 37-39, and 41 are rejected as being obvious over Oliveira (US 20180376306 A1), newly of record, in view of Witt (US 20170301233 A1), newly of record, and Scofield (US 20140229255 A1), newly of record, herein after referred to simply as Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield respectively.
Regarding Claim 30,
Oliveira discloses the following limitations,
A system comprising: a first computer-readable storage medium storing congestion data associated with a geographical area (Paragraph [0103], “CV technologies enable the communication of real-time information about, for example, vehicle traffic, environmental conditions, unexpected events, and all kinds of context information that characterizes the roads on which the AVs are travelling. With such information, AVs are equipped to make optimized decisions in-advance of encountering situations such as, for example, congested travel routes, accidents or other obstacles along the road, etc.”)
a pollution server configured to provide live pollution data associated with the geographical area (Paragraph [0082], “The Cloud may, for example, comprise any of a variety of server systems executing applications that monitor and/or control components of the network 100.” and Paragraph [0061], “A Mobile AP may, for example, be operable to communicate with any of a variety of Wi-Fi-enabled sensor devices equipped with a heterogeneous collection of environmental sensors. Such sensors may, for example, comprise noise sensors (microphones, etc.), gas sensors (e.g., sensing CO, NO2, O3, volatile organic compounds (or VOCs), CO2, etc.), smoke sensors, pollution sensors”)
a coordination server for planning travel routes of a plurality of mobile devices in the geographical area (Paragraph [0082], “The Cloud may, for example, comprise any of a variety of server systems executing applications that monitor and/or control components of the network 100.” and
comprising: a communication interface arranged to receive location related data from the plurality of mobile devices indicating current locations and planned destinations of the plurality of mobile devices (Paragraph [0140], “A system in accordance with the present disclosure may log, aggregate and analyze data network connectivity, AV mobility, and data traces of AVs, and may derive patterns of road/highway usage, AV trips, the locations of end-users, and various demands upon the AVs and the system. A system as described herein may also operate to increase AV location accuracy by, for example, correlating GNSS/GPS data of different AVs and integrating such data into value-added maps of expected AV routes, destinations, and origins.” Trips and locations are tracked. The tracking can be performed through mobile devices, (Paragraph [0052], “The Mobile AP may, for example, be readily installed in or on private and/or public vehicles (e.g., individual user vehicles, vehicles of private fleets, vehicles of public fleets, autonomous vehicles, etc.). The Mobile AP may, for example, be installed in transportation fleets, waste management fleets, law enforcement fleets, emergency services, road maintenance fleets, taxi fleets, aircraft fleets, etc. The Mobile AP may, for example, be installed in or on a vehicle or other structure with free mobility or relatively limited mobility. The Mobile AP may also, for example, be carried by a person or service animal, mounted to a bicycle, mounted to a moving machine in general, mounted to a container, etc.”).
a processor in communication with the first computer-readable storage medium and the pollution server (Paragraph [0082], “The Cloud may, for example, comprise any of a variety of server systems executing applications that monitor and/or control components of the network 100.”- servers, which are computers, contain processors, and are in communication with other networked computers with other processors)
and a second non-transitory computer-readable medium storing machine readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, direct the processor to: receive congestion data, receive the live pollution data, determine a respective travel route for each of the plurality of mobile devices, by, by executing, by the processor a real-time multi-device route-optimization algorithm that dynamically adjusts behavioral incentives based on predicted congestion levels, (Paragraph [0153], “For example, if an end-user chooses to make a trip over a congested road, the end-user may be required to pay a fee based on the levels of congestion of the road on which they choose to travel.”) air-quality indices, (Paragraph [0232], “The AVs may then react to these detected pollution levels—e.g., attempt to reduce pollution levels, such as by adjusting AV's route in order to avoid regions with high pollution levels” – route planning involves both pollution and congestion information, and thus, alteration of routes based on congestion, and associated fees, also involves the planning around pollution. But furthermore, Paragraph [0224], “reduction of pollution levels (e.g., by adjusting vehicle actions to current environmental measurements and analysis);” alongside Paragraph [0116], ‘The system may provide for system and end-user tracking of AV usage, and that includes functionality that provides for the handling of various end-user incentives and/or tax exemptions based on the reductions of overall emissions resulting from the use of AVs for end-user travel”)
so as to coordinate the travel routes of the plurality of mobile devices to alleviate congestion and/or air pollution within a geographical area (Paragraph [0113], “Such a system may support a set of challenging services and strategies used when operating a FAVES according to a MaaS paradigm, and works to, for example, reduce city congestion, reduce vehicle emissions, decrease costs to the end-user, improve utilization of transit providers, and enable the collaboration of different fleets of vehicles.”)
wherein the behavioral incentives comprise route-specific fees, (Paragraph [0153], “For example, if an end-user chooses to make a trip over a congested road, the end-user may be required to pay a fee based on the levels of congestion of the road on which they choose to travel.”) rewards, (Paragraph [0116], ‘The system may provide for system and end-user tracking of AV usage, and that includes functionality that provides for the handling of various end-user incentives and/or tax exemptions based on the reductions of overall emissions resulting from the use of AVs for end-user travel”)
and control the communication interface to transmit the determined respective travel route for each mobile device to said mobile device (Paragraph [0148], “A system in accordance with the present disclosure may use information about context as input to algorithms, functions, and/or policies that may determine whether or not the AV is to, by way of example and not limitation, provide wireless connectivity to vehicle occupants; store or advertise data; travel over a particular route;”)
However, Oliveira does not disclose the following limitations,
behavioral incentives based on … vehicle-occupancy data,
the behavior incentives comprise … occupancy-based multipliers
However, Witt, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that vehicle occupancy can be factored in prioritizing vehicles (Paragraph [0044], “Alternatively, if the policy is to promote vehicle sharing, vehicles 2 having a higher occupancy may be given a higher priority than vehicles 2 having a lower occupancy. Alternatively, any other traffic management policy may be applied to determine the priorities of the vehicles 2.”)
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 route planning of Oliveira with the vehicle occupancy metric of Witt, as a transit control authority may wish to promote vehicle sharing (Paragraph [0044], “the policy is to promote vehicle sharing”). Furthermore, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, the combination of Oliveira and Witt does not teach the following limitation,
wherein the behavioral incentives comprise … trip-delay recommendations,
However, this is taught by Scofield, which teaches that a user can have travel time flexibility, and be given a delayed route (Paragraph [0005], “As yet another example, users that are likely to have flexibility with respect to travel time may be identified as candidates for the offer (e.g., because the users may be able to travel the route at a time when the route is less congested).”), so that users can be given financial offers to deviate from a given route Paragraph [0005], “For example, users having a highest probability of traveling the route during the specified time window may be identified as candidates for the offer. As another example, users that have an option to take an alternate route (e.g., without substantially increasing travel time and/or distance) may be identified as candidates for the offer.”) for the purpose of traffic management (Abstract, “Outstanding offers are revoked once a sufficient number of offers are accepted (e.g., to achieve the desired load reduction).”).
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 vehicle management system of Oliveira, as previously modified by Witt, with the trip-delay recommendation of Scofield, as this allows for users to balance optimal load of a road network. Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 31, The combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 30. Witt further already teaches the following limitation,
and assign a priority level to each planned route, wherein assigning the priority level is based on one or more of the following: a respective mode of transport associated with the mobile device, and the live pollution data (Paragraph [0044], “Alternatively, if the policy is to promote vehicle sharing, vehicles 2 having a higher occupancy may be given a higher priority than vehicles 2 having a lower occupancy. Alternatively, any other traffic management policy may be applied to determine the priorities of the vehicles 2.”)
Scofield further already teaches the following limitation,
plan more than one respective travel route for each of the plurality of mobile devices (Paragraph [0005], “For example, users having a highest probability of traveling the route during the specified time window may be identified as candidates for the offer. As another example, users that have an option to take an alternate route (e.g., without substantially increasing travel time and/or distance) may be identified as candidates for the offer.” – a vehicle is expective to travel on both a typical route and can be offered an alternative route. Multiple vehicles receive offers at the same time. Abstract, “Outstanding offers are revoked once a sufficient number of offers are accepted (e.g., to achieve the desired load reduction).”)
Regarding Claim 32,
Claim 32 recites limitations contained within Claim 30, except that the plurality of devices is at least 4 devices. Figure 4 of Oliveira depicts more than 4 end user devices (Paragraph [0097], “. Various example end user devices are shown at FIG. 4”) The combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 30, therefore, Claim 32 is also taught.
Regarding Claim 33 and 34
Claims 33 and 34, altogether, recite identical limitations to the material within Claim 31. As the combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, teaches the material of Claim 31, Claims 33 and 34 are therefore also taught..
Regarding Claim 35,
The combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 33. However, the combination does not teach the following limitation,
receiving air quality information for the geographical area from an air quality server, wherein the assigning priority levels is based on the air quality information
However this is taught by Scofield, which teaches that priority can be used, alongside congestion, to also manage pollution, based on a pollution target for a particular route (Paragraph [0017], “Accordingly, among other things, one or more systems and/or techniques for bettering managing loads and/or diverting traffic (e.g., to reduce congestion, reduce/alter pollution levels along one or more routes,).
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 vehicle management system of Oliveira, as previously modified by Witt, with the pollution prioritization of Scofield, as this allows for users to balance optimal emissions amongst the users in a road network. Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 37,
The combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 33. However, the combination does not teach the following limitation,
wherein the priority level for each planned route indicates a maximum emission level for a vehicle for that route
However, this is taught by Witt, which teaches that a vehicle prioritization can involve a maximum emission level for a route (Paragraph [0044], “For example, if the policy is to limit the production of emissions, e.g. CO2 or NOX, within the system 100, older vehicles 2, vehicles 2 without hybrid or electric powertrains, and/or vehicles with a higher emissions category may be given a higher priority” – a vehicle with a higher potential emission level can be dissuaded.)
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 route planning of Oliveira with the maximum vehicle emissions of Witt, as a transit control authority may wish to limit emissions (Paragraph [0044], “the policy is to limit the production of emissions,”). Furthermore, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 38,
The combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 32. However, the combination does not teach the following limitation,
receiving compliance data from the plurality of mobile devices; and determining whether a mobile device is following a permitted route based on the compliance data
However, this is taught by Scofield, which further teaches that its route offering system determines a user compliance (Paragraph [0079], “Also, the reward may be graduated based upon a degree of compliance with the terms of the offer. For example, if the user did not immediately exit the route, but instead took a second, third, etc. exit or off ramp to exit the route (e.g., and thus travelled at least some of the route), the reward may be reduced by a certain amount (e.g., 20 percent).”) through a mobile device monitoring (Paragraph [0049], “The acceptance component 310 is also operably coupled to a route monitoring component 312 configured to monitor movement of users that have respectively accepted an offer. By way of example, in some embodiments, recipient devices and/or other devices associated with respective users are configured to transmit position information, such as GPS coordinates, accelerator information, directional information, street names, etc. to a communication device (e.g., 208 in FIG. 2) operably coupled to the route monitoring component 312.”)
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 vehicle management system of Oliveira, as previously modified by Witt and Scofield, with the compliance assurance system of Scofield, as this allows an autonomous management to be expanded to a system of human drivers, who may not be automatically compliant, without a risk of being defrauded (Paragraph [0035], “If the system 206 determines that a user did not avoid the route during the specified time window (e.g., and thus did not satisfy the offer), the system 206 may withhold the reward from the user, for example.”).
Regarding Claim 39,
The combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 38. Scofield further already teaches the following limitation,
wherein the compliance data comprises location data received at the mobile device (Paragraph [0049], “The acceptance component 310 is also operably coupled to a route monitoring component 312 configured to monitor movement of users that have respectively accepted an offer. By way of example, in some embodiments, recipient devices and/or other devices associated with respective users are configured to transmit position information, such as GPS coordinates, accelerator information, directional information, street names, etc. to a communication device (e.g., 208 in FIG. 2) operably coupled to the route monitoring component 312.”)
Regarding Claim 41,
The combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 38. Scofield further already teaches the following limitation,
wherein the compliance data comprises microphone and/or accelerometer (Paragraph [0049], “The acceptance component 310 is also operably coupled to a route monitoring component 312 configured to monitor movement of users that have respectively accepted an offer. By way of example, in some embodiments, recipient devices and/or other devices associated with respective users are configured to transmit position information, such as GPS coordinates, accelerator information, directional information, street names, etc. to a communication device (e.g., 208 in FIG. 2) operably coupled to the route monitoring component 312.” – a mobile device, to send accelerator information, has an accelerometer).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield,, further in view of Balva (US 20210166192 A1), herein after referred to simply as Balva.
Regarding Claim 36,
The combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, as shown, teaches all of the limitations of Claims 33. However, the combination does not disclose the following limitation,
wherein the priority level for each planned route indicates a required minimum number of people per vehicle for that route
However, this is taught by Balva, which discloses priority based on minimum occupancy (Paragraph [0021], “A route optimization module 120 can perform an optimization process using the provided routing options to determine an appropriate set of routes to provide in response to the various requests. Such an optimization can be performed for each received request, in a dynamic routing system, or for a batch of requests, where users submit requests and then receive routing options at a later time. This may be useful for situations where the vehicle service attempts to have at least a minimum occupancy of vehicles or wants to provide the user with certainty regarding the route, which may require a quorum of riders for each specific planned route in some embodiments.” – where the priority is thus given to vehicles with minimum occupancy, as vehicles that cannot service a route, or would require a number of vehicles to do so, are thus suboptimal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Oliveira with the consideration of occupancy as taught by Balva, as some routes may require a minimum number of users to be efficiently dispatch vehicles (Paragraph [0021], “[a route] may require a quorum of riders for each specific planned route in some embodiments.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding predictable results.
Claims 46 and 47 are rejected as being obvious over Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, further in view of DeVaul (US 20080162088 A1), herein after referred to simply as DeVaul.
Regarding Claim 46,
The combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 32. However, the combination does not teach the following limitation,
determining a preferred operational mode for driving a vehicle along the planned route for at least one of the plurality of mobile devices
However, this is taught by DeVaul, which teaches the determination of a preferred operational mode (Paragraph [0029], “a motion classification for manned vehicles uses an accelerometer sensor and the classification system for vehicle fleet management, such as the management rental cars or delivery trucks. By classifying the type of terrain driven over, the frequency of hard acceleration or sudden stops, the system allows the assessment of driver compliance with safe driving regulations without the potentially invasive recording of GPS location data.” – where the safe driving limitations are an operational mode)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tracking of Gibson with the operational mode determination of DeVaul, as this allows the system to verify the safe operation of the vehicle transit system, and further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 47,
The combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 46. DeVaul further already teaches the following limitations,
determining whether the vehicle is operating in the preferred operational mode based on microphone and/or accelerometer data from the plurality of mobile devices (Paragraph [0029], “a motion classification for manned vehicles uses an accelerometer sensor”)
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, further in view of Ding (US 20200090519 A1), herein after referred to simply as Ding
Regarding Claim 49,
The combination of Oliveira, Witt, and Scofield, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 32. However, The combination does not teach the following limitations,
receiving parking space information from a first mobile device among the plurality of mobile devices, the parking space information being derived from an image captured by the first mobile device; and setting a final destination of a planned travel route for a second mobile device from among the plurality of mobile devices as the location of the available parking space
However this is taught by Ding, which discloses a first mobile device revealing a location of a parking space, which can be the destination for a second mobile device (Paragraph [0043], “a vehicle equipped with this system can quickly map the parking spot configuration of a parking lot or garage, including the number of parking spots, parking type distribution (e.g. percentage of handicapped parking), floor layout, etc. Such information would prove valuable for mapping companies and the like. Related to the cloud sharing of parking information, for all vehicles with this system installed, they could upload the detected parking spots, either occupied or vacant, with relevant information, such as types of parking spots, positions, sizes, and orientations of parking spots, etc. Such information could be shared among all nearby vehicles to help them locate available parking spots.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the routing of Oliveira with the parking determination of Ding, as this improves the service for users in an integrated transit system (Paragraph [0043], “Such information could be shared among all nearby vehicles to help them locate available parking spots.”). Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements yielding predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 40, 42-45, and 48 draw towards the usage of mobile phones as a broad surveillance system, not just in measuring an own vehicle, but in allowing multiple mobile devices the surveil the route compliance of other users, was not found in the prior art, insofar as such art would also be capable of enacting all of the given incentives and routing decisions of Claim 30. A full and complete search has been performed on the claimed limitations, in addition to an interference search, which yielded no sufficient art. The claims are thus allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stentz (US 20180209801 A1) discloses the selection of a route from a plurality of routes by weighted metrics (Paragraph [0073] “Based on the route inquiry 127, the control system 120 can receive a hierarchical set of alternative route options 192 from the backend transport system 190 (630). In certain examples, the route options 192 may be ranked according to cost (e.g., risk and/or time delta) (632). Additionally or alternatively, the route options 192 may further include one or more cost scores indicating the relative weight of the cost metric (634). For example, the risk metric may be scaled from one to one hundred, or the time metric may include an estimated added time for selecting a particular route option.”). Fletcher (US 20180090001 A1) discloses a traffic control system that coordinates the routes of autonomous vehicles (Paragraph [0038], “. Traffic control system 202 may be configured to monitor real-time and historical traffic around an area, such as a municipal area. … In some embodiments, the traffic control system 202 may also be configured to coordinate traffic control efforts of autonomous vehicles 100, such as by issuing command signals that cause one or more autonomous vehicles 100 to perform certain actions, such as start up, accelerate, brake, change direction, change routes, and/or other actions. In some embodiments, some or all of the autonomous vehicles may receive the same or different commands based on their location relative to a particular traffic event or condition.”) including a targeted reduction of pollution (Paragraph [0050], “In other embodiments, the traffic condition may include a request to reduce pollution at a particular location, such as a school, park, or sporting field. The location may also include a radius or other area in which the air quality is to be increased”), in coordination with an air quality reporting (Paragraph [0038], “Other entities such as an air quality system and/or other remote system 206 may also be in communication with the traffic control set 202 to provide information to the traffic control system 202 for use in manipulating traffic patterns.”). Sweeney (US 20180342035 A1) discloses coordinating rideshares based on overall traffic needs (Paragraph [0014], “When the progress by the requesting user and the AV diverge by a certain amount, the transport system can coordinate the requesting user and AV in order to prevent a missed pick-up. In certain implementations, such coordination may be weighed in favor of the user waiting at the optimal pick-up location as opposed to the AV to prevent potential traffic issues caused by the waiting AV.”). Vargas (US 10633003 B1) discloses a vehicle operation verification based on accelerometers (“In one embodiment, the UEs 109 may include device sensors 111 (e.g., … multi-axial accelerometers …) … to predict and detect respective motion profiles of a vehicle 101”) and license plate identification (Column 7, Lines 27-34, “In one embodiment, the verification platform 115 collects safety-critical events or safety concerns for a vehicle 101 from multiple users … the verification platform 115 can collect and/or store the flagged instances or events based on one or more unique identifying features of the vehicle 101 such as, but not limited to, a license plate number”).
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 KAREN LYNELLE FURGASON whose telephone number is (571)272-5619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helal Algahaim, can be reached at 571-270-5227. 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.
/K.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666