DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed January 2nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on page 8, applicant argues, “The Office Action, on page 9, states that the Examiner "interpreted one or more work machines being taken out of service because of a fault condition ... and the decrease in productivity of work machines as a work machine being above a utilization threshold." Applicant respectfully disagrees with this interpretation. For example, independent claim 1 recites "a utilization of [an] implement" where the "implement [is] moveable relative to the chassis." A work machine being taken out of service because of a fault condition and a decrease in productivity of a work machine does not explicitly or implicitly disclose "a utilization of [an] implement" where the "implement [is] moveable relative to the chassis," let alone such a utilization being above a threshold”.
Applicant’s arguments on page 9, applicant argues, “The Office Action, on page 9, further states that the Examiner "interpreted modifying project specification which includes replacing and/or adding additional work machines to supplement existing machines as causing a second work machine to perform the operation with the work machine when the utilization is above a threshold." Applicant respectfully disagrees with this interpretation. For example, as discussed above, Moughler discloses "the project specifications may be transmitted to a procurement division notifying whether additional work machines need to be acquired to replace and/or supplement the existing machines located at a particular job-site." (Moughler, paragraph [0044], emphasis added). Neither this cited portion nor any other portion of Moughler explicitly or implicitly discloses, teaches, or suggests "in response to the utilization being above a threshold, cause a second work machine to perform the operation with the work machine," as recited by independent claim 1. (Emphasis added)”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because utilization of an implement is taught by Eckhardt, and the limitation related to causing a second work machine to perform operation with the another work machine in response to utilization being above a threshold is taught by Moughler. Moughler teaches work machines determining productivity status of work machine, and based on productivity of work machines, the additional machines are acquired to supplement the existing machines.
Moughler in Paragraph [0044] describes “Project management system 140 may modify the productivity quota for each work machine 120 among the second set of work machines 112 in response to the lost productivity of first set of work machines 110… Alternatively and/or additionally, the project specifications may be transmitted to a procurement division notifying whether additional work machines need to be acquired to replace and/or supplement the existing machines located at a particular job-site”, wherein examiner interpreted modifying productivity quota among second set of work machines in response to lost productivity of first set of work machines, including acquiring additional work machines to supplement existing machines as a second work machine working with first work machine.
And Moughler in Paragraph [0016] describes work machines to be any mobile machine in project environment which includes a construction site, and additionally Moughler Paragraph [0017], Paragraph [0031], and Paragraph [0035] describes monitoring and analyzing components of work machines, therefore, the same principle can be applied to the work machine of Eckhardt.
Therefore, examiner believes the combination of Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches utilization of an implement, and the utilization threshold, and “in response to the utilization being above a threshold, cause a second work machine to perform the operation with the work machine”.
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.
Regarding claim 1, Eckhardt teaches a work machine (Paragraph [0033] “FIG. 1 is a perspective view of an exemplary construction machine 100, such as any of a variety of aerial work vehicles (AWVs), including, but not limited to, construction machines, such as boom lifts, construction cranes, telehandlers, and the like”, wherein examiner interpreted construction machine as a work machine) comprising:
a chassis (Paragraph [0034] “construction machine 100 includes a chassis 102 including a forward end 104, an aft end 106 that is opposite forward end 104”);
a wheel rotatably coupled to the chassis (Paragraph [0035] “construction machine 100 may also include a plurality of wheels 116, such as powered drive wheels”, and chassis 102 and wheels 116 are coupled to each other as seen in Figs. 1-2);
an implement moveable relative to the chassis (Paragraph [0036] “construction machine 100 also includes a boom 118 that pivotally extends from chassis 102. In various embodiments, boom 118 may be non-articulating (e.g., a “beam boom”) or may be an articulated boom that includes at least one pivot joint (not shown) and that is capable of articulating motion. In addition, in the exemplary embodiment, boom 118 includes a proximal end 120 and a distal end 122, and boom 118 is pivotally coupled to rotary table 110 of chassis 102 at or near proximal end 120. Further in some embodiments (e.g., if rotary table 110 is excluded), boom 118 may be pivotably coupled to another portion of chassis 102”, wherein examiner interpreted boom as an implement, and wherein boom pivotally extending from chassis as moveable relative to the chassis);
a user interface configured to receive a user input (Paragraph [0034] “construction machine 100 includes an operator cab or platform 112 including at least one input device 114, such as at least one control panel, at least one joystick, and the like. In at least some embodiments, construction machine 100 may also include an additional operator cab (not shown) on or near chassis 102, which may also include an input device, such as a joystick and/or control panel (not shown). In some embodiments, input device 114 may not be on platform 112, but rather device 114 may be located near chassis 102. In some embodiments, rotary table 110 can be selectively controlled by an operator using input device 114 and is capable of 360° motion”, and Paragraph [0076], wherein examiner interpreted input device used by an operator as a user interface configured to receive a user input); and
a utilization monitoring system (Paragraph [0024] “the system described herein is capable of maintaining the boom within a predefined safety envelope (e.g., a predefined stable operating range of motion or predefined stable operating ranges of boom lengths and extension positions) during bleed down and retraction of the boom”, wherein examiner interpreted system capable of maintaining boom within predefined safety envelope as a utilization monitoring system) comprising one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Paragraph [0077] “control system 500 includes a processor 502 communicatively coupled to a memory device 504 that stores instructions which when executed by processor 502 are configured to cause processor 502 to perform the control processes and actions described herein”):
obtain one or more values representing an operational range of the implement (Paragraph [0031] “Also, as used herein, the terms “working envelope” and “safety envelope” may be used to refer to a predefined stable range of operating motion associated with a construction machine. For example, a safety envelope may include all predefined stable combinations of height and outreach of a construction machine, such as all predefined stable operating combinations of telescoped boom length and boom height”, and Paragraph [0032], wherein examiner interpreted predefined safety envelope as obtaining one or more values representing an operational range of the implement);
receive the user input, the user input indicative of at least an operation (Paragraph [0034] “construction machine 100 includes an operator cab or platform 112 including at least one input device 114, such as at least one control panel, at least one joystick, and the like. In at least some embodiments, construction machine 100 may also include an additional operator cab (not shown) on or near chassis 102, which may also include an input device, such as a joystick and/or control panel (not shown). In some embodiments, input device 114 may not be on platform 112, but rather device 114 may be located near chassis 102. In some embodiments, rotary table 110 can be selectively controlled by an operator using input device 114 and is capable of 360° motion”, and Paragraph [0076] “In addition to commands received from input device 114, as described herein, control system 500 may also receive commands from an input device (not shown) located substantially at ground level, such as within an operator cab located near ground level (e.g., rather than near work platform 112). Accordingly, in at least some embodiments, control system 500 may be used to selectively control bleed down and retraction of boom 118 in response to one or more commands received from an additional or different input device located near ground level”, wherein examiner interpreted receiving commands from input device that controls bleed down and retraction of boom as receiving the user input, wherein the user input is indicative of at least an operation, wherein examiner interpreted controlling of boom as an operation);
determine a value representing a position of the implement (Paragraph [0038] “Sensor devices 138-144 may sense one or more positions and/or orientations of construction machine 100. More particularly, in at least some exemplary embodiments, construction machine 100 may include a first sensor device 138, such as a linear sensor, which may determine an extension position of boom 118 (or “boom extension position”)”, wherein examiner interpreted sensors determining one or more positions and/or orientation of construction machine which includes boom position as determining a value representing a position of the implement, and see Paragraphs [0039-0042]);
determine a value representing a utilization of the implement by comparing the position of the implement to the one or more values representing the operational range of the implement (Paragraph [0032] “a predefined safety envelope may include those combinations of boom length and boom height that are within design limits or, in other terms, those combinations that have been determined to fall within an acceptable range of operating stability. In some cases, a processor of the construction machine may receive sensor measurements of boom length and boom elevation or boom angle to determine whether the combination of parameters falls within a predefined safety envelope. In other circumstances, as described herein, a flow manifold may divert and combine flows, such as during a bleed down sequence, to facilitate maintaining the boom within range of operating parameters defined by the safety envelope”, and Paragraph [0031], wherein examiner interpreted processor determining whether combination of parameters fall within predefined safety envelope using sensor measurements of boom as determining a value representing a utilization of the implement by comparing the position of the implement to the one or more values representing the operational range of the implement, wherein examiner interpreted sensor measurements of boom as position of the implement, and safety envelope as one or more values representing the operational range of the implement).
Eckhardt does not explicitly teach in response to the utilization being above a threshold, cause a second work machine to perform the operation with the work machine.
However, Moughler teaches in response to the utilization being above a threshold, cause a second work machine to perform the operation with the work machine (Paragraph [0023] “A project specification may include one or more characteristics associated with the execution of a work machine project such as, for example, a project schedule for completion of the work machine project, a productivity schedule for each respective work machine operating in project environment 100, a project productivity rate (e.g., percentage of project completed per month), a project budget, a productivity quota for work machine 120, maintenance schedules, hours of operation for the work machine and/or job-site, an assignment for a particular work machine, a job-site inventory, and any other type of characteristic associated with project management”, Paragraph [0043] “Project management system 140 may modify the project specifications based on the determined status of one or more work machines 120 operating within project environment 100 (Step 260). For instance, referring to the example described above, should one or more work machines be taken out of service because of a fault condition, project management system 140 may adjust the project schedule to accommodate for the decrease in job-site productivity caused by the machine being taken out-of-service. In one embodiment, project management system 140 may adjust the project specifications to include a replacement work machine”, and Paragraph [0044] “Project management system 140 may modify the productivity quota for each work machine 120 among the second set of work machines 112 in response to the lost productivity of first set of work machines 110. Project management system may send data reflecting the respective productivity quota change to each operator of the respective work machine 120, allowing each operator to make immediate operational adjustments according to the respective quota change. Alternatively and/or additionally, the project specifications may be transmitted to a procurement division notifying whether additional work machines need to be acquired to replace and/or supplement the existing machines located at a particular job-site. As such, project subscribers 150 may take the appropriate action necessary to respond to the modified project specifications received from the project management system 140”, and Paragraph [0038-0039], wherein examiner interpreted one or more work machines being taken out of service because of a fault condition that is based on operation data, and the decrease in productivity of work machines as a work machine being above a utilization threshold, wherein examiner interpreted the operation data, and productivity status of work machines as utilization of work machines, and wherein examiner interpreted modifying project specification which includes replacing and/or adding additional work machines to supplement existing machines as causing a second work machine to perform the operation with the work machine in response to the utilization being above a threshold, wherein examiner interpreted fault conditions and not meeting productivity expectations as utilization threshold, and wherein examiner interpreted determining a fault and decrease in productivity of the operation status of work machine as utilization of work machines being above a threshold).
Eckhardt, and Moughler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They relate to work machines.
Therefore, before the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above work machine as taught by Eckhardt, and incorporating second work machine to perform operation with the work machine in response to utilization being above a threshold, as taught by Moughler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve supplementing existing work machines, and increase efficient utilization of equipment assets, and/or work machines, and identifying inefficient assets to take corrective actions, as suggested by Moughler (see Paragraph [0044], and Paragraphs [0002-0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine a value representing a motion of the implement by comparing the value representing the position of the implement to a value representing a position of the implement corresponding to an earlier point of time (Paragraph [0039] “a boom extension position may include a length of boom 118 and/or other information about an extension position of boom 118, which may be capable of telescoping between a range of extension positions or lengths. For instance, FIG. 1 shows boom 118 in a first, non-extended position, and FIG. 2 shows boom 118 in a fully extended or fully telescoped extension position. However, boom 118 may telescope to achieve an extension position, or length, along a substantially continuous range between either of these non-extended and fully-extended extension positions”, and Paragraph [0040] “Construction machine 100 may, in addition, include a second sensor device 140, such as an angle sensor, which may determine a boom angle position and/or elevation of boom 118”, wherein examiner interpreted sensors determining position of boom, angle of boom, and/or elevation of boom within ranges of non-extended position and fully-extended positions as determining a value representing a motion of the implement by comparing the value representing the position of the implement to a value representing a position of the implement corresponding to an earlier point of time, wherein examiner interpreted sensors determining positions within the extended and non-extended position to include the operation of comparing position of implement to a previous position of implement); and
wherein determining the value representing the utilization of the implement comprises comparing the value representing the motion of the implement to the one or more values representing the operational range of the implement (Paragraph [0032] “a predefined safety envelope may include those combinations of boom length and boom height that are within design limits or, in other terms, those combinations that have been determined to fall within an acceptable range of operating stability. In some cases, a processor of the construction machine may receive sensor measurements of boom length and boom elevation or boom angle to determine whether the combination of parameters falls within a predefined safety envelope. In other circumstances, as described herein, a flow manifold may divert and combine flows, such as during a bleed down sequence, to facilitate maintaining the boom within range of operating parameters defined by the safety envelope”, and Paragraph [0031], wherein examiner interpreted processor determining whether combination of parameters fall within predefined safety envelope using sensor measurements of boom as determining the value representing utilization of the implement comprising comparing the value representing the motion of the implement to one or more values representing the operational range of the implement, wherein examiner interpreted sensor measurements as the motion of the implement and safety envelope as operational range of the implement).
Regarding claim 3, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches wherein the user interface comprises an input device operable in a first state and a second state, wherein when the input device is in the first state the implement is powered, and wherein when the input device is in the second state the implement is unpowered (Paragraph [0080] “in operation, and in at least some embodiments, an operator of construction machine 100 may select an option to initiate bleed down of boom 118 via input device 114. For example, input device 114 may include one or more buttons, switches, or other suitable input options for initiating bleed down”, wherein examiner interpreted imitating bleed down of boom as when the input device is in the first state the implement is powered, and wherein examiner interpreted boom not being initiated to bleed down or other operation performed by input device as being in the second state of implement being unpowered).
Regarding claim 6, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches wherein the value representing the utilization of the implement is a value representing a ratio of the value representing the position of the implement and an operational threshold value of one of the one or more values representing the operational range of the implement (Paragraph [0031], and Paragraph [0032] “a predefined safety envelope may include those combinations of boom length and boom height that are within design limits or, in other terms, those combinations that have been determined to fall within an acceptable range of operating stability. In some cases, a processor of the construction machine may receive sensor measurements of boom length and boom elevation or boom angle to determine whether the combination of parameters falls within a predefined safety envelope. In other circumstances, as described herein, a flow manifold may divert and combine flows, such as during a bleed down sequence, to facilitate maintaining the boom within range of operating parameters defined by the safety envelope”, wherein examiner interpreted boom being maintained within the range of operating parameters of safety envelope as being a ratio of value representing the position of the implement and an operational threshold value of one or more values representing the operational range of the implement).
Regarding claim 9, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches wherein determining the value representing the utilization of the implement comprises determining whether the position of the implement corresponds to a value of a limit of the operational range (Paragraph [0031], and Paragraph [0032] “Accordingly, a predefined safety envelope may include those combinations of boom length and boom height that are within design limits or, in other terms, those combinations that have been determined to fall within an acceptable range of operating stability. In some cases, a processor of the construction machine may receive sensor measurements of boom length and boom elevation or boom angle to determine whether the combination of parameters falls within a predefined safety envelope. In other circumstances, as described herein, a flow manifold may divert and combine flows, such as during a bleed down sequence, to facilitate maintaining the boom within range of operating parameters defined by the safety envelope”, wherein examiner interpreted maintaining boom within range of operating parameters as determining value of utilization of the implement comprising determining whether position of the implement corresponds to a value of a limit of the operational range).
Regarding claim 10, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches wherein determining the value representing the utilization of the implement comprises determining whether the user input corresponds to the position of the implement exceeding the value of the limit of the operational range (Paragraph [0075] “control system 500 may be used to selectively control bleed down of boom 118 in response to one or more commands received from input device 114, while maintaining boom 118 within a safety envelope”, and Paragraph [0087] “control system 500 may perform a variety of control functions to ensure that any combination of boom height and boom extension position occupied by boom 118 and/or jib 130 during bleed down satisfies predefined safety limits. Stated another way, control system 500 may, for example, increase a rate of fluid flow into actuators 306 and/or 308 if boom 118 is lowering a rate that would cause boom 118 to exit the predefined safety envelope. However, this is only one example scenario. It will be appreciated that any of a wide variety flow control operations may be performed to ensure that boom 118 is kept within the safety envelope”, wherein examiner interpreted maintaining boom within safety envelope including control system performing variety of control functions to maintain boom within the safety limits as determining whether user input corresponding to the position of implement exceeding the value of the limit of operation range).
Regarding claim 11, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches wherein the one or more values representing the operational range of the implement comprises a value representing a height limit of the implement relative to the chassis (Paragraph [0031] “the terms “working envelope” and “safety envelope” may be used to refer to a predefined stable range of operating motion associated with a construction machine. For example, a safety envelope may include all predefined stable combinations of height and outreach of a construction machine, such as all predefined stable operating combinations of telescoped boom length and boom height. Such combinations may directly influence the stability and strength requirements of the construction machine, and may also affect the height, angle, and outreach combination limits that are permissible for different types, models, and sizes of construction machines”, and Paragraph [0040] “second sensor device 140 may determine a boom angle position of boom 118 relative to another reference plane and/or relative to a portion of construction machine 100, such as chassis 102 and/or rotary table 110. Accordingly, as used herein, a boom angle position may include an angle of boom 118 relative to a reference plane, such as reference surface 117 and/or relative to another portion of construction machine 100, including, but not limited to chassis 102 and/or rotary table 110. Likewise, a boom angle position may include a boom elevation and/or processor 302, as described herein, may determine elevation of boom 118 from a variety of sensor data, such as boom length and boom angle position. In some embodiments, a plurality of angle sensor devices may be incorporated”, wherein examiner interpreted safety envelope including the height of boom associated with construction machine which includes chassis, and elevation of boom is determined based on angle of boom relative to chassis as operational range of the implement comprising a value representing a height limit of the implement relative to the chassis).
Regarding claim 12, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 11 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches wherein the value representing the position of the implement is at least partially based on a value representing a height of the implement relative to the chassis (Paragraph [0040] “a boom angle position may include an angle of boom 118 relative to a reference plane, such as reference surface 117 and/or relative to another portion of construction machine 100, including, but not limited to chassis 102 and/or rotary table 110. Likewise, a boom angle position may include a boom elevation and/or processor 302, as described herein, may determine elevation of boom 118 from a variety of sensor data, such as boom length and boom angle position”, wherein examiner interpreted determining elevation of boom based on boom length and boom angle position as position of implement partially based on a value representing a height of implement relative to the chassis, wherein the angle of boom is determined relative to chassis).
Regarding claim 13, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 12 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches wherein the implement comprises a platform (Paragraph [0034] “construction machine 100 includes an operator cab or platform 112”).
Regarding claim 14, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 13 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches wherein the user interface is a first user interface, further comprising a second user interface, wherein the first user interface is coupled to the implement (Paragraph [0034] “construction machine 100 includes an operator cab or platform 112 including at least one input device 114, such as at least one control panel, at least one joystick, and the like. In at least some embodiments, construction machine 100 may also include an additional operator cab (not shown) on or near chassis 102, which may also include an input device, such as a joystick and/or control panel (not shown). In some embodiments, input device 114 may not be on platform 112, but rather device 114 may be located near chassis 102”, wherein examiner interpreted input device on the platform as first user interface coupled to implement, and the additional input devices not on platform or on chassis as a second user interface).
Regarding claim 15, Eckhardt teaches a utilization monitoring system for work machines (Paragraph [0024] “the system described herein is capable of maintaining the boom within a predefined safety envelope (e.g., a predefined stable operating range of motion or predefined stable operating ranges of boom lengths and extension positions) during bleed down and retraction of the boom”, wherein examiner interpreted system capable of maintaining boom within predefined safety envelope as a utilization monitoring system for work machines), the utilization monitoring system comprising:
one or more processors (Paragraph [0077] “control system 500 includes a processor 502”); and
one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Paragraph [0077] “control system 500 includes a processor 502 communicatively coupled to a memory device 504 that stores instructions which when executed by processor 502 are configured to cause processor 502 to perform the control processes and actions described herein”):
obtain one or more values representing an operational range of a first implement of a first work machine (Paragraph [0031] “Also, as used herein, the terms “working envelope” and “safety envelope” may be used to refer to a predefined stable range of operating motion associated with a construction machine. For example, a safety envelope may include all predefined stable combinations of height and outreach of a construction machine, such as all predefined stable operating combinations of telescoped boom length and boom height”, and Paragraph [0032], wherein examiner interpreted predefined safety envelope as obtaining one or more values representing an operational range of the implement of a first work machine);
obtain a value representing at least one of a position of the first implement or a load on the first implement (Paragraph [0038] “Sensor devices 138-144 may sense one or more positions and/or orientations of construction machine 100. More particularly, in at least some exemplary embodiments, construction machine 100 may include a first sensor device 138, such as a linear sensor, which may determine an extension position of boom 118 (or “boom extension position”)”, wherein examiner interpreted sensors determining one or more positions and/or orientation of construction machine which includes boom position as obtaining a value representing a position of the first implement, and see Paragraphs [0039-0042]);
determine a value representing a utilization of the first implement based on a comparison between the value representing the position of the first implement or the first load on the implement and the one or more values representing the operational range of the first implement (Paragraph [0032] “a predefined safety envelope may include those combinations of boom length and boom height that are within design limits or, in other terms, those combinations that have been determined to fall within an acceptable range of operating stability. In some cases, a processor of the construction machine may receive sensor measurements of boom length and boom elevation or boom angle to determine whether the combination of parameters falls within a predefined safety envelope. In other circumstances, as described herein, a flow manifold may divert and combine flows, such as during a bleed down sequence, to facilitate maintaining the boom within range of operating parameters defined by the safety envelope”, and Paragraph [0031], wherein examiner interpreted processor determining whether combination of parameters fall within predefined safety envelope using sensor measurements of boom as determining a value representing a utilization of the first implement by comparing the position of the first implement to the one or more values representing the operational range of the first implement, wherein examiner interpreted sensor measurements of boom as position of the first implement, and safety envelope as one or more values representing the operational range of the first implement).
Eckhardt does not explicitly teach in response to the value representing the utilization of the first implement of the first work machine being above a threshold, causing a second vehicle including a second implement and having a second operational range to perform an operation with the first work machine.
However, Moughler teaches in response to the value representing the utilization of the first implement of the first work machine being above a threshold, causing a second vehicle including a second implement and having a second operational range to perform an operation with the first work machine (Paragraph [0023] “A project specification may include one or more characteristics associated with the execution of a work machine project such as, for example, a project schedule for completion of the work machine project, a productivity schedule for each respective work machine operating in project environment 100, a project productivity rate (e.g., percentage of project completed per month), a project budget, a productivity quota for work machine 120, maintenance schedules, hours of operation for the work machine and/or job-site, an assignment for a particular work machine, a job-site inventory, and any other type of characteristic associated with project management”, Paragraph [0043] “Project management system 140 may modify the project specifications based on the determined status of one or more work machines 120 operating within project environment 100 (Step 260). For instance, referring to the example described above, should one or more work machines be taken out of service because of a fault condition, project management system 140 may adjust the project schedule to accommodate for the decrease in job-site productivity caused by the machine being taken out-of-service. In one embodiment, project management system 140 may adjust the project specifications to include a replacement work machine”, and Paragraph [0044] “Project management system 140 may modify the productivity quota for each work machine 120 among the second set of work machines 112 in response to the lost productivity of first set of work machines 110. Project management system may send data reflecting the respective productivity quota change to each operator of the respective work machine 120, allowing each operator to make immediate operational adjustments according to the respective quota change. Alternatively and/or additionally, the project specifications may be transmitted to a procurement division notifying whether additional work machines need to be acquired to replace and/or supplement the existing machines located at a particular job-site. As such, project subscribers 150 may take the appropriate action necessary to respond to the modified project specifications received from the project management system 140”, and Paragraph [0038-0039], and Paragraph [0030-0031], wherein examiner interpreted one or more work machines being taken out of service because of a fault condition that is based on operation data, and the decrease in productivity of work machines as including the first work machine having a value representing the utilization of the first implement that is above a threshold, wherein examiner interpreted the operation data, and productivity status of work machines as utilization of work machines, and wherein examiner interpreted modifying project specification which includes replacing and/or adding additional work machines to supplement existing machines as causing a second vehicle including a second implement and having a second operation range to perform an operation with the first work machine in response to the value representing utilization of the first implement of the first work machine being above a threshold, wherein examiner interpreted fault conditions and not meeting productivity expectations as utilization threshold, and wherein examiner interpreted determining a fault and decrease in productivity of the operation status of work machine as utilization of work machines being above a threshold, wherein examiner interpreted work machine as including a second vehicle as described in Paragraph [0016], and wherein examiner interpreted components described in Paragraph [0017] as including a second implement, and Paragraphs [0030-0031] describes operational information, such as predefined design specifications of work machines, wherein examiner interpreted the operational information as including the second operation range).
Eckhardt, and Moughler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They relate to work machines.
Therefore, before the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above work machine as taught by Eckhardt, and incorporating second work machine to perform operation with the work machine in response to utilization being above a threshold, as taught by Moughler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve supplementing existing work machines, and increase efficient utilization of equipment assets, and/or work machines, and identifying inefficient assets to take corrective actions, as suggested by Moughler (see Paragraph [0044], and Paragraphs [0002-0008]).
Regarding claim 17, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine a value representing a comparison between the value representing the at least one of the position of the first implement or the first load on the implement and an operational threshold value (Paragraph [0032] “a predefined safety envelope may include those combinations of boom length and boom height that are within design limits or, in other terms, those combinations that have been determined to fall within an acceptable range of operating stability. In some cases, a processor of the construction machine may receive sensor measurements of boom length and boom elevation or boom angle to determine whether the combination of parameters falls within a predefined safety envelope. In other circumstances, as described herein, a flow manifold may divert and combine flows, such as during a bleed down sequence, to facilitate maintaining the boom within range of operating parameters defined by the safety envelope”, and Paragraph [0031], wherein examiner interpreted maintaining boom within the safety envelope as a value representing a comparison between position value to a threshold value, wherein examiner interpreted safety envelope as threshold value, and sensor measurements as position of the implement values, and the maintaining of boom within the range of safety envelope as a value representing comparison).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckhardt et al. USPGPUB 2022/0252086 (hereinafter “Eckhardt”), in view of Moughler et al. USPGPUB 2007/0124000 (hereinafter “Moughler”) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-15, and 17 above, further in view of Priestley et al. USP 6405114 (hereinafter “Priestley”).
Regarding claim 4, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 3 as outlined above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine a value representing a quantity of time during which the input device is in the first state.
However, Priestley teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine a value representing a quantity of time during which the input device is in the first state (Col. 6, Line 66 – Col. 7, Line 2 “In cases where a boom section has been selected and moved and the movement is complete, so that the motion has stopped, the selected function will remain active for a brief period of time”, wherein examiner interpreted brief period of time when boom section remains active as determining a value representing a quantity of time during which the input device is in the first state).
Eckhardt, Moughler, and Priestley are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They relate to work machines.
Therefore, before the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above work machine as taught by Eckhardt, and Moughler, and incorporating quantity of time, as taught by Priestley.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve Col. 1, Line 28-29 “safety features and interlocks preventing inadvertent or unsafe operation of the aerial work platform”, as suggested by Priestley.
Regarding claim 5, Eckhardt, Moughler, and Priestley teaches all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above.
Priestley further teaches wherein determining a value representing the utilization of the implement comprises comparing the value representing the quantity of time during which the input device is in the first state to a value representing a different quantity of time (Col. 6, Line 66 – Col. 7, Line 5 “In cases where a boom section has been selected and moved and the movement is complete, so that the motion has stopped, the selected function will remain active for a brief period of time until one of the following events occurs: (1) no further motion of the selected boom section is requested by the operator for more than a preset period of time such as ten seconds”, wherein examiner interpreted comparing the time active to a time period of no motion requested for preset period of time as comparing the value representing the quantity of time during which the input device is in the first state to a value representing a different quantity of time).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckhardt et al. USPGPUB 2022/0252086 (hereinafter “Eckhardt”), in view of Moughler et al. USPGPUB 2007/0124000 (hereinafter “Moughler”) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-15, and 17 above, further in view of Finley et al. USP 4456093 (hereinafter “Finley”).
Regarding claim 7, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
The combination does not explicitly teach further comprising a load sensor configured to detect a load applied to the implement; wherein determining a value representing the utilization of the implement comprises comparing the load to the one or more values representing the operational range of the implement.
However, Finley teaches further comprising a load sensor configured to detect a load applied to the implement (Col. 9, Line 51-55 “The load cells 76 and 78 are standard, commercially available load cells (sometimes called force washers) which are positioned inside boom slides to measure the bearing force between adjacent sections of the boom 14”, wherein examiner interpreted load cells measuring bearing force between adjacent sections of the boom as load sensors that detect load applied to implement);
wherein determining a value representing the utilization of the implement comprises comparing the load to the one or more values representing the operational range of the implement (Col. 5, Line 23-42, Col. 9, Line 56-66 “The safety control box 48 includes a caution light 82 and a warning light 84. The function of the lights 82 and 84 is to inform the operator of the aerial work platform machine 10 when the machine 10 is approaching its limits of safe operation. Preferably, the yellow caution light 82 is caused to turn on when the machine 10 approaches eighty-five percent (85%) of its maximum allowable load. The red warning light 84 is preferably caused to come on when the machine 10 approaches one hundred percent (100%) of its maximum allowable load”, wherein examiner interpreted caution lights turning yellow or red based on approaching maximum allowable load as determining a value representing the utilization of the implement comprising comparing the load to one or more values representing the operational range of the implement, wherein examiner interpreted load on work platform compared to maximum allowable load as comparing the load to the one or more values representing the operational range of the implement, wherein the maximum allowable load is the operational range of the implement).
Eckhardt, Moughler, and Finley are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They relate to work machines.
Therefore, before the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above work machine as taught by Eckhardt, and Moughler, and incorporating load sensor, as taught by Finley.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve alerting the operator of approaching maximum allowable weight, as suggested by Finley (see Col. 9, Line 56-68, and Col. 5, Line 23-42).
Regarding claim 8, Eckhart, Moughler, and Finley teaches all of the features with respect to claim 7 as outlined above.
Finley further teaches wherein the one or more values representing the operational range of the implement is a function of the load detected by the load sensor (Col. 5, Line 25-33 “The computer instruction steps analyze the transducer data to determine the permissible weight of people and things on the platform (maximum allowable load) for the particular, instantaneous position of the boom and the length of the boom. The maximum allowable load is the weight which, under a prespecified margin of safety, will not result in the tipping of or structural damage to the machine”, wherein examiner interpreted computer analyzing transducer data to determine permissible weight of people and things on the platform as one or more values representing the operational range of the implement is a function of the load detected by the load sensor).
Claims 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckhardt et al. USPGPUB 2022/0252086 (hereinafter “Eckhardt”), in view of Moughler et al. USPGPUB 2007/0124000 (hereinafter “Moughler”) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 9-15, and 17 above, further in view of HORNE USPGPUB 2013/0096799 (hereinafter “HORNE”).
Regarding claim 16, Eckhardt, and Moughler teaches all of the features with respect to claim 15 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches further comprising: a user interface comprising a display and a user input device, the user input device configured to receive a user input (Paragraph [0034] “construction machine 100 includes an operator cab or platform 112 including at least one input device 114, such as at least one control panel, at least one joystick, and the like. In at least some embodiments, construction machine 100 may also include an additional operator cab (not shown) on or near chassis 102, which may also include an input device, such as a joystick and/or control panel (not shown). In some embodiments, input device 114 may not be on platform 112, but rather device 114 may be located near chassis 102. In some embodiments, rotary table 110 can be selectively controlled by an operator using input device 114 and is capable of 360° motion”, and Paragraph [0076], wherein examiner interpreted input device, which can be a control panel, used by an operator as a user interface comprising a display and a user input device configured to receive a user input);
Eckhardt, and Moughler does not explicitly teach wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to present, via a graphical user interface on the display, the value representing the utilization of the first implement.
However, HORNE teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to present, via a graphical user interface on the display, the value representing the utilization of the first implement (Paragraph [0029-0030], Paragraphs [0141-0149], Paragraphs [0051-0053], Paragraph [0085] “At operation 408, a report generating module 308 of the monitoring system processor 300 can provide a report that includes the operational characteristic and the performance output. In some example embodiments, the report can be accessed by an authorized user via a computer interface. In some other example embodiments a digital copy of the report can be sent to a predetermined user via an electronic mail. The report can summarize the performance output of the asset 120 or be related to a specific area of operational characteristics”, and Paragraph [0165] “The monitoring system 200 can transmit this raw or summarized information regarding utilization to the monitoring system processor 300 to be used to generate utilization reports 182 and or billing reports”, wherein examiner interpreted providing a report that includes operational characteristic that is accessed via computer interface as presenting value representing utilization of the first implement on a graphical user on the display, wherein asset includes aerial work platforms, which is interpreted as the first implement).
Eckhardt, Moughler, and HORNE are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They relate to work machines.
Therefore, before the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above work machine as taught by Eckhardt, and Moughler, and incorporating presenting value on display, as taught by HORNE.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve Paragraph [0051] “enabl[ing] the operator 170 to view and manipulate reports 182 that can be used to manage and monitor one or more of the assets associated with the authorized user”, as suggested by HORNE.
Regrading claim 18, Eckhardt, Moughler, and HORNE teaches all of the features with respect to claim 16 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine a value representing a quantity of time during which the value representing the comparison between the value representing the at least one of the position of the first implement or the load on the first implement and an operational threshold value is different than a second operational threshold value (Paragraph [0032] “a predefined safety envelope may include those combinations of boom length and boom height that are within design limits or, in other terms, those combinations that have been determined to fall within an acceptable range of operating stability. In some cases, a processor of the construction machine may receive sensor measurements of boom length and boom elevation or boom angle to determine whether the combination of parameters falls within a predefined safety envelope. In other circumstances, as described herein, a flow manifold may divert and combine flows, such as during a bleed down sequence, to facilitate maintaining the boom within range of operating parameters defined by the safety envelope”, and Paragraph [0031], wherein examiner interpreted time it takes to determine that the boom is within a safety envelope as determining a value representing quantity of time during which comparison between position and an operational threshold value is different than a second operational threshold value, wherein examiner interpreted safety envelope as the threshold values).
Regarding claim 19, Eckhardt teaches a method, comprising: obtaining, via a utilization monitoring system (Paragraph [0024] “the system described herein is capable of maintaining the boom within a predefined safety envelope (e.g., a predefined stable operating range of motion or predefined stable operating ranges of boom lengths and extension positions) during bleed down and retraction of the boom”), one or more values representing a first operational range of a first implement of a first work machine (Paragraph [0031] “Also, as used herein, the terms “working envelope” and “safety envelope” may be used to refer to a predefined stable range of operating motion associated with a construction machine. For example, a safety envelope may include all predefined stable combinations of height and outreach of a construction machine, such as all predefined stable operating combinations of telescoped boom length and boom height”, and Paragraph [0032], wherein examiner interpreted predefined safety envelope as obtaining one or more values representing a first operational range of a first implement of a first work machine);
obtaining, via the utilization monitoring system (Paragraph [0024] “the system described herein is capable of maintaining the boom within a predefined safety envelope (e.g., a predefined stable operating range of motion or predefined stable operating ranges of boom lengths and extension positions) during bleed down and retraction of the boom”), a value representing at least one of a position of the first implement or a load on the first implement (Paragraph [0038] “Sensor devices 138-144 may sense one or more positions and/or orientations of construction machine 100. More particularly, in at least some exemplary embodiments, construction machine 100 may include a first sensor device 138, such as a linear sensor, which may determine an extension position of boom 118 (or “boom extension position”)”, wherein examiner interpreted sensors determining one or more positions and/or orientation of construction machine which includes boom position as obtaining a value representing a position of the first implement, and see Paragraphs [0039-0042]);
determining a value representing a utilization of the first implement based on at least one of (i) a comparison between the value representing the position of the first implement or the load on the first implement and the one or more values representing the operational range of the first implement, or (ii) a comparison between a value representing an elapsed time during which an ignition is in a first position and a value representing a duration of time different than the elapsed time (Paragraph [0032] “a predefined safety envelope may include those combinations of boom length and boom height that are within design limits or, in other terms, those combinations that have been determined to fall within an acceptable range of operating stability. In some cases, a processor of the construction machine may receive sensor measurements of boom length and boom elevation or boom angle to determine whether the combination of parameters falls within a predefined safety envelope. In other circumstances, as described herein, a flow manifold may divert and combine flows, such as during a bleed down sequence, to facilitate maintaining the boom within range of operating parameters defined by the safety envelope”, and Paragraph [0031], wherein examiner interpreted processor determining whether combination of parameters fall within predefined safety envelope using sensor measurements of boom as determining a value representing a utilization of the implement by comparing the position of the first implement to the one or more values representing the operational range of the implement, wherein examiner interpreted sensor measurements of boom as position of the first implement, and safety envelope as one or more values representing the operational range of the first implement).
Eckhardt does not explicitly teach presenting, via a graphical user interface on a display, the value representing the utilization of the first implement; and in response to the value representing the utilization being above a threshold, causing a second vehicle including a second implement and having a second operational range to perform an operation with the first work machine.
However, Moughler teaches in response to the value representing the utilization being above a threshold, causing a second vehicle including a second implement and having a second operational range to perform an operation with the first work machine (Paragraph [0023] “A project specification may include one or more characteristics associated with the execution of a work machine project such as, for example, a project schedule for completion of the work machine project, a productivity schedule for each respective work machine operating in project environment 100, a project productivity rate (e.g., percentage of project completed per month), a project budget, a productivity quota for work machine 120, maintenance schedules, hours of operation for the work machine and/or job-site, an assignment for a particular work machine, a job-site inventory, and any other type of characteristic associated with project management”, Paragraph [0043] “Project management system 140 may modify the project specifications based on the determined status of one or more work machines 120 operating within project environment 100 (Step 260). For instance, referring to the example described above, should one or more work machines be taken out of service because of a fault condition, project management system 140 may adjust the project schedule to accommodate for the decrease in job-site productivity caused by the machine being taken out-of-service. In one embodiment, project management system 140 may adjust the project specifications to include a replacement work machine”, and Paragraph [0044] “Project management system 140 may modify the productivity quota for each work machine 120 among the second set of work machines 112 in response to the lost productivity of first set of work machines 110. Project management system may send data reflecting the respective productivity quota change to each operator of the respective work machine 120, allowing each operator to make immediate operational adjustments according to the respective quota change. Alternatively and/or additionally, the project specifications may be transmitted to a procurement division notifying whether additional work machines need to be acquired to replace and/or supplement the existing machines located at a particular job-site. As such, project subscribers 150 may take the appropriate action necessary to respond to the modified project specifications received from the project management system 140”, and Paragraph [0038-0039], and Paragraph [0030-0031], wherein examiner interpreted one or more work machines being taken out of service because of a fault condition that is based on operation data, and the decrease in productivity of work machines as including the first work machine having a value representing the utilization that is above a threshold, wherein examiner interpreted the operation data, and productivity status of work machines as utilization of work machines, and wherein examiner interpreted modifying project specification which includes replacing and/or adding additional work machines to supplement existing machines as causing a second vehicle including a second implement and having a second operation range to perform an operation with the first work machine in response to the value representing utilization of the first work machine is above a threshold, wherein examiner interpreted fault conditions and not meeting productivity expectations as utilization threshold, and wherein examiner interpreted determining a fault and decrease in productivity of the operation status of work machine as utilization of work machines being above a threshold, wherein examiner interpreted work machine as including a second vehicle as described in Paragraph [0016], and wherein examiner interpreted components described in Paragraph [0017] as including a second implement, and Paragraphs [0030-0031] describes operational information, such as predefined design specifications of work machines, wherein examiner interpreted the operational information as including the second operation range).
Eckhardt, and Moughler are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They relate to work machines.
Therefore, before the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above work machine as taught by Eckhardt, and incorporating second work machine to perform operation with the work machine when utilization is above a threshold, as taught by Moughler.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve supplementing existing work machines, and increase efficient utilization of equipment assets, and/or work machines, and identifying inefficient assets to take corrective actions, as suggested by Moughler (see Paragraph [0044], and Paragraphs [0002-0008]).
The combination does not explicitly teach presenting, via a graphical user interface on a display, the value representing the utilization of the first implement.
However, HORNE teaches presenting, via a graphical user interface on a display, the value representing the utilization of the first implement (Paragraph [0029-0030], Paragraphs [0141-0149], Paragraphs [0051-0053], Paragraph [0085] “At operation 408, a report generating module 308 of the monitoring system processor 300 can provide a report that includes the operational characteristic and the performance output. In some example embodiments, the report can be accessed by an authorized user via a computer interface. In some other example embodiments a digital copy of the report can be sent to a predetermined user via an electronic mail. The report can summarize the performance output of the asset 120 or be related to a specific area of operational characteristics”, and Paragraph [0165] “The monitoring system 200 can transmit this raw or summarized information regarding utilization to the monitoring system processor 300 to be used to generate utilization reports 182 and or billing reports”, wherein examiner interpreted providing a report that includes operational characteristic that is accessed via computer interface as presenting value representing utilization of the implement on a graphical user on the display, wherein asset includes aerial work platforms, which is interpreted as the implement).
Eckhardt, Moughler, and HORNE are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They relate to work machines.
Therefore, before the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above work machine as taught by Eckhardt, and Moughler, and incorporating presenting value on display, as taught by HORNE.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve Paragraph [0051] “enabl[ing] the operator 170 to view and manipulate reports 182 that can be used to manage and monitor one or more of the assets associated with the authorized user”, as suggested by HORNE.
Regarding claim 20, Eckhardt, HIRAKAWA, and HORNE teaches all of the features with respect to claim 19 as outlined above.
Eckhardt further teaches wherein determining the value representing the utilization of the first implement is based on a quantity of time during which the value representing the at least one of the position of the first implement or the load on the first implement is above a threshold value (Paragraph [0032] “a predefined safety envelope may include those combinations of boom length and boom height that are within design limits or, in other terms, those combinations that have been determined to fall within an acceptable range of operating stability. In some cases, a processor of the construction machine may receive sensor measurements of boom length and boom elevation or boom angle to determine whether the combination of parameters falls within a predefined safety envelope. In other circumstances, as described herein, a flow manifold may divert and combine flows, such as during a bleed down sequence, to facilitate maintaining the boom within range of operating parameters defined by the safety envelope”, and Paragraph [0031], wherein examiner interpreted time it takes to determine that the boom is within a safety envelope as the quantity of time during which the value representing position of the first implement is above a threshold value, wherein examiner interpreted safety envelope as a threshold).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rotole [USP 12029163] teaches a work machine including a sensor coupled to the implement, a controller, and an implement position system.
Eckhardt et al. [USPGPUB 2022/0194765] teaches a construction machine includes a boom and a control system.
Masters et al. [USPGPUB 2021/0238021] teaches an aerial work vehicle (AWV) includes a boom, and a work platform coupled to a distal end of the boom.
Peters et al. [USPGPUB 2021/0154833] teaches An intuitive control system for lifting equipment.
Bonnefoy et al. [USPGPUB 2020/0207600] teaches the aerial work platform comprises a chassis 2, a work platform 10 and a lifting structure 20 that comprises at least one boom 26.
Smekal et al. [USPGPUB 2018/0171578] teaches power machines include a lift arm structure having a first arm pivotally mounted to a frame and a second arm, coupled to an implement interface.
Ditty [USPGPUB 2015/0259185] teaches a lift device includes a chassis, a lift boom, a sensor, and a controller.
McCabe et al. [USPGPUB 2012/0239259] teaches a lift truck includes systems and methods for improved stability control.
HIRAKAWA et al. [USPGPUB 2022/0397890] teaches a selection support device that supports selection of a work machine to be used for work from among a plurality of work machines.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DHRUVKUMAR PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5814. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM to 5:30 AM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571)272-4105. 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.
/D.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119