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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-10 in the reply filed on June 13, 2025 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
In response to Applicant’s amendments dated June 13, 2025, Examiner withdraws the prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, and issues new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Responses, filed January 21, 2025 and June 13, 2025, with respect to the rejections of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully 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. The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive and/or moot for at least the same reasons. Therefore, Examiner maintains the corresponding rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Responses, filed January 21, 2025 and June 13, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The mere manipulation of data is directed toward a mental process. The remaining arguments are essentially the same as those addressed above and/or below and are unpersuasive and/or moot for at least the same reasons. Therefore, Examiner maintains the corresponding rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 1,
Step 1:
Claim 1 describes a “method” and thus falls under the statutory category of a process.
Step 2(a), Prong I:
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below):
A method of facilitating an operation of an electric off-road vehicle, the method comprising:
receiving an identification of a planned trip along a route including an off-road trail for the electric off-road vehicle, the electric off-road vehicle being of a vehicle type;
using past battery consumption data associated with past trips along the route for the vehicle type, determining an estimated battery consumption required to complete the planned trip along the route with the electric vehicle
communicating the estimated battery consumption required to complete the planned trip along the route to an operator of the electric off-road vehicle via an operator interface;
when the electric off-road vehicle is travelling along the route: using one or more sensors of the electric off-road vehicle, acquiring one or more signals useful in deriving actual battery consumption data associated with the electric off-road vehicle;
determining the actual battery consumption data associated with the electric off-road vehicle using the one or more signals acquired with the one or more sensors;
revising the estimated battery consumption data associated with the electric off-road vehicle using the one or more signals acquired with the one or more sensors
revising the estimated battery consumption require to complete the planned trip along the route based on the actual battery consumption data; and
communicating, via the operator interface, the revised battery consumption to the operator of the electric off-road vehicle during the planned trip
The examiner submits that the bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the human mind. The determinations and analysis made upon data can simply be performed mentally.
Step 2(a), Prong II:
It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, or adding insignificant extra solution activity, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitations beyond the above noted abstract idea, underlined above, are, in terms of components, steps of data acquisition including a step using one or more sensors, and steps of communicating data to an operator interface, Regarding the additional limitations, gathering data and generating a notification constitute insignificant post-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g). The mental process itself is merely enacted with generic computer technology, which falls under the principle of “apply it” as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b): The claim does not include additional elements (considered both alone and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, when the elements of the abstract idea are removed, what is left over is insignificant extra-solution activity, and generic computer technology. This claim is thus ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-7 and 9-10
The claims that depend on Claims 1 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-10, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations merely further narrow the abstract idea. These claims thus merely further limit the abstract idea, and do not introduce material beyond recitation of a mental process.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 1, and is thus rejected for similar rational as explained above.
Regarding Claims 22-26,
The claims that depend on Claims 1 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 22-26, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations merely further narrow the abstract idea. These claims thus merely further limit the abstract idea, and do not introduce material beyond recitation of a mental process.
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 1-7, 9, 21-27, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 20140074390 A1), in view of Srnec (US 20200141746 A1) and Koenig (US 20190265064 A1), herein after referred to simply as Williams, Srnec, and Koenig respectively.
Regarding Claim 1,
A method of facilitating an operation of an electric … vehicle, (Paragraph [0017], “FIG. 1A-C is a diagram illustrating example screen displays depicting a range estimation provided by an electric car.”)
the method comprising: receiving an identification of a planned trip along a route including [a path] for the electric … vehicle, (Paragraph [0015], “A current route for the vehicle can be referenced, either directly via the user specifying a destination from an in vehicle navigation system, or indirectly by predicting a current route from past history of a driver.”)
the electric … vehicle being of a vehicle type; (Paragraph [0018], “This backend 202 may contain car parameters 204 (for example, information about the make and model of various vehicles, including the particular car for which the estimated range is being computed).”)
using past battery consumption data associated with past trips along the route for the vehicle type, determining an estimated battery consumption required to complete the planned trip along the route with the electric … vehicle (Paragraph [0016], “In an example embodiment, models are created for driving patterns, based not only on the driver's own driving history but also based on the driving history of other drivers. For example, if a driver programs a new destination into his Global Positioning Satellite receiver to which he has never traveled before (or has traveled to infrequently so the drivers associated historical data set is small), the system can utilize the fact that other drivers have driven this route and use information from their historical information, such as power or fuel used in relation to factors such as expected traffic, location along the route, weather patterns, and the like to improve the accuracy of the range calculation.” – historical data is explicitly associated with a particular route, rather than merely a type or attribute of a route)
communicating the estimated battery consumption …. to an operator of the electric off-road vehicle via an operator interface; (Paragraph [0012], “In an example embodiment, the vehicle can send information about its current status to a central server via a wireless network. This central server can then compute the estimated range for the vehicle and send the estimated range back to the vehicle for display to the driver.” – see also, Figures 1A-1C, showing range estimates on a vehicle gauge).
when the electric … vehicle is travelling along the route: using one or more sensors of the electric … vehicle, acquiring one or more signals useful in deriving actual battery consumption data associated with the electric … vehicle; (Paragraph [0012], “In an example embodiment, the vehicle can send information about its current status to a central server via a wireless network. This central server can then compute the estimated range for the vehicle and send the estimated range back to the vehicle for display to the driver.” – the status is current, meaning that the estimate is updated continuously. For example, the vehicle status refers to a currently implemented mode of the vehicle travel and current battery level (Paragraph [0014], “For example, the remote system could base the calculation on any status information the vehicle could provide, such as state of charge, elevation, location, speed, air conditioning or heat usage, economy mode status, and/or accessories being used or plugged in (such as the car stereo or a connected phone).”)
determining the actual battery consumption data associated with the electric off-road vehicle using the one or more signals acquired with the one or more sensors; (Paragraph [0012], “In an example embodiment, the vehicle can send information about its current status to a central server via a wireless network. This central server can then compute the estimated range for the vehicle and send the estimated range back to the vehicle for display to the driver.” – and Paragraph [0014], “For example, the remote system could base the calculation on any status information the vehicle could provide, such as state of charge …” – battery level is monitored continuously. Note that the data is also displayed along a real-time fuel gauge, Figures 1A-1C.)
revising the estimated battery consumption data associated with the electric off-road vehicle using the one or more signals acquired with the one or more sensors (Paragraph [0012], “In an example embodiment, the vehicle can send information about its current status to a central server via a wireless network. This central server can then compute the estimated range for the vehicle and send the estimated range back to the vehicle for display to the driver.” – and Paragraph [0014], “For example, the remote system could base the calculation on any status information the vehicle could provide, such as state of charge …” – battery level is monitored continuously. Note that the data is also displayed along a real-time fuel gauge, Figures 1A-1C.)
revising the estimated battery consumption require to complete the planned trip along the route based on the actual battery consumption data; (Paragraph [0012], “In an example embodiment, the vehicle can send information about its current status to a central server via a wireless network. This central server can then compute the estimated range for the vehicle and send the estimated range back to the vehicle for display to the driver.” – and Paragraph [0014], “For example, the remote system could base the calculation on any status information the vehicle could provide, such as state of charge …” – battery level is monitored continuously. Note that the data is also displayed along a real-time fuel gauge, Figures 1A-1C.)
and communicating, via the operator interface, the revised battery consumption to the operator of the electric … vehicle during the planned trip Paragraph [0012], “In an example embodiment, the vehicle can send information about its current status to a central server via a wireless network. This central server can then compute the estimated range for the vehicle and send the estimated range back to the vehicle for display to the driver.” – and Paragraph [0014], “For example, the remote system could base the calculation on any status information the vehicle could provide, such as state of charge …” – battery level is monitored continuously. Note that the data is also displayed along a real-time fuel gauge, Figures 1A-1C.)
However, Williams does not disclose the following limitation,
communicating the estimated battery consumption required to complete the planned trip along the route to an operator of the electric … vehicle via an operator interface;
However, this is taught by Srnec, which teaches that a vehicle range display can be associated with what is required to complete a trip (Paragraph [0036], “The processor 110 is configured to determine, based on the planned route and the route status data, whether an energy level including the state of charge of the energy storage device 106 is sufficient to complete the planned route. The energy level may further include charging provided by alternator 124 when prime mover 122 is operated. In an embodiment, the energy level further includes power harvested by solar cells 118 and/or regenerative braking energy harvester 120. In an embodiment, when the energy level is not sufficient to complete the planned route, processor 110 sends a notification to display 112 and/or remote device 114.”).
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 range estimation with the trip-based alert of Srnec, as this provides a useful warning to a vehicle driver (Paragraph [0005], “When the energy level is not sufficient to complete the planned route for the vehicle, the method includes providing a notification to a user via a display.”). Furthermore, the combination could be performed using known methods, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, the combination of Williams and Srnec does not teach the following limitation,
electric off-road vehicle.
However, Koenig, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a vehicle range estimation (Paragraph [0194], “State of charge, energy information comes from VCM. Match up with route plan to ensure adequate range to complete the trip.”) of electric vehicles (Paragraph [0176], “A display of the state of charge for electric vehicles or fuel level of vehicles in the fleet may also be provided and sent to a remote computer accessible by the fleet manager”) can apply to an off-road vehicle (Paragraph [0061], “This can include, for example, usage in connection with motorcycle, all-terrain vehicle, snowmobile, or other types of recreational vehicles, and involves aggregation of user feedback regarding trail information and points-of-interest data, club information regarding trail conditions, and weather, hazard, and vehicle data to enrich the rider experience.”),
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 Williams, as previously modified by Srnec, with the implementation in off-road vehicles as taught by Koenig, as range estimation also assists off-road drivers (Paragraph [0061], “This can include … data to enrich the rider experience”), thus expanding the scope via the combination. Further, the combination is a simple substitution of elements, yielding results which are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Williams further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the estimated battery consumption includes an average of a plurality of battery consumption values respectively associated with past trips (Paragraph [0016], “. For example, if a driver programs a new destination into his Global Positioning Satellite receiver to which he has never traveled before (or has traveled to infrequently so the drivers associated historical data set is small), the system can utilize the fact that other drivers have driven this route and use information from their historical information, such as power or fuel used in relation to factors such as expected traffic, location along the route, weather patterns, and the like to improve the accuracy of the range calculation.” – if a route is frequently travelled by a vehicle, this data is said to be capable of being relied upon for a vehicle range estimate, in contrast to a route which is infrequently travelled. The system of Williams uses averaged data for the route, once such data is sufficiently reliable, as pertains to the law of large numbers.)
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Williams further discloses the following limitations,
using past battery consumption data associated with past trips along the route for the vehicle types includes accessing a database including the past battery consumption data; the past battery consumption data includes: first battery consumption data associated with a first operating condition along the route; and second battery consumption data associated with a second operating condition along the route (Paragraph [0016], “the system can utilize the fact that other drivers have driven this route and use information from their historical information, such as power or fuel used in relation to factors such as expected traffic, location along the route, weather patterns, and the like to improve the accuracy of the range calculation.” – the presence or absence of a particular factor, such as a weather pattern, is used to categorize historical information.)
the method includes: receiving a planned operating condition associated with the planned trip along the route with the electric off-road vehicle; associating the planned operating condition with the first operating condition; and determining the estimated battery consumption for the planned trip along the route with the electric off-road vehicle using the first past battery consumption data (Paragraph [0016], “the system can utilize the fact that other drivers have driven this route and use information from their historical information, such as power or fuel used in relation to factors such as expected traffic, location along the route, weather patterns, and the like to improve the accuracy of the range calculation.” the factor is associated with an expected factor, e.g., an expected weather)
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Williams further discloses the following limitation,
wherein the estimated battery consumption includes an average of a plurality of battery consumption values from the first battery consumption data (Paragraph [0016], “For example, if a driver programs a new destination into his Global Positioning Satellite receiver to which he has never traveled before (or has traveled to infrequently so the drivers associated historical data set is small), the system can utilize the fact that other drivers have driven this route and use information from their historical information, such as power or fuel used in relation to factors such as expected traffic, location along the route, weather patterns, and the like to improve the accuracy of the range calculation.” – data is combined from a plurality of other drivers, or a sufficiently large plurality of an own vehicle’s trips, the combination of such data is an averaging of the data.)
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Williams further discloses the following limitation,
wherein the planned operating condition includes a weight to be carried by the electric off-road vehicle during the planned trip (Paragraph [0018], “This backend 202 may contain car parameters 204 (for example, information about the make and model of various vehicles, including the particular car for which the estimated range is being computed). … Other information may include total battery size, tire width, performance capabilities (e.g., cornering, acceleration, etc.), vehicle weight, and so forth.”).
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. However, the combination, as shown, does not yet teach the following limitation,
wherein the planned operating condition includes an ambient temperature during the planned trip
However, this it taught by Srnec, which teaches that ambient temperature can be part of a range estimation (Paragraph [0035], “The route status data may include, for example, weather data (such as ambient temperatures, precipitation, cloud cover and/or solar intensity, and the like, and forecasts for those”).
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 range estimation of Williams with the temperature input, as part of a weather input, of Srnec, as this allows a vehicle to predict the electric usage of auxiliary units (Paragraph [0065], “The ambient conditions corresponding to the time and location of the transport climate control system 102 when it is being powered solely by the energy storage device 106 may be used to determine the energy consumption of the transport climate control system 102 during the planned route.”).
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Williams further discloses the following limitation,
wherein the planned operating condition includes a trail condition (Paragraph [0016], “the system can utilize the fact that other drivers have driven this route and use information from their historical information, such as power or fuel used in relation to factors such as expected traffic, location along the route, weather patterns, and the like to improve the accuracy of the range calculation.” - the route has planned weather condition, which is thus a trail condition when applied to the electric off-road vehicle of Koenig)
Regarding Claim 9
The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Williams further discloses the following limitation,
wherein the operator interface is an instrument panel of the electric off-road vehicle (Figures 1A-1C show an instrument panel)
Regarding Claim 10,
The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Srnec further already teaches the following limitation,
comparing the estimated battery consumption to a current charge status of a battery of the electric off-road vehicle; and causing the operator interface to alert the operator of the electric off-road vehicle when the current charge status of the battery of the electric off-road vehicle is insufficient to complete the route. ((Paragraph [0036], “The processor 110 is configured to determine, based on the planned route and the route status data, whether an energy level including the state of charge of the energy storage device 106 is sufficient to complete the planned route. The energy level may further include charging provided by alternator 124 when prime mover 122 is operated. In an embodiment, the energy level further includes power harvested by solar cells 118 and/or regenerative braking energy harvester 120. In an embodiment, when the energy level is not sufficient to complete the planned route, processor 110 sends a notification to display 112 and/or remote device 114.”)
Regarding Claims 21 and 27,
Claims 21 and 27 recite essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 1, except restated as apparatus claims. Claim 21 merely further includes generic computer technology (”one or more data processors”, “non-transitory machine readable memory storing instructions executable by the one or more data processors”). Williams discloses the use of a computer (Paragraph [0024], “FIG. 7 is a block diagram of a computer processing system at a server system, within which a set of instructions, for causing the computer to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein, may be executed.”). Claim 27 recites the same computer technology and further includes the electric off-road vehicle itself. Koenig, as shown above, already teaches that the vehicle can be an off-road vehicle () (Paragraph [0061], “This can include, for example, usage in connection with motorcycle, all-terrain vehicle, snowmobile, or other types of recreational vehicles” and Paragraph [0176], “A display of the state of charge for electric vehicles or fuel level of vehicles in the fleet may also be provided and sent to a remote computer accessible by the fleet manager”). Therefore, the combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, shown above, also teaches Claims 21 and 27.
Regarding Claim 22 and 30,
Claims 22 and 30 recite essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 2. The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Therefore, Claims 22 and 30 are also taught.
Regarding Claim 23 and 32,
Claims 23 and 32 recite essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 3. The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 3. Therefore, Claims 23 and 32 are also taught.
Regarding Claim 24,
Claim 24 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claims 5-7, except combined into a list of options. The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claims 5-7. Therefore, Claim 24 is also taught.
Regarding Claim 25,
Claim 25 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 9. The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 9. Therefore, Claim 25 is also taught.
Regarding Claim 26,
The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 21. Williams further discloses the following limitations,
wherein the operator interface includes a personal electronic device external to the off-road vehicle (Paragraph [0014], “For example, the remote system could base the calculation on any status information the vehicle could provide, such as state of charge, elevation, location, speed, air conditioning or heat usage, economy mode status, and/or accessories being used or plugged in (such as the car stereo or a connected phone).”)
Regarding Claim 28,
Claim 28 recites essentially the same limitations to that of Claim 10. The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 10. Therefore, Claim 28 is also taught.
Regarding Claim 29,
The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 27. Koenig further already teaches the following limitation,
wherein the electric off-road vehicle is a snowmobile (Paragraph [0061], “This can include, for example, usage in connection with motorcycle, all-terrain vehicle, snowmobile, or other types of recreational vehicles, and involves aggregation of user feedback regarding trail information and points-of-interest data, club information regarding trail conditions, and weather, hazard, and vehicle data to enrich the rider experience.”)
Regarding Claim 31,
The combination of Williams, Srnec, and Koenig, as shown, teaches all the limitations of Claim 27. Williams further discloses the following limitation,
wherein the instructions are configured to cause the one or more data processors to cause the operator interface to facilitate a selection of the route to be travelled by the electric off-road vehicle (Paragraph [0015], “A current route for the vehicle can be referenced … directly via the user specifying a destination from an in vehicle navigation system,”)
Conclusion
The following art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Miller (US 20190248358 A1) teaches that a vehicle range estimation can be associated with a seat-heating (Paragraph [0008], “In one example, waste heat sources include the electric motor, inverter, high voltage battery, transmission, vehicle brakes, vehicle seat heats, cup holders, vehicle lights (headlights taillights cabin lights), etc.”). Wang (US 20200160619 A1) teaches that vehicle operating conditions can be predicted, and connects temperature estimation to range estimation (“At run-time, the battery temperature can be predicted based on the relative model and input factors (e.g., forecasted weather conditions, estimated driving modes, car mode) … to estimate the endurance mileage of new energy vehicle in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention.”). Meyer (US 20160061610 A1) teaches a range estimation based on categorized average data (Paragraph [0040], “It follows that during the course of operation of the vehicle 101, the DTE prediction tool may record information that identifies an average energy consumption of the vehicle 101 when traveling in terms of one or more road segment attributes. For example, the DTE prediction tool may record the average energy consumption of the vehicle 101 when the vehicle is traveling at a variety of different speeds, and/or traveling along certain road types.”) and which can be revised while the vehicle is in operation (Claim 6, “The vehicle of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to: apply the correction factor to the energy consumption estimate in a feedback loop in order to generate a corrected energy consumption estimate; and update the vehicle driving range based on the corrected energy consumption estimate.”)
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. he 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