DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed 10 November 2025.
Claims 6-9 are pending. Claims 4-5 are cancelled. Claim 6 is an independent claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 29 October 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1; MPEP 2106.03). If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed toward a judicial exception (Step 2A; MPEP 2106.04). This step is broken into two prongs.
The first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1) determines whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined at Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2; MPEP 2106.04). The second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2) determines whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim is a patent-eligible exception (Step 2B; MPEP 2106.05).
If an abstract idea is present int the claim, in order to recite statutory subject matter, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see: 2019 PEG).
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 6-9 are directed toward a method (process). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 6:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to claim 6, the claim recites:
measuring… one or more values of the one or more physical parameters of the device, thereby providing values (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation to measure the values of the physical parameters of the device)
predicting… the one or more values of one or more physical parameters of the vehicle transmission as a function of the measured values, thereby providing predicted values (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing a judgement, based upon the measured values, to predict values)
comparing the predicted values and the measured predicted values (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an observation to compare the predicted values and the measured predicted values)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claim discloses the following additional limitations:
providing a computer configured to simulate structure and operation of a vehicle transmission, the computer having machine-readable code that when executed on the computer predicts, as a function of one or more physical parameters, one or more values of one or more physical parameters of the vehicle transmission
executing the machine-readable code during a basic training phase using values of the physical parameters obtained by simulation of at least part of the device
executing the machine-readable code during a build-up training phase using the measured values of the physical parameters
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the claim discloses the additional elements of a computer. This element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claim discloses the following additional limitations:
providing a computer configured to simulate structure and operation of a vehicle transmission, the computer having machine-readable code that when executed on the computer predicts, as a function of one or more physical parameters, one or more values of one or more physical parameters of the vehicle transmission
executing the machine-readable code during a basic training phase using values of the physical parameters obtained by simulation of at least part of the device
executing the machine-readable code during a build-up training phase using the measured values of the physical parameters
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the claim discloses the additional elements of a computer. This element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7:
With respect to dependent claim 7, the claim depends upon independent claim 6. The analysis of claim 6 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claim discloses the following additional limitations:
wherein the build-up training phase is carried out after the basic training phase has been completed
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claim discloses the following additional limitations:
wherein the build-up training phase is carried out after the basic training phase has been completed
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8:
With respect to dependent claim 8, the claim depends upon independent claim 6. The analysis of claim 6 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 8, the claim recites:
determining the initial values (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses observing a simulation operation and determining initial values)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
The claim discloses the following additional limitations:
simulating operation of the vehicle transmission prior to training
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim discloses the following additional limitations:
storing the initial values in a database
This limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere storing data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The claim discloses the following additional limitations:
simulating operation of the vehicle transmission prior to training
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim discloses the following additional limitations:
storing the initial values in a database
This limitation amounts to extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounting to mere storing data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9:
With respect to dependent claim 9, the claim depends upon independent claim 6. The analysis of claim 6 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 9, the claim recites:
detecting… a temperature rise during simulated operations of the vehicle transmission (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses observing a temperature rise during a simulation)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Fakdi et al. (Two-step gradient-based reinforcement learning or underwater robotics behavior learning, 23 December 2012, hereafter El-Fakdi) and further in view of James (US 2021/0255621, filed 17 February 2020).
As per independent claim 6, El-Fakdi discloses a method for detecting anomalies in a device, the method comprising:
a self-learning algorithm that predicts, as a function of one or more physical parameters, one or more values of one or more physical parameters (Section 5: Here, an underwater robot is trained to detect a cable using a physical camera capturing images. Parameters including the robot coordinate frame, which includes the robot orientation in the X (Surge), Y (Sway), Z (Heave), and N (Yaw) coordinate space is measured, and the camera coordinate frame, defining the field of view of the camera is measured (Figure 4))
executing a basic training phase using values of the physical parameters obtained by simulation of at least part of the device (Section 5: Here, an underwater robot is trained to detect a cable using a physical camera capturing images. Parameters including the robot coordinate frame, which includes the robot orientation in the X (Surge), Y (Sway), Z (Heave), and N (Yaw) coordinate space is measured, and the camera coordinate frame, defining the field of view of the camera is measured (Figure 4). This includes performing basic training using simulated values (Section 5.1) and build-up training using measured values of the physical parameters (Section 5.2))
measuring one or more values of the one or more physical parameters of the device, thereby providing measured values (Section 4.2: Here, a cable is detected at a position in the captured image, the camera coordinate frame and the robot orientation providing the physical parameters associated with the image (Section 4.3))
executing during a build-up training phase using the measured values of the physical parameters (Section 5: Here, the robot is trained via a self-learning algorithm to identify a cable. This includes performing basic training using simulated values (Section 5.1) and build-up training using measured values of the physical parameters (Section 5.2))
predicting the one or more values of the one or more physical parameters of the device as a function of the measured values by means of the algorithm, thereby providing predicted values (Section 4.2: Here, based upon identifying the cable, the location and orientation of the cable in the next image are predicted by means of a Kalman filter, which allows reducing the pixels to be processed to a small region of interest)
comparing the predicted values and the measured predicted values (Section 4.2: Here, it is determined whether the cable falls within the predicted region of interest. If the cable falls within this region, the process continues to the next image. If the cable does not fall within the predicted region, a failure counter is increased and the image is discarded. This results in the region of interest being widened to include the whole image)
El-Fakdi fails to specifically disclose:
providing a computer configured to simulate structure and operation of a vehicle transmission, the computer having machine-readable code that when executed performs functionality
However, James, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward simulating components, such as vehicle transmission, for determining vehicle configuration, discloses:
providing a computer (paragraphs 0154: Here, a computer including a processor and memory are defined) configured to simulate structure and operation of a vehicle transmission (paragraph 0056: Here, a vehicle transmission system includes data relating to a vehicle transmission including a record of transmission temperature during traversal of a trail. A machine learning algorithm may be used to improve vehicle configuration (paragraph 0038). This includes determining whether a vehicle component would be compatible with the vehicle and operable during the traversal of an offroad trail (paragraph 0131). This includes determining that a component, such as a vehicle transmission temperature would exceed a threshold, and determining an alternative transmission configuration that would be in compliance with the specified operating temperature for the vehicle transmission usage (paragraph 0131)), the computer having machine-readable code that when executed performs functionality (paragraph 0153: This computer may execute computer program instructions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined James with El-Fakdi, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for evaluating the suitability of a vehicle transmission for traversing a trail (James: paragraph 0003) based upon measured and predicting values (El-Fakdi: Section 5).
As per dependent claim 7, El-Fakdi and James disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 6, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. El-Fakdi further discloses wherein the build-up training is carried out after the basic training has been completed (Figure 1; Sections 2.1 and 5: Here, after the learning algorithm is trained on the simulated environment (basic training), the learning algorithm is trained using the real environment (build-up training) to continually adapt to future changes).
As per dependent claim 8, El-Fakdi and James disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 7, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. El-Fakdi discloses simulating operation of the device prior to the training, thereby determining the initial values (Figure 1; Section 5.1: Here, a set of simulated results are collected. These simulated results are used to help train the model prior to receiving real world learning results).
El-Fakdi fails to specifically disclose wherein the device is a vehicle transmission and storing the initial values in a database.
However, James, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward simulating components, such as vehicle transmission, for determining vehicle configuration, discloses a wherein a device is a vehicle transmission (paragraph 0056: Here, a vehicle transmission system includes data relating to a vehicle transmission including a record of transmission temperature during traversal of a trail. A machine learning algorithm may be used to improve vehicle configuration (paragraph 0038). This includes determining whether a vehicle component would be compatible with the vehicle and operable during the traversal of an offroad trail (paragraph 0131). This includes determining that a component, such as a vehicle transmission temperature would exceed a threshold, and determining an alternative transmission configuration that would be in compliance with the specified operating temperature for the vehicle transmission usage (paragraph 0131)), the computer having machine-readable code that when executed performs functionality (paragraph 0153: This computer may execute computer program instructions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined James with El-Fakdi, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for evaluating the suitability of a vehicle transmission for traversing a trail (James: paragraph 0003) based upon measured and predicting values (El-Fakdi: Section 5).
Finally, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to store a set of values in a database. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with El-Fakdi-James, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for storage and retrieval of values at a later time.
As per dependent claim 9, El-Fakdi and James disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 8, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. James, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward simulating components, such as vehicle transmission, for determining vehicle configuration, discloses detecting, by the computer, a temperature rise during simulated operation of the vehicle transmission (paragraph 0056: Here, a vehicle transmission system includes data relating to a vehicle transmission including a record of transmission temperature during traversal of a trail. A machine learning algorithm may be used to improve vehicle configuration (paragraph 0038). This includes determining whether a vehicle component would be compatible with the vehicle and operable during the traversal of an offroad trail (paragraph 0131). This includes determining that a component, such as a vehicle transmission temperature would exceed a threshold, and determining an alternative transmission configuration that would be in compliance with the specified operating temperature for the vehicle transmission usage (paragraph 0131)), the computer having machine-readable code that when executed performs functionality (paragraph 0153: This computer may execute computer program instructions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined James with El-Fakdi, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for evaluating the suitability of a vehicle transmission for traversing a trail (James: paragraph 0003) based upon measured and predicting values (El-Fakdi: Section 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 103 in view of El-Fakdi and James.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the new claims recite “a computer that is particularly configured with machine-readable code that when executed by the computer, simulates structure and operation of a vehicle transmission” and as such the method is not performed by mental process or human behavior.
However, it is noted that the examiner does not allege that these elements of the claim are mental processes. Instead, under Step 2A, Prong 2, these additional limitations, including:
providing a computer configured to simulate structure and operation of a vehicle transmission, the computer having machine-readable code that when executed on the computer predicts, as a function of one or more physical parameters, one or more values of one or more physical parameters of the vehicle transmission
executing the machine-readable code during a basic training phase using values of the physical parameters obtained by simulation of at least part of the device
executing the machine-readable code during a build-up training phase using the measured values of the physical parameters
The additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the claim discloses the additional elements of a computer. This element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For this reason, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hill (US 2021/0295167): Discloses designing physical products via simulations to evaluate the design of the object. This includes evaluating the results of the simulation and modifying the design based upon these results (Abstract; Figure 1).
Bhandary (US 11763160): Discloses a machine learning method wherein a database table stores initial values/weights (claim 1).
Applebaum et al. (US 11355228): Discloses storing initial values in a database for use by a machine learning software (claim 1).
Farver et al. (US 2020/0327137): Discloses a machine learning engine storing data in a machine learning database to populate a machine learning model to predict the initial value of the digital data object modifier (paragraph 0034).
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 KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128