DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the response to Non-Final Rejection Application filed October 28, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The examiner states that all original rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 previously stated for the original claims 1-20 are overcome by the amendments made by the applicant and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
The rejection of record is maintained and recited below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of record filed, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of the Non-Final rejection filed July 28, 2025, has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
An updated and detailed rejection follows below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote et al. (US 20220198497; hereinafter Cote, already of record), in view of Ricci (US 20170097243; hereinafter Ricci, of record in IDS), and further in view of Pak (US 20230186215).
Regarding Claim 1,
Cote teaches
A method (Cote: Abstract) comprising:
identifying, by a processing system including at least one processor, (Cote: Paragraph [0061]-[0062]; Processor 622) a first type of a vehicle to be operated by a driver; (Cote: Paragraph [0029]; Ride-share with vehicle owned by driver)
monitoring, by the processing system, operational metrics of the vehicle while the vehicle is being operated by the driver during a journey; (Cote: Paragraph [0019]; “The systems and methods may analyze the set of operation data to identify various operation/driving events, such as accelerations, instances of exceeding the speed limit, hard brakes, hard turns, contact with other vehicles or objects, and/or other driving events.”)
...
generating, by the processing system, an aggregated vehicle operation score (Cote: Paragraph [0040]-[0041], [0049], and [0058]; The system utilizes calculated driving scores based on collected telematics data in order to determine an overall rating for the user.) based at least on: the first vehicle operation score and a second vehicle operation score for a second type of a second vehicle previously operated by the driver, (Cote: Paragraph [0039], [0058]; The system collects telematics data from various vehicles that a user may drive, including rental vehicles and their own vehicle during a ride-sharing event, and associates said data with the user’s account to calculate a driving score for each session and generate an overall score in the form of a driver rating.) wherein the first type of the vehicle is distinct from the second type of the second vehicle; (Cote: Paragraph [0029]; The system tracks the various types of vehicles that the user is associated with including rental vehicles and their own vehicle during ride-share operations.) and
...
Cote does not teach
...
generating, by the processing system, a first vehicle operation score for the journey;
...
executing, by the processing system, at least one remedial action based on the aggregated vehicle operation score, wherein the at least one remedial action comprises sending a control signal to a master controller of the vehicle to lower a maximum vehicle speed of the vehicle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Ricci teaches
...
generating, by the processing system, a first vehicle operation score for the journey; (Ricci: Paragraph [0019]; “Based on the detected driving events, the systems and methods may calculate a driving score for an individual to reflect a performance of the individual on a particular operating instance of the vehicle.”)
...
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the driver monitoring method of Cote with the operation score and remedial action of Ricci for the benefit of totally intuitive and immersive user experience. (Ricci: Paragraph [0007])
Cote, in view of Ricci, does not teach
...
executing, by the processing system, at least one remedial action based on the aggregated vehicle operation score, wherein the at least one remedial action comprises sending a control signal to a master controller of the vehicle to lower a maximum vehicle speed of the vehicle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Pak teaches
...
executing, by the processing system, at least one remedial action based on the aggregated vehicle operation score, (Pak: Paragraph [0007]-[0009], [0038]; “The rental management server: generates information about the user's driving propensity by analyzing the collected integrated data, calculates a safe driving score for the user based on information about the user's driving propensity, and determines a safe driving grade based on the safe driving score.”) wherein the at least one remedial action comprises sending a control signal to a master controller of the vehicle to lower a maximum vehicle speed of the vehicle. (Pak: Paragraph [0010], [0071]-[0073])
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the driver monitoring method of Cote, in view of Ricci, with the deactivation of vehicle feature based on a driver score of Pak for the benefit of providing safe and verified vehicle rental services, and improve user satisfaction of vehicle rental services.
Regarding Claim 2,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, by the processing system, an identity of the driver. (Ricci: Paragraph [0263]-[0264]; The system of the vehicle can receive profile data that is associated with the current user which contains various types of identifying information of said user.)
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 2, wherein the identity of the driver is identified via a code entered by the driver. (Ricci: Paragraph [0458]; “...the user may provide a unique code to the vehicle control system 204 or provide some other type of data that allows the vehicle control system 204 to identify the user.”)
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the identity of the driver is identified via a camera deployed within the first type of the vehicle. (Ricci: Paragraph [0361], [0392])
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the identity of the driver is identified via a communication with a mobile device associated with the driver. (Ricci: Paragraph [0392])
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 6,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the first type of the vehicle comprises at least one of:
a truck; (Cote: Paragraph [0023]; “...the environment 100 includes a set of vehicles 105, 106, 107 which may be, for example, cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, scooters, boats, recreational vehicles, or any other type of vehicle capable of being operated or driven by a vehicle driver or operator.”)
a van; (Cote: Paragraph [0023]; “...the environment 100 includes a set of vehicles 105, 106, 107 which may be, for example, cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, scooters, boats, recreational vehicles, or any other type of vehicle capable of being operated or driven by a vehicle driver or operator.”)
a car; (Cote: Paragraph [0023]; “...the environment 100 includes a set of vehicles 105, 106, 107 which may be, for example, cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, scooters, boats, recreational vehicles, or any other type of vehicle capable of being operated or driven by a vehicle driver or operator.”) (Ricci: Paragraph [0205]; “Typical vehicles may include but are in no way limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, busses, automobiles, trains, railed conveyances, boats, ships, marine conveyances, submarine conveyances, airplanes, space craft, flying machines, human-powered conveyances, and the like.”)
a motorcycle; (Cote: Paragraph [0023]; “...the environment 100 includes a set of vehicles 105, 106, 107 which may be, for example, cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, scooters, boats, recreational vehicles, or any other type of vehicle capable of being operated or driven by a vehicle driver or operator.”)
a bicycle; (Ricci: Paragraph [0205]; “Typical vehicles may include but are in no way limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, busses, automobiles, trains, railed conveyances, boats, ships, marine conveyances, submarine conveyances, airplanes, space craft, flying machines, human-powered conveyances, and the like.”)
a scooter; (Cote: Paragraph [0023]; “...the environment 100 includes a set of vehicles 105, 106, 107 which may be, for example, cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, scooters, boats, recreational vehicles, or any other type of vehicle capable of being operated or driven by a vehicle driver or operator.”)
a motorboat; (Cote: Paragraph [0023]; “...the environment 100 includes a set of vehicles 105, 106, 107 which may be, for example, cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, scooters, boats, recreational vehicles, or any other type of vehicle capable of being operated or driven by a vehicle driver or operator.”)
a sailboat; (Ricci: Paragraph [0205]; “Typical vehicles may include but are in no way limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, busses, automobiles, trains, railed conveyances, boats, ships, marine conveyances, submarine conveyances, airplanes, space craft, flying machines, human-powered conveyances, and the like.”) or
a drone. (Ricci: Paragraph [0205]; “Typical vehicles may include but are in no way limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, busses, automobiles, trains, railed conveyances, boats, ships, marine conveyances, submarine conveyances, airplanes, space craft, flying machines, human-powered conveyances, and the like.”)
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 6, wherein the second type of the second vehicle comprises at least a different one of:
a truck; (Cote: Paragraph [0023]; “...the environment 100 includes a set of vehicles 105, 106, 107 which may be, for example, cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, scooters, boats, recreational vehicles, or any other type of vehicle capable of being operated or driven by a vehicle driver or operator.”) (Ricci: Paragraph [0205]; “Typical vehicles may include but are in no way limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, busses, automobiles, trains, railed conveyances, boats, ships, marine conveyances, submarine conveyances, airplanes, space craft, flying machines, human-powered conveyances, and the like.”)
a van;
a car; (Cote: Paragraph [0023]; “...the environment 100 includes a set of vehicles 105, 106, 107 which may be, for example, cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, scooters, boats, recreational vehicles, or any other type of vehicle capable of being operated or driven by a vehicle driver or operator.”) (Ricci: Paragraph [0205]; “Typical vehicles may include but are in no way limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, busses, automobiles, trains, railed conveyances, boats, ships, marine conveyances, submarine conveyances, airplanes, space craft, flying machines, human-powered conveyances, and the like.”)
a motorcycle; (Cote: Paragraph [0023]; “...the environment 100 includes a set of vehicles 105, 106, 107 which may be, for example, cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, scooters, boats, recreational vehicles, or any other type of vehicle capable of being operated or driven by a vehicle driver or operator.”)
a bicycle; (Ricci: Paragraph [0205]; “Typical vehicles may include but are in no way limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, busses, automobiles, trains, railed conveyances, boats, ships, marine conveyances, submarine conveyances, airplanes, space craft, flying machines, human-powered conveyances, and the like.”)
a scooter; (Cote: Paragraph [0023]; “...the environment 100 includes a set of vehicles 105, 106, 107 which may be, for example, cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, scooters, boats, recreational vehicles, or any other type of vehicle capable of being operated or driven by a vehicle driver or operator.”)
a motorboat; (Cote: Paragraph [0023]; “...the environment 100 includes a set of vehicles 105, 106, 107 which may be, for example, cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorbikes, scooters, boats, recreational vehicles, or any other type of vehicle capable of being operated or driven by a vehicle driver or operator.”)
a sailboat; (Ricci: Paragraph [0205]; “Typical vehicles may include but are in no way limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, busses, automobiles, trains, railed conveyances, boats, ships, marine conveyances, submarine conveyances, airplanes, space craft, flying machines, human-powered conveyances, and the like.”) or
a drone. (Ricci: Paragraph [0205]; “Typical vehicles may include but are in no way limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, busses, automobiles, trains, railed conveyances, boats, ships, marine conveyances, submarine conveyances, airplanes, space craft, flying machines, human-powered conveyances, and the like.”)
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the first type of the vehicle comprises a driver owned vehicle (Cote: Paragraph [0029]: “...an operator may use his or her own vehicle in a ride sharing service to transport a passenger from an origin to a destination, whereby any usage by the operator outside of the ride sharing service may not be factored into any driving assessment.”) and wherein the second type of the second vehicle comprises a rental vehicle. (Cote: Paragraph [0029]: “...the operators (and the telematics data collection) have a temporary association with the vehicles 105, 106, 107. For example, an operator may rent one of the vehicles 105, 106, 107 from a vehicle rental agency.”)
Regarding Claim 9,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying, by the processing system, at least one environment condition associated with the journey. (Ricci: Paragraph [0271]; “The vehicle control system 204 may also communicate with one or more sensors 236, 242, which are either associated with the vehicle 104 or communicate with the vehicle 104. Vehicle sensors 242 may include one or more sensors for providing information to the vehicle control system 204 that determine or provide information about the environment 100 in which the vehicle 104 is operating.”)
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 9, wherein the generating the aggregated vehicle operation score is further based on the at least one environment condition associated with the journey. (Ricci: Paragraph [0528]; “In a similar manner, the environmental control recognition module 2016, in cooperation with one or more of the sensors disclosed herein, is capable of recognizing any one or more environmental conditions including, ... current weather conditions, and in general, any environmental factors. These environmental factors can be coupled with and similarly stored in the driver facts data 2032 to assist with providing a more complete picture of assisting anyone with determining whether or not the driver's behavior was reasonable or not.”)
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 11,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 9, wherein the at least one environment condition comprises at least one of:
a time of day when the vehicle was operated; (Ricci: Paragraph [0480]; “Each system and/or component may include priority type information in portion 1276... As such, the priority type may be associated with temperature conditions, air quality, times of the day, condition of the vehicle 104, and the like.”)
a weather when the vehicle was operated; (Ricci: Paragraph [0528]; “In a similar manner, the environmental control recognition module 2016, in cooperation with one or more of the sensors disclosed herein, is capable of recognizing any one or more environmental conditions including, ... current weather conditions, and in general, any environmental factors. These environmental factors can be coupled with and similarly stored in the driver facts data 2032 to assist with providing a more complete picture of assisting anyone with determining whether or not the driver's behavior was reasonable or not.”)
an occupancy level when the vehicle was operated; (Ricci: Paragraph [0494]; The system is capable of using various sensors to detect the presence of the vehicle operator and/or one or more other users/passengers within the vehicle.) or
a type of location traversed by the vehicle. (Ricci: Paragraph [0411]-[0412])
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 12,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, by the processing system, at least one non-operational metric. (Ricci: Paragraph [0525], [0527]; The system may update the “driver facts data 2032” (which contains the overall driver rating) with non-operational data, including but not limited to, if the vehicle is being properly maintained or if damage has been done to the vehicle based on how the user drove it.)
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 12, wherein the generating the aggregated vehicle operation score is further based on the at least one non-operational metric. (Ricci: Paragraph [0525], [0527]; The system may update the “driver facts data 2032” (which contains the overall driver rating) with non-operational data, including but not limited to, if the vehicle is being properly maintained or if damage has been done to the vehicle based on how the user drove it.)
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 14,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 12, wherein the at least one non-operational metric comprises at least one of:
a compliance to a maintenance schedule of the vehicle; (Ricci: Paragraph [0525], [0527]; “...if a driver routinely fails to make maintenance visits,...”)
a returning of a rental vehicle on a previously agreed time;
a returning of a rental vehicle on a previously agreed location;
a returning of a rental vehicle without a damage to the rental vehicle; (Ricci: Paragraph [0527]; “...if the driver... causes damage to vehicles,...”)
a returning of a rental vehicle without violating a specified constraint;
a returning of a rental vehicle in a clean state; or
an operation of a rental vehicle without violating a local traffic rule. (Ricci: Paragraph [0527]; “...the user-based system may include facts related to specific user or driver,...that the driver appears to always obey all posted speed limit signs (with the vehicle able to correlate GPS location navigation data to determine whether or not a user has been speeding), and the like.”)
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the operational metrics comprise at least two of:
a speed of the vehicle; (Ricci: Paragraph [0342]; “...wheel state sensor 660 to sense one or more of vehicle speed, acceleration, deceleration, wheel rotation, wheel speed (e.g., wheel revolutions-per-minute), wheel slip, and the like...”)
an acceleration of the vehicle; (Ricci: Paragraph [0342]; “...wheel state sensor 660 to sense one or more of vehicle speed, acceleration, deceleration, wheel rotation, wheel speed (e.g., wheel revolutions-per-minute), wheel slip, and the like...”)
a deceleration of the vehicle; (Ricci: Paragraph [0342]; “...wheel state sensor 660 to sense one or more of vehicle speed, acceleration, deceleration, wheel rotation, wheel speed (e.g., wheel revolutions-per-minute), wheel slip, and the like...”)
a lane keeping of the vehicle; (Cote: Paragraph [0036]; “the telematics data may include vehicle lane deviation, vehicle swerving, [and] vehicle lane centering,...”)
a lane changing of the vehicle; (Cote: Paragraph [0036]; “the telematics data may include vehicle lane deviation,...”)
a loading of the vehicle; (Ricci: Paragraph [0363]) or
an observance of at least one traffic rule by the driver. (Ricci: Paragraph [0527]; “...the determinations made in the aforementioned embodiments may be stored and associated with a vehicle and/or the user in one or more of the driver facts data 2032, the profile data 252, or with the vehicle itself...These details may include, for example,...that the driver appears to always obey all posted speed limit signs (with the vehicle able to correlate GPS location navigation data to determine whether or not a user has been speeding), and the like.”)
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 16,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one remedial action further comprises:
activating a second feature of the vehicle; or
sending a recommendation to the driver. (Ricci: Paragraph [0144], [0532]; “It should be appreciated that the driver facts data 2032 can also be used to positively influence one or more of vehicle settings, vehicle behavior, and recommended actions...”)
The motivation to combine Cote, Ricci, and Pak, is the same as stated for Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 17,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one remedial action further comprises:
sending, by the processing system, the aggregated vehicle operation score to a third party service provider; and (Cote: Paragraph [0040]; The system may analyze and send the driving score of a user to an insurance company or rental company if it meets or exceeds a certain threshold.)
receiving, by the processing system, an offer from the third party service provider. (Cote: Paragraph [0041]; The user may receive incentives from insurance companies or rental companies based on their driving score.)
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations with the following additional limitations:
A nontransitory computer readable medium... (Cote: Paragraph [0008])
...
Therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is analogous to Claim 1 limitations with the following additional limitations:
...
a computer-readable medium... (Cote: Paragraph [0008])
...
Therefore rejected under the same premise as Claim 1.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, as applied to claims 1-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Stevens (US 20210326777, already of record).
Regarding Claim 18,
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, teaches
The method of claim 1,...
Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view of Pak, does not teach
...wherein the at least one remedial action further comprises:
sending, by the processing system, the aggregated vehicle operation score to a mobile device of at least one occupant of the vehicle, wherein the at least one occupant is distinct from the driver.
However in the same field of endeavor, Stevens teaches
...wherein the at least one remedial action further comprises:
sending, by the processing system, the aggregated vehicle operation score to a mobile device of at least one occupant of the vehicle, wherein the at least one occupant is distinct from the driver. (Stevens: Paragraph [0069], FIG. 4 (Element 104) and 8)
It would be obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the driver monitoring method of Cote, in view of Ricci, and further in view Pak, with the ability to send the aggregated vehicle operation score to a distinct occupant of Stevens for the benefit of facilitating passenger travel. (Stevens: Abstract)
Conclusion
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 PAULO ROBERTO GONZALEZ LEITE whose telephone number is (571)272-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571-272-9855. 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.
/P.R.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663