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
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/24/2026. Claims 1, 3-21 are pending. Claims 1, 10, 16, are amended. No claims are currently added. No claims are currently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued “The hybrid sequential optimization is clearly an advancement over the prior art methods of managing a worksite. As provided in para. [0046] of the present application, the worksite optimizer employs an optimization algorithm in adjusting the initial operating regions to define the final operating regions. For example, the worksite optimizer may employ a hybrid method that iteratively applies a particle swam optimization (PSO) algorithm and a steepest ascent algorithm to define the final operating regions. This hybrid approach may be employed to mitigate the risk associated with PSO algorithms of settling on a local maximum rather than the desired global maximum. Additionally, this hybrid approach performs two separate stages of optimization: the first stage utilizes a PSO algorithm to shrink the search domain and to minimize the presence of local maxima, And the second stage of the optimization utilizes a steepest ascent algorithm to determine the maximum of the newly defined domain. This is clearly an advancement to solve real-world problems.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The argument that the hybrid sequential optimization would be at most an advancement over the prior art methods of managing a worksite is a 102/103 question but does not say anything about whether or not a claim is directed to a judicial exception under 101. An improvement to an abstract idea could be new and non-obvious but still be an abstract idea and not overcome a 101 rejection. Although the applicant has cited portions of the specification (paragraph 46) the method describes a mathematical technique not a technological one. Shrinking a search domain and finding a maximum via steepest ascent are number operations combining two known numerical methods sequentially to improve convergence is an advance in applied mathematics not in computer functionality, sensor technology, machine control, or any other technical field. The MPEP requires that an improvement be to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field not merely an improvement to the judicial exception itself. The applicant appears to be merely claiming an improvement to solving an optimization problem, which is an abstract idea. The applicant is also arguing limitations that are not currently in the claims, specifically particle swam optimization (PSO) algorithm, a steepest ascent algorithm to define the final operating region, shrinking a search domain, or mitigating local maxima. However, even with those limitations in the claim, the claim might still be directed to a mathematical concept, not a technological improvement. The statement “this is clearly an advancement to solve real-world problems” is merely a conclusory assertion without identifying which claim limitation solves which real-world problem, or even how. Applicant’s invention is directed to determining and scheduling physical location of machinery within an operational setting. Such activities represent resource planning and operational management, which are forms of organizing human activity. Scheduling where equipment should be located and when it should be used constitutes a managerial or logistical decision making process traditionally performed by humans. The claims are directed to planning, scheduling and resource management.
The applicant has argued “Not only are independent claims optimizing a worksite, but independent claims 1, 11 and 16 are controlling vehicles to manage the operation. This clearly falls within a practical application of the worksite optimizer. As provided in para. [0032] of the present application, by autonomously controlling the moveable machines the worksite optimizer may decrease the number of human personnel that need be present at the worksite, thereby increasing the safety of the operation (e.g., construction operation, mining operation) performed at the worksite. As provided in para. [0064] of the present application, an additional reason for this is that the software optimizations can still hold true in the event of unexpected weather conditions as the weather will impact the soil properties and can cause major safety issues with operating the vehicles. For example, driving a vehicle on muddy terrain compared to dry gravel would significantly impact constraints like how much the vehicle can turn within a certain amount of time.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears as though the invention is directed to using a map that has known resource locations, somehow a worksite optimizer provides a divided map, determines tasks, adjusts a configuration, provides a map, and generates a vehicle sequence. The system merely receives data and manipulates the data to come up with a solution “in accomplishing a production goal.” It is not clear how the claims optimize the goal. At most the claim defines how to accomplish a production goal. It is not clear how the production goal is being optimized merely that it is being sequenced. The claim merely uses the computer as a tool "worksite optimizer" to perform generic calculations (optimization). The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself, nor does it specify a non-conventional, specific optimization technique that solves a technical problem, rather than a business problem. There is nothing in the claim as to how the placement or why the placement would lead to any time of optimization or maximization of a production goal. It is not clear what the separate tasks are. Or that the separate tasks would lead to an improvement or optimizations. The claims do not recite “autonomous” operation, do not recite removing or reducing on-site personnel, and do not recite any safety-related limitations. Even if the personnel/safety benefit were read into the claims it would not establish integration into a practical application. At most the claim is linking an abstract idea to a particular field of user or technological environment without a specific technical implementation. The argument about the weather is also to limitations not in the claim language. The applicant is argued that the software optimization can still hold true under changing weather conditions because driving a vehicle on muddy terrain compared to dry gravel would significantly impact constraints. However, the claims do not recite sensing or detecting weather or soil conditions, do not recite determining or adjusting a turning constraint, and do not recite any terrain dependent modification of the vehicle sequence or control scheme.
Applicant’s originally filed specification clearly shows that the invention is directed to plans that are to be used manually in the future in paragraph 55 “[0055] In some embodiments, the vehicle sequence determined by the worksite optimizer is utilized by operators of the worksite as instructions for operating the various machines located at the worksite. In this manner, the vehicle sequence acts as plans to be later executed manually by the operators of the worksite such as the operators or drivers of the moveable machines. Alternatively, in some embodiments, the worksite optimizer itself may autonomously execute the vehicle sequence utilizing onboard controllers of the moveable machines.” Although there is some language of autonomously executing a vehicle sequence the applicant merely stops the claimed invention at the point before the vehicle sequence is executed. If every step prior to executing the vehicle sequence could lead to manually placing vehicles it is clear that the invention as claimed is merely directed to planning the locations of machines.
The applicant is using a computer as a tool to perform the steps of the invention. However, generating work zones and the machinery to go in those work zones is not an improvement to the technology merely at most an improvement to an abstract idea. The previous 101 rejection is maintained and updated in view of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 15-25, filed 1/23/2026, with respect to the previous 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 103 rejections of claims 1, 3-20, has been withdrawn.
The examiner notes that the prior art references most closely resembling the applicants claimed invention is Palla, Collins, and Chi. Palla et al. (US 20210298233 A1) which discloses providing by the worksite optimizer a map of the worksite that divides the worksite into a plurality of separate initial operating regions based on the set of input criteria whereby the plurality of separate initial operating regions contain the one or more target resources. Collins (US 20150112769 A1) discloses generating by the worksite optimizer a vehicle sequence for at least some of the machines located at the worksite using the process chain and the plurality of final operating regions to accomplish the production goal. Chi et al. (US 20180044888 A1) discloses receiving a set of input criteria including a terrain map of a worksite. The prior art of record does not alone or in combination teach or disclose the combination of steps claimed specifically:
determines a process chain defining separate tasks to be performed by the plurality of machines at the worksite to accomplish the production goal across a working time period;
adjusts a shape of the plurality of initial operating regions using a hybrid sequential optimization algorithm that receives the plurality of initial operating regions and the process chain as inputs to define a plurality of separate final operating regions that maximize a production efficiency of the process chain in accomplishing the production goal;
generating by the worksite optimizer a vehicle sequence for and controlling at least some of the machine located at the worksite using the process chain and the plurality of final operating regions to accomplish the production goal, wherein each vehicle sequence specifies a plurality of positions of its corresponding machine at the worksite for different points in time across the working time period.
Whereby the machine controller operates the powertrain of the machine to locate the machine at the plurality of positions at the worksite for different points in time specified by the vehicle sequence.
The combination of features as a whole is not taught by the prior art. The novelty of the claimed invention is in the combination of limitations and not in any single limitation.
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, 3-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 3-9, 21 are directed to a method, claims 10-20 are directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1, 3-21 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 10, 16 recites managing a worksite, constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” related to managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals and organizing commercial or operational practices. Specifically, the claims are directed to determining and scheduling physical locations of machinery within a worksite. Such activities are directed to resource planning and operational management. Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “receiving a set of input criteria including a terrain map of a worksite, a resource map of the worksite, information descriptive of a plurality of machines present at the worksite, and a production goal for a finished product produced from one or more target resources; identifying …based on the resource map locations of the one or more target resources at the worksite; providing … a map of the worksite that divides the worksite into a plurality of separate initial operating regions based on a set of input criteria whereby the plurality of separate initial operating regions contain the one or more target resources; determining … a process chain defining separate tasks to be performed by the plurality of machines the worksite across a work time period to accomplish the production goal; adjusting … a shape of the plurality of initial operating regions … the process chain as inputs to define a plurality of separate final operating regions that maximize a production efficiency of the process chain in accomplishing the production goal; and providing … a map of the worksite that divides the terrain map into the plurality of separate final operating regions; generating … a sequence for at least some of the machines located at the worksite using the process chain and the plurality of final operating regions to accomplish the production goal, wherein each … specifies a plurality of positions of its corresponding machine at the worksite for different points in time across the working time period.” Claim 10 recites abstract limitations including “receives a set of input criteria including a terrain map of a worksite, a resource map of the worksite, information descriptive of a plurality of machines present at the worksite, and a production goal associated for a finished product produced from one or more target resources; identifies based on the resource map locations of the one or more target resources at the worksite; provides a map of the worksite that divides the terrain map into a plurality of separate initial operating regions based on a set of input criteria whereby the plurality of separate initial operating regions contain the one or more target resources; determines a process chain defining separate tasks to be performed by a plurality of machines at the worksite to accomplish the production goal across a working time period; adjusts a shape of the plurality of initial operating regions… the process chain as inputs to define a plurality of separate final operating regions that maximize a production efficiency of the process chain in accomplishing the production goal; provides a map of the worksite that divides the terrain map into the plurality of separate final operating regions; and generates a sequence for at least some of the machines located at the worksite using the process chain and the plurality of final operating regions to accomplish the production goal, wherein each sequence specifies a plurality of positions of its corresponding machine at the worksite for different points in time across the working time period.” Claim 16 recites abstract limitations including “receive a set of input criteria including a terrain map of a worksite, a resource map of the worksite, information descriptive of a plurality of machines present at the worksite, and a production goal associated for a finished product produced from one or more target resources; identify based on the resource map locations of the one or more target resources at the worksite; provides a map of the worksite that divides the terrain map into a plurality of separate initial operating regions based on a set of input criteria whereby the plurality of separate initial operating regions contain the one or more target resources; determines a process chain defining separate tasks to be performed by a plurality of machines at the worksite to accomplish the production goal across a working time period; adjust a shape of the plurality of initial operating regions based… the process chain as inputs to define a plurality of separate final operating regions that maximize a production efficiency of the process chain in accomplishing the production goal; provide a map of the worksite that divides the terrain map into the plurality of separate final operating regions; and generate a sequence for at least some of the machines located at the worksite using the process chain and the plurality of final operating regions to accomplish the production goal wherein each sequence specifies a plurality of positions of its corresponding machine at the worksite for different points in time across the working time period, … at the plurality of positions at the worksite for the different points in time across the working time period specified by the sequence.” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “a processor,” or similar covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” or similar nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “a processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to a “Mental Process” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 3-5, 11-15, 17, 18, 21, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 6-9, 19-20, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 10, 16, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a method comprising “a plurality of machines… dividing by a worksite optimizer the worksite … determining by the worksite optimizer a process chain to be performed by a plurality of machines located at the worksite; adjusting by the worksite optimizer a shape the plurality of initial operating regions using a hybrid sequential optimization algorithm that receives the plurality of initial operating regions and … providing by the worksite optimizer a map… and generating by the worksite optimizer a vehicle sequence for and controlling ...” Claim 10 is a system that recites limitations performed “a processor; a non-transitory memory; and an application stored in the non-transitory memory that, when executed by the processor, a worksite optimizer, a plurality of machines…. using a hybrid sequential optimization algorithm that receives the plurality of initial operating regions.. generates a vehicle sequence for controls...” Claim 16 is a system that comprises “a plurality of machines located at a worksite, each of the plurality of machines comprising a machine controller and a powertrain; a worksite optimizer in signal communication with the machine controllers of the plurality of machines, wherein the worksite optimizer is configured to… using a hybrid sequential optimization algorithm that receives the plurality of initial operating regions… generate a vehicle sequence…instruct the machine controllers of the plurality of machines to execute the vehicle sequence to accomplish the production goal whereby the machine controller operates and controls the powertrain of the machine to locate the machine.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to divide, determine, adjust, generate, and instruct) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim also employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 3-5, 11-15, 17, 18, 21, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 6 introduces the additional element of “executing by the worksite optimizer the vehicle sequence for at least some of the machines located at the worksite to produce a finished product of the worksite.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 7 introduces the additional element of “determining by the worksite optimizer both a specific cycle starting position and a specific cycle ending position at the worksite defining a cyclical trajectory therebetween for at least some of the plurality of machines.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 8 introduces the additional element of “determining by the worksite optimizer a starting time corresponding to the cycle starting position and an ending time corresponding to the cycle ending position for at least some of the plurality of machines.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 9 introduces the additional element of “(e) detecting by the worksite optimizer any potential collisions between the plurality of machines in response to executing the vehicle sequence; and (f) adjusting by the worksite optimizer the vehicle sequence in response to detecting at least one potential collision between the plurality of machines in response to executing the vehicle sequence.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 19 introduces the additional element of “wherein the worksite optimizer is configured to identify the identity and location of one or more target resources present at the worksite based on a resource map of the worksite, and the location of drivable regions present at the worksite based on a terrain map of the worksite.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 20 introduces the additional element of “wherein the worksite optimizer is configured to determine both a specific cycle starting position and a specific cycle ending position at the worksite defining a cyclical trajectory therebetween for at least some of the plurality of machines.” This limitation provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 10, 16, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, Claim 1 is a method comprising “a plurality of machines… dividing by a worksite optimizer the worksite … determining by the worksite optimizer a process chain to be performed by a plurality of machines located at the worksite; adjusting by the worksite optimizer a shape the plurality of initial operating regions using a hybrid sequential optimization algorithm that receives the plurality of initial operating regions and … providing by the worksite optimizer a map… and generating by the worksite optimizer a vehicle sequence for and controlling ...” Claim 10 is a system that recites limitations performed “a processor; a non-transitory memory; and an application stored in the non-transitory memory that, when executed by the processor, a worksite optimizer, a plurality of machines…. using a hybrid sequential optimization algorithm that receives the plurality of initial operating regions.. generates a vehicle sequence for controls...” Claim 16 is a system that comprises “a plurality of machines located at a worksite, each of the plurality of machines comprising a machine controller and a powertrain; a worksite optimizer in signal communication with the machine controllers of the plurality of machines, wherein the worksite optimizer is configured to… using a hybrid sequential optimization algorithm that receives the plurality of initial operating regions… generate a vehicle sequence…instruct the machine controllers of the plurality of machines to execute the vehicle sequence to accomplish the production goal whereby the machine controller operates and controls the powertrain of the machine to locate the machine.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to divide, determine, adjust, generate, and instruct) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3-5, 11-15, 17, 18, 21, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 6 introduces the additional element of “executing by the worksite optimizer the vehicle sequence for at least some of the machines located at the worksite to produce a finished product of the worksite.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 7 introduces the additional element of “determining by the worksite optimizer both a specific cycle starting position and a specific cycle ending position at the worksite defining a cyclical trajectory therebetween for at least some of the plurality of machines.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 8 introduces the additional element of “determining by the worksite optimizer a starting time corresponding to the cycle starting position and an ending time corresponding to the cycle ending position for at least some of the plurality of machines.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 9 introduces the additional element of “(e) detecting by the worksite optimizer any potential collisions between the plurality of machines in response to executing the vehicle sequence; and (f) adjusting by the worksite optimizer the vehicle sequence in response to detecting at least one potential collision between the plurality of machines in response to executing the vehicle sequence.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 19 introduces the additional element of “wherein the worksite optimizer is configured to identify the identity and location of one or more target resources present at the worksite based on a resource map of the worksite, and the location of drivable regions present at the worksite based on a terrain map of the worksite.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 20 introduces the additional element of “wherein the worksite optimizer is configured to determine both a specific cycle starting position and a specific cycle ending position at the worksite defining a cyclical trajectory therebetween for at least some of the plurality of machines.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-21 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Additional pertinent prior art includes Wei et al. (US 20190055715 A1) which discloses a control system for controlling an earthmoving machine operating at a worksite. Gilmore et al. (US 20150324719 A1) which discloses managing and controlling a worksite using a reference model, in a closed loop control system. Sprock et al. (US 20140277967 A1) which discloses a system for managing data on a worksite.
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 JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights