DETAILED ACTION
Claims 4-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on July 14, 2026.
Rejection of claims 4-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to unpatentable subject matter is maintained.
New rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
New rejection of claims 9, 12-14, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
Rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17-19 as being anticipated by Lee is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 2-4, 6-7, 10-12, and 14-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee in view of Zhang is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 5, 8, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee in view of Zhang and Cella is withdrawn.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claims 14, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), amendments to claim 9 resolve the antecedent basis issue of claim 14 and the rejection of claim 15 is moot in light of the cancellation of that claim. Accordingly, rejection of claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn. Claim 17, which has not been amended, recites “the digital twin of claim 1,” but claim 1 has been cancelled. Accordingly, rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained for the same reasons as previously asserted and additionally for reciting dependence on claim 1.
Regarding the remainer of the arguments in the Response, Applicant repeatedly argues “amended claim 1” is patent eligible and is not anticipated by Lee nor rendered obvious by any of the additional references cited in the Office Action. See Response at pp. 10-17. However, claim 1 is cancelled and therefore all arguments asserted in the Response are moot. Accordingly, Examiner is not persuaded by the arguments. Examiner is, however, persuaded by the amendments with regards to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. Accordingly, the pending rejections are those under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 12-14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 recites that “wherein the auxiliary device is arranged to perform a non-propulsion function.” The Specification lacks a definition of what is considered a “non-propulsion function.” For example, claim 5 recites various types of vehicles (e.g., a crane, cement mixer), but it is unclear what is and isn’t being forced into motion (i.e., via propulsion) and what is outside of the scope of “non-propulsion function.” Accordingly, the term cannot be interpreted based on a common accepted definition of a “non-propulsion function.” Thus, for the purposes of examination, the terms will be interpreted to mean “a function that does not cause a vehicle to move.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 recites a “heavy-duty vehicle” that is comprised of “a digital twin.” It is unclear how a vehicle (i.e., a physical object) can be made of a digital copy of the vehicle. For example, the claim could be interpreted to mean that there is a vehicle of which the digital twin is modelling, but that case, the vehicle itself would not be “comprised of” the digital twin. Further, the “heavy-duty vehicle” is already recited in claim 1, which causes an antecedent basis issue with the subsequent recitation of “a heavy-duty vehicle” in claim 17. Further, claim 17 recites “the digital twin of claim 1,” which has been canceled in the Response. Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because courts have found that the steps of data transmission and recitations of fields of use are not significantly more than a judicial exception.
Claim 201
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 20
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A computing system for evaluating powering of an auxiliary device by a heavy-duty vehicle, the computing system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to
implement a digital twin comprising a digital model of the heavy-duty vehicle and one or more interfaces,
wherein each interface is configured as a socket for connection to a replaceable digital plug-in module associated with a corresponding auxiliary device physically connectable to the heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the replaceable digital plug-in module is a digital model of the corresponding auxiliary device, wherein the corresponding auxiliary device is configured to perform a non-propulsion function and to draw power from the heavy-duty vehicle, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
receive, via one of the interfaces from the replaceable digital plug-in module, data indicative of power drawn by the corresponding auxiliary device in response to an operating state of the corresponding auxiliary device;
model, based on the received data, power to be drawn by the corresponding auxiliary device during at least a portion of a transport mission that includes use of the corresponding auxiliary device;
obtain information indicating expected power available from the heavy-duty vehicle during the portion of the transport mission;
compare the modeled power to be drawn by the corresponding auxiliary device with the expected power available from the heavy-duty vehicle;
determine, based on the comparison, whether the expected power available from the heavy-duty vehicle is sufficient to power the corresponding auxiliary device; and
generate an output indicating at least one of whether an external power source is necessary, an amount of time that the heavy-duty vehicle can power the corresponding auxiliary device, or a time at which the external power source should be connected.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
A digital twin (i.e., a model of a real world system or object) is a mathematical construct that includes performing one or more simulations by calculating, based on physical functions, the performance of the real world object or system. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Using a digital twin to model a physical phenomenon is a mathematical construct that includes performing one or more simulations by calculating, based on physics functions, the performance of the real world object or system. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Comparing values involves using mathematical equations and concepts to determine which of two values is greater. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Processes
Making a determination on whether a value is sufficient for a purpose is a mental process that requires observation of values, evaluation of the consequences of continuing with the known power consumption, and through opinion, deciding whether the result is acceptable. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A computing system for evaluating powering of an auxiliary device by a heavy-duty vehicle, the computing system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to
implement a digital twin comprising a digital model of the heavy-duty vehicle and one or more interfaces,
wherein each interface is configured as a socket for connection to a replaceable digital plug-in module associated with a corresponding auxiliary device physically connectable to the heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the replaceable digital plug-in module is a digital model of the corresponding auxiliary device, wherein the corresponding auxiliary device is configured to perform a non-propulsion function and to draw power from the heavy-duty vehicle, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
receive, via one of the interfaces from the replaceable digital plug-in module, data indicative of power drawn by the corresponding auxiliary device in response to an operating state of the corresponding auxiliary device;
model, based on the received data, power to be drawn by the corresponding auxiliary device during at least a portion of a transport mission that includes use of the corresponding auxiliary device;
obtain information indicating expected power available from the heavy-duty vehicle during the portion of the transport mission;
compare the modeled power to be drawn by the corresponding auxiliary device with the expected power available from the heavy-duty vehicle;
determine, based on the comparison, whether the expected power available from the heavy-duty vehicle is sufficient to power the corresponding auxiliary device; and
generate an output indicating at least one of whether an external power source is necessary, an amount of time that the heavy-duty vehicle can power the corresponding auxiliary device, or a time at which the external power source should be connected.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitations of “sockets” and what they can be used to connect (e.g., modules) and what other components (e.g., auxiliary devices) are configured to do are not positively recited within the claim and therefore do not integrate the digital twin into a practical application.
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. The limitation does not impose meaningful limits on the claim and thus is minimally or tangentially related to the invention. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Generating an output that is a conclusion of what was determined utilizing abstract ideas (i.e., models and evaluating model output) is an idea of a solution that is not recited with specificity such that it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and/or improves a technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Courts have found that the extra-solution activity of data gathering is insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See, e.g., In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Finally, courts have found that ideas of solutions are not significantly more than recited judicial exceptions. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein the modelling of the power takes a vehicle state of the heavy-duty vehicle into account. The claim does not indicate when or how the digital twin “takes into account” the vehicle state, nor whether the state of the vehicle affects one or more other aspects of the digital twin. Thus, the element does not limit the manner in which the digital twin operates. Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein the auxiliary device is a tail lift, a crane, a cement mixer, a hook-lift, a cooler or a waste compressor. The limitation merely limits the claim to a field of use without reciting an improvement in the technology of the field. Limiting a judicial exception to a particular field of use is an additional elements that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, limitations that indicate a particular field of use are insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites wherein the digital twin comprises a digital model of the heavy-duty vehicle’s operating environment, and wherein the modelling of the power takes the operating environment into account. The element further specifies the portions of the vehicle that are represented by the digital twin, but does not add any additional elements that would integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. Further, the claim does not indicate when or how the modelling “takes into account” the environment. Thus, the element does not limit the manner in which the digital twin operates. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites model power drawn by multiple auxiliary devices of different types; compare the modelled power of the multiple auxiliary devices; and determine, based on a result of the comparison, which of the multiple auxiliary devices that draws the highest or lowest amount of power. An element that is “arranged to” perform a step does not necessarily perform the step. Therefore, the elements of the claim do not limit the operation of the digital twin. However, even in instances wherein the digital twin performs the steps, modelling power is a mathematical concept in the same manner as the other behavior of the digital twin, comparing values is additionally a mathematical concept, and selecting a highest power consumer is a mental process that can be performed by a human. According, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 9
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 20
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A computer-implemented method performed by a computing system implementing a digital twin for a heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the computing system comprises one or more processors and a memory storing instructions, wherein the digital twin comprises a digital model of the heavy-duty vehicle, and one or more interfaces, the method comprising:
connecting, via one of the interfaces, to a replaceable digital module associated with an auxiliary device physically connectable to the heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the replaceable digital plug-in module is a digital model of the corresponding auxiliary device, wherein the auxiliary device is arranged to perform a non-propulsion function and is arranged to draw power from the heavy-duty vehicle;
receiving, via the one of the interfaces from the replaceable digital plug-in module, data indicative of power drawn by the corresponding auxiliary device in response to an operating state of the corresponding auxiliary device;
modelling, based on the received data, power to be drawn by the corresponding auxiliary device during at least a portion of a transport mission that includes use of the corresponding auxiliary device;
obtaining information indicating expected power available from the heavy-duty vehicle during the portion of the transport mission;
comparing the modelled power to be drawn by the auxiliary device with expected power available by the heavy-duty vehicle;
determining, based on a result of the comparison, if the expected power available by the heavy-duty vehicle is sufficient to power to the auxiliary device; and
generating an output indicating at least one of whether an external power source is necessary, an amount of time that the heavy-duty vehicle can power the corresponding auxiliary device, or a time at which the external power source should be connected.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
Using a digital twin to model a physical phenomenon is a mathematical construct that includes performing one or more simulations by calculating, based on physics functions, the performance of the real world object or system. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Processes
Connecting components is mental or physical process that includes observation of the components and evaluation of the mechanisms to connect the components. It can be accomplished by a human either through physically attaching interfaces of components or providing instructions to computationally connect the components. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
A digital twin (i.e., a model of a real world system or object) is a mathematical construct that includes performing one or more simulations by calculating, based on physical functions, the performance of the real world object or system. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Processes
Comparison of two values is a mental process that can be performed by observing the modelled and expected power values and through evaluation, determine the relationship between the values. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Processes
Determining whether a result is sufficient is a mental process that can be performed by evaluating the difference between the values, and based on judgment and opinion, determine whether an amount of expected power is going to be sufficient. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 9
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A computer-implemented method performed by a computing system implementing a digital twin for a heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the computing system comprises one or more processors and a memory storing instructions, wherein the digital twin comprises a digital model of the heavy-duty vehicle, and one or more interfaces, the method comprising:
connecting, via one of the interfaces, to a replaceable digital module associated with an auxiliary device physically connectable to the heavy-duty vehicle, wherein the replaceable digital plug-in module is a digital model of the corresponding auxiliary device, wherein the auxiliary device is arranged to perform a non-propulsion function and is arranged to draw power from the heavy-duty vehicle;
receiving, via the one of the interfaces from the replaceable digital plug-in module, data indicative of power drawn by the corresponding auxiliary device in response to an operating state of the corresponding auxiliary device;
modelling, based on the received data, power to be drawn by the corresponding auxiliary device during at least a portion of a transport mission that includes use of the corresponding auxiliary device;
obtaining information indicating expected power available from the heavy-duty vehicle during the portion of the transport mission;
comparing the modelled power to be drawn by the auxiliary device with expected power available by the heavy-duty vehicle;
determining, based on a result of the comparison, if the expected power available by the heavy-duty vehicle is sufficient to power to the auxiliary device; and
generating an output indicating at least one of whether an external power source is necessary, an amount of time that the heavy-duty vehicle can power the corresponding auxiliary device, or a time at which the external power source should be connected.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. It does not recite an improvement in a technology and further does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The limitation is directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering. It does not recite an improvement in a technology and further does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Generating an output that is a conclusion of what was determined utilizing abstract ideas (i.e., models and evaluating model output) is an idea of a solution that is not recited with specificity such that it integrates the judicial exception into a practical application and/or improves a technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Courts have found that the extra-solution activity of data gathering is insignificantly more than the recited judicial exception. See, e.g., In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Finally, courts have found that ideas of solutions are not significantly more than recited judicial exceptions. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 12-14 and 16
Claims 12-14 and 16 recite a method that includes substantially the same limitations as claims 4-6 and 8. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claims 4-6 and 8, claims 12-14 and 16 are directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites “a non-transitory computer readable medium,” which is generic computer components and therefore an additional element that does not integrate the method of claim 9 (rejected as reciting judicial exceptions without additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application) into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected as being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims, as currently presented, overcome the prior art of record and would be allowable if amended to address the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101. Any subsequent amendments will be considered as to whether those amended claims also are not subject to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang, et al., “A Reconfigurable Modeling Approach for Digital Twin-based Manufacturing System.”
Discloses a reconfigurable digital twin.
Hu, et al., “Digital twin: a state-of-the-art review of its enabling technologies, applications and challenges.”
Generally discloses and describes additional references that are related to the state of digital twins.
Describes modeling power consumption using digital twins.
Discloses digital twins of vehicles.
Mohlin, et al., (GB Pat. No. 2470385)
Discloses modeling transfer of power between components of a vehicle.
Moriyama, et al., (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2008/0052049)
Discloses a modular vehicle model design that allows for particular component models to be identified and added to the model.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
1 Because claims 4-6 and 8 are now dependent on new independent claim 20, analysis of that claim is presented first.
Prosecution Insights