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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
2. The 112(b) rejection to Claims 2, 9, and 16 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhambare (US 20240027212 A1) in view of Lei (US 20230241992 A1).
7. Regarding Claim 1, Bhambare teaches a method, comprising: determining, by a processor of an electric vehicle (EV), that a difference between a provided range of the EV and an actual range of the EV is greater than a threshold (Bhambare: [0005] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, determining a difference is greater than a threshold is equivalent to determining there is a difference between the provided and actual range of the EV.).
Bhambare fails to explicitly teach in response to the determining that the difference is greater than the threshold, connecting, by the processor, the EV with a connected group of other vehicles; and receiving, by the processor, a command from the connected group of other vehicles to maintain the EV at a rate of speed of the connected group of other vehicles until the difference is less than or equal to the threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lei teaches in response to the determining that the difference is greater than the threshold, connecting, by the processor, the EV with a connected group of other vehicles (Lei: [0009], [0019], and [0021]);
And receiving, by the processor, a command from the connected group of other vehicles to maintain the EV at a rate of speed of the connected group of other vehicles until the difference is less than or equal to the threshold (Lei: [0010], [0032], and [0049]).
Bhambare and Lei are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of electric vehicle control and range estimations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhambare to incorporate the teachings of Lei to connect with a connected group of vehicles and receive a command to maintain a rate of speed of the connected group of vehicles until the difference is less than the threshold because it provides the benefit of efficiently controlling the vehicle based on continuously monitoring the vehicle range. Bhambare explains in [0006] that route conditions affect the difference between the range estimate and updated range estimate. Lei explains that the vehicle can connect with other vehicles in order to extend the range based on the range the battery can actually last due to the road conditions compared to the historical rate.
8. Regarding Claim 3, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lei teaches determining that the difference has decreased to less than the threshold; and in response thereto, releasing the connected group of other vehicles (Lei: [0010]).
9. Regarding Claim 4, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lei teaches wherein the EV and the connected group of other vehicles comprise a vehicular micro cloud, the method comprising: transmitting, by a vehicle of the vehicular micro cloud, an indication of one or more of an upcoming lane change or an upcoming exit to the vehicular micro cloud; and in response thereto, maneuvering an other vehicle of the vehicular micro cloud without braking or accelerating to allow the vehicle to perform the one or more of the upcoming lane change or the upcoming exit (Lei: [0010] and [0049]).
10. Regarding Claim 5, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lei teaches wherein the EV and the connected group of other vehicles comprise a vehicular micro cloud, the method comprising: sending a maneuvering instruction to a vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud to perform one or more of a speed adjustment or a steering adjustment, wherein the maneuvering instruction minimizes an amount of acceleration and an amount of braking for the vehicular micro cloud (Lei: [0010] and [0049]).
11. Regarding Claim 6, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lei teaches wherein the EV and the connected group of other vehicles comprise a vehicular micro cloud, the method comprising: assigning a vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud to be a lead vehicle of the vehicular micro cloud (Lei: [0010] Note that assigning a lead vehicle is equivalent to the CAV synchronizing to follow the EAV.);
And requesting, by the lead vehicle, a vehicle proximate to the lead to join the vehicular micro cloud (Lei: [0019], [0023], and [0026]).
12. Regarding Claim 8, Bhambare teaches a system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor of an electric vehicle (EV) that executes the instructions to configure the processor to (Bhambare: [0038]):
Determine that a difference between a provided range of the EV and an actual range of the EV is greater than a threshold (Bhambare: [0005] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, determining a difference is greater than a threshold is equivalent to determining there is a difference between the provided and actual range of the EV.).
Bhambare fails to explicitly teach in response to the difference being determined, connect the EV with a connected group of other vehicles; and receive a command from the connected group of other vehicles to maintain the EV at a rate of speed of the connected group of other vehicles vehicle until the difference is less than or equal to the threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lei teaches in response to the difference being determined, connect the EV with a connected group of other vehicles (Lei: [0009], [0019], and [0021]);
And receive a command from the connected group of other vehicles to maintain the EV at a rate of speed of the connected group of other vehicles until the difference is less than or equal to the threshold (Lei: [0010], [0032], and [0049]).
Bhambare and Lei are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of electric vehicle control and range estimations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhambare to incorporate the teachings of Lei to connect with a connected group of vehicles and receive a command to maintain a rate of speed of the connected group of vehicles until the difference is less than the threshold because it provides the benefit of efficiently controlling the vehicle based on continuously monitoring the vehicle range. Bhambare explains in [0006] that route conditions affect the difference between the range estimate and updated range estimate. Lei explains that the vehicle can connect with other vehicles in order to extend the range based on the range the battery can actually last due to the road conditions compared to the historical rate.
13. Regarding Claim 10, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Lei teaches to determine that the difference has decreased to less than the threshold; and in response thereto, release the connected group of other vehicles (Lei: [0010]).
14. Regarding Claim 11, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Lei teaches wherein the EV and the connected group of other vehicles comprise a vehicular micro cloud, and the processor is configured to: cause a vehicle of the vehicular micro cloud to transmit an indication of one or more of an upcoming lane change or an upcoming exit to the vehicular micro cloud; and in response thereto, maneuver an other vehicle of the vehicular micro cloud without braking or acceleration to perform the one or more of the upcoming lane change or the upcoming exit (Lei: [0010] and [0049]).
15. Regarding Claim 12, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Lei teaches wherein the EV and the connected group of other vehicles comprise a vehicular micro cloud, and the processor is configured to: send a maneuvering instruction to a vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud to perform one or more of a speed adjustment or and a steering adjustment, wherein the maneuver instruction minimizes an amount of acceleration and an amount of applied brake for the vehicular micro cloud (Lei: [0010] and [0049]).
16. Regarding Claim 13, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 8, and further, Lei teaches to assign a vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud to be a lead vehicle of the vehicular micro cloud (Lei: [0010] Note that assigning a lead vehicle is equivalent to the CAV synchronizing to follow the EAV.);
And request, by the lead vehicle, a vehicle proximate to the lead to join the vehicular micro cloud (Lei: [0019], [0023], and [0026]).
17. Regarding Claim 15, Bhambare teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor of an electric vehicle (EV), cause the processor to perform (Bhambare: [0038]):
Determining that a difference between a provided range of the EV and an actual range of the EV is greater than a threshold (Bhambare: [0005] Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, determining a difference is greater than a threshold is equivalent to determining there is a difference between the provided and actual range of the EV.).
Bhambare fails to explicitly teach in response to the determining that the difference is greater than the threshold, connecting, by the processor, the EV with a connected group of other vehicles; and receiving, by the processor, a command from the connected group of other vehicles to maintain the EV at a rate of speed of the connected group of other vehicles vehicle until the difference is less than or equal to the threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lei teaches in response to the determining that the difference is greater than the threshold, connecting, by the processor, the EV with a connected group of other vehicles (Lei: [0009], [0019], and [0021]);
And receiving, by the processor, a command from the connected group of other vehicles to maintain the EV at a rate of speed of the connected group of other vehicles until the difference is less than or equal to the threshold (Lei: [0010], [0032], and [0049]).
Bhambare and Lei are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of electric vehicle control and range estimations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhambare to incorporate the teachings of Lei to connect with a connected group of vehicles and receive a command to maintain a rate of speed of the connected group of vehicles until the difference is less than the threshold because it provides the benefit of efficiently controlling the vehicle based on continuously monitoring the vehicle range. Bhambare explains in [0006] that route conditions affect the difference between the range estimate and updated range estimate. Lei explains that the vehicle can connect with other vehicles in order to extend the range based on the range the battery can actually last due to the road conditions compared to the historical rate.
18. Regarding Claim 17, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Lei teaches determining that the difference has decreased to less than the threshold; and in response thereto, releasing the connected group of other vehicles (Lei: [0010]).
19. Regarding Claim 18, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Lei teaches wherein the EV and the connected group of other vehicles comprise a vehicular micro cloud, and wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform: transmitting, by a vehicle of the vehicular micro cloud, an indication of one or more of an upcoming lane change or an upcoming exit to the vehicular micro cloud; and in response thereto, maneuvering an other vehicle of the vehicular micro cloud without braking or accelerating to allow the vehicle to perform the one or more of the upcoming lane change or the upcoming exit (Lei: [0010] and [0049]).
20. Regarding Claim 19, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Lei teaches wherein the EV and the connected group of other vehicles comprise a vehicular micro cloud, and wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform: sending a maneuvering instruction to a vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud to perform one or more of a speed adjustment or a steering adjustment, wherein the maneuvering instruction minimizes an amount of acceleration and an amount of braking for the vehicular micro cloud (Lei: [0010] and [0049]).
21. Regarding Claim 20, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 15, and further, Lei teaches wherein the EV and the connected group of other vehicles comprise a vehicular micro cloud, and wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform: assigning a vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud to be a lead vehicle of the vehicular micro cloud (Lei: [0010] Note that assigning a lead vehicle is equivalent to the CAV synchronizing to follow the EAV.);
And requesting, by the lead vehicle, a vehicle proximate to the lead to join the vehicular micro cloud (Lei: [0019], [0023], and [0026]).
22. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhambare (US 20240027212 A1), in view of Lei (US 20230241992 A1), and in further view of Kim (US 20200073408 A1).
23. Regarding Claim 2, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 1.
Bhambare and Lei fail to explicitly teach determining a vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud having a greatest difference; and instructing the vehicle having a greatest difference to occupy a rearmost position in the vehicular micro cloud.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches determining a vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud having a greatest difference; and instructing the vehicle having a greatest difference to occupy a rearmost position in the vehicular micro cloud (Kim: [0062] and [0065]).
Bhambare, Lei, and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle range control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhambare and Lei to incorporate the teachings of Kim to instruct a vehicle having a greatest difference to occupy the rearmost position of the micro cloud because it provides the benefit of positioning the vehicles with the biggest need for refueling. This provides the additional benefit of increasing the range of the vehicle because Kim teaches in at least [0098] that less energy is required for vehicles in the rear of the platoon.
24. Regarding Claim 9, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 8.
Bhambare and Lei fail to explicitly teach determine a vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud having a greatest difference; and instruct the vehicle having a greatest difference to occupy a rearmost position in the vehicular micro cloud.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches to determine a vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud having a greatest difference; and instructing the vehicle having a greatest difference to occupy a rearmost position in the vehicular micro cloud (Kim: [0062] and [0065]).
Bhambare, Lei, and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle range control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhambare and Lei to incorporate the teachings of Kim to instruct a vehicle having a greatest difference to occupy the rearmost position of the micro cloud because it provides the benefit of positioning the vehicles with the biggest need for refueling. This provides the additional benefit of increasing the range of the vehicle because Kim teaches in at least [0098] that less energy is required for vehicles in the rear of the platoon.
25. Regarding Claim 16, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 15.
Bhambare and Lei fail to explicitly teach determining a vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud having a greatest difference; and instructing the vehicle having a greatest difference to occupy a rearmost position in the vehicular micro cloud.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches determining a vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud having a greatest difference; and instructing the vehicle having a greatest difference to occupy a rearmost position in the vehicular micro cloud (Kim: [0062] and [0065]).
Bhambare, Lei, and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle range control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhambare and Lei to incorporate the teachings of Kim to instruct a vehicle having a greatest difference to occupy the rearmost position of the micro cloud because it provides the benefit of positioning the vehicles with the biggest need for refueling. This provides the additional benefit of increasing the range of the vehicle because Kim teaches in at least [0098] that less energy is required for vehicles in the rear of the platoon.
26. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhambare (US 20240027212 A1), in view of Lei (US 20230241992 A1), and in further view of Matthews (US 20160362048 A1).
27. Regarding Claim 7, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lei teaches determining a lead vehicle to lead the vehicular micro cloud (Lei: [0010] Note that determining a lead vehicle is equivalent to the CAV synchronizing to follow the EAV.);
And instructing an other vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud to perform one or more of a speed adjustment or a steering adjustment (Lei: [0049]).
Bhambare and Lei fail to explicitly teach determining, by the lead vehicle, that the other vehicle is not complying with the instructing; and instructing an additional vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud to control the other vehicle to adjust one or more of its speed or steering.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Matthews teaches determining, by the lead vehicle, that the other vehicle is not complying with the instructing (Matthews: [0019], [0020], and [0084]);
And instructing an additional vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud to control the other vehicle to adjust one or more of its speed or steering (Matthews: [0083] and [0084] Note that instructing an additional vehicle to control the other vehicle to adjust its speed or steering is equivalent to Transport L increasing its distance and relative speed because Transport M is not complying with the instructing.).
Bhambare, Lei, and Matthews are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle range control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhambare and Lei to incorporate the teachings of Matthews to determine a vehicle is not complying with instructions and control the vehicle to adjust speed or steering because it provides the benefit of ensuring the vehicles in the platoon comply with the limits. The alerts provided to the noncomplying vehicles based on the data from additional vehicles increases the safety to ensure the platooned vehicles are compliant.
28. Regarding Claim 14, Bhambare and Lei remain as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Lei teaches to determine a lead vehicle to lead the vehicular micro cloud (Lei: [0010] Note that determining a lead vehicle is equivalent to the CAV synchronizing to follow the EAV.);
And instruct an other vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud to perform one or more of a speed adjustment or a steering adjustment (Lei: [0049]).
Bhambare and Lei fail to explicitly teach to determine, by the lead vehicle, that the other vehicle has not complied with the instruction; and instruct an additional vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud to control the other vehicle to adjust one or more of its speed or steering.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Matthews teaches to determine, by the lead vehicle, that the other vehicle has not complied with the instruction (Matthews: [0019], [0020], and [0084]);
And instruct an additional vehicle in the vehicular micro cloud to control the other vehicle to adjust one or more of its speed or steering (Matthews: [0083] and [0084] Note that instructing an additional vehicle to control the other vehicle to adjust its speed or steering is equivalent to Transport L increasing its distance and relative speed because Transport M is not complying with the instructing.).
Bhambare, Lei, and Matthews are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle range control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bhambare and Lei to incorporate the teachings of Matthews to determine a vehicle is not complying with instructions and control the vehicle to adjust speed or steering because it provides the benefit of ensuring the vehicles in the platoon comply with the limits. The alerts provided to the noncomplying vehicles based on the data from additional vehicles increases the safety to ensure the platooned vehicles are compliant.
Response to Arguments
29. Applicant’s arguments, see Page 9, filed 1/19/2026, with respect to the U.S.C 112(b) rejection has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
30. Applicant's arguments regarding the U.S.C 103 rejections filed 1/10/2026 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
31. First, the Applicant has alleged "the claim language not only requires determining a difference but also that the difference is greater than a threshold" and "the Examiner's interpretation omits the latter, which requires the difference be greater than a threshold." The Examiner disagrees.
Bhambare teaches in [0005] to determine a difference between the range estimate and updated range estimate. Modifying the operation of one of the vehicle systems is based on the difference. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the threshold is equivalent to zero. There is no claim language to indicate that the threshold must be non-zero. As a result, Bhambare teaches determining a difference between the range estimate and updated range estimate, and when there is a difference, it is greater than the threshold of zero.
32. Second, the Applicant has alleged "Bhambare only discloses comparing a prior range estimate and an updated range estimate. It does not disclose or suggest comparing a range estimate with the EV's actual range." The Examiner disagrees.
Bhambare's range estimate is equivalent to the provided range of the EV and the updated range estimate is equivalent to the actual range of the EV. Bhambare teaches in at least [0020] and [0021] that the range estimate is the range of the vehicle or battery (e.g., provided battery capacity). However, the range changes based on factors such as driving habits, weather, traffic, etc. and is therefore updated as the updated range estimate. This equivalent to the actual range of the EV based on the several factors. As a result, Bhambare teaches the comparison of the provided range of the EV and the actual range of the EV. Further, there is no clarifying claim language to further explain how the provided range and actual range are different from the range estimate and updated range estimate of Bhambare.
33. Third, the Applicant has alleged "Lei does not disclose or suggest that the EAV receives a command from a connect group of vehicles to maintain its speed." The Examiner disagrees.
Lei teaches in [0010] to receive confirmation and charging platoon request and then transmits its maneuver commands to the C-AV to synchronize speeds. This is equivalent to receiving a command from a connected group of vehicles to maintain its speed because a C-AV (out of the network of C-AVs) confirms that charging is feasible. After the confirmation of the C-AV that charging is feasible, the C-AV and EAV are able to be synchronized to maintain the same speeds. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the command from the connected group of other vehicles is any command that results in the EV and connected group of vehicles maintaining the same speed.
In Lei, without the confirmation message received by the EAV, the EAV and C-AV will not platoon (and maintain the same speed). However, the confirmation message results in the EAV and C-AV synchronizing speeds. The Applicant may clarify the claims so the received command is a speed command to maintain the rate of speed between the EV and connected group of vehicles.
34. Fourth, the Applicant has alleged "Lei does not disclose or suggest 'connected group of other vehicles' giving commands to the EAV 102 regarding the speed or energy use; instead, the ride server 110 selects the C-AV 104 to dispatch, and the C-AV follows the EAV's speed and maneuvers." The Examiner disagrees.
Lei teaches that the C-AV(s) confirms to the EAV that charging is feasible in at least [0010] and [0037]. This is equivalent to giving a command to the EAV. As previously explained, there is no indication in the claim language that the command from the connected other vehicles is a speed command. Instead, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the command is any command that results in the EV and connected group of vehicles maintaining the same speed. This includes a confirmation command to platoon between the EAV and C-AV(s).
Further, Lei explains in [0032] that the C-AVs may relay with the EAV. Therefore, the EAV receives commands from the C-AVs in the network and this process is repeated until the EAV's range does not need to be extended further.
35. Fifth, the Applicant has alleged "Lei does not state that the EAV receives a speed command from the C-AV or a connected group of vehicles." The Examiner disagrees.
The EV (EAV) receive a speed command is not actually claimed. The EV receives a command to maintain the same rate of speed as the connected group of vehicles. This is equivalent to a confirmation that the C-AVs are able to connect with the EAVs.
As currently claimed, there is no indication that the command received by the EV is actually a speed command. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the command is any command that results in the EV and connected group of vehicles maintaining the same speed. As a result, the Applicant may amend to further clarify the command received by the EV.
36. Bhambare (US 20240027212 A1), in view of Lei (US 20230241992 A1), and in further view of Kim (US 20200073408 A1); and Bhambare (US 20240027212 A1), in view of Lei (US 20230241992 A1), and in further view of Matthews (US 20160362048 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
37. Claims 1-20 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
38. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663