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 .
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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for determining tire rolling resistance based on tire pressure or tire air temperature or other data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no improvement to the underlying tire or vehicle is realized through performance of the algorithm.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited computer components amount to the recitation of general-purpose computer components for the implementation of the abstract idea and do not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)). The generation of an output signal or display of the results of the algorithm amounts to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. The determination of energy consumption, fuel economy, driving range, fuel savings, or tire traction amounts to an extension of the abstract idea itself. The recited vehicle control unit is generic in that no specific vehicle control is performed. The recited sensor technology and/or locations are known and amount to the recitation of well-understood, routine, and conventional sensing for performing the data gathering necessary for the implementation of the mathematical algorithm (see the discussion of the prior art refences below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16-18, 22-28, and 30-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laubie et al. (US 20060149688 A1)[hereinafter “Laubie”] and Singh (US 20180272813 A1).
Regarding Claims 16, 30, and 33, Laubie discloses a system and computer-implemented (including data storage, computing device, and non-transitory computer readable medium including program instructions)[Fig. 5] method for estimating at least one force acting upon a tire [Paragraph [0032] – “FIG. 4 is a flow chart 400. The procedures begin at start 405 and proceed to acquire correlations of roll resistance variation with respect to load and pressure at step 410.”] mounted on a vehicle [Paragraph [0034] – “The roll resistance data are correlated with the customer's operating configuration to determine the average value over the period that the tire is used at step 470. The operating configuration includes average tire load based on average truck loading data, inflation pressure, tire position (i.e., steer, drive or trailer).”Paragraph [0008] – “FIG. 1 is a schematic that shows a semi-tractor-trailer truck equipped with tires for life cycle cost determination, in accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention”].
Laubie fails to disclose obtaining at least signals representative of sensed values for tire inflation pressure and/or contained air temperature; and estimating a current wear state of the tire, based on at least the obtained signals.
However, Singh discloses obtaining at least signals representative of sensed values for tire inflation pressure and/or contained air temperature [Paragraph [0050] – “Each tire 12 preferably is equipped with a sensor or transducer 24 that is mounted to the tire for the purpose of detecting certain real-time tire parameters, such as tire pressure and temperature.”]; and estimating a current wear state of the tire, based on at least the obtained signals (including the tire pressure and/or temperature)[See Fig. 10 and Paragraph [0061] – “Other predictors 52 may optionally be employed in the tire wear estimation system 50. For example, tire pressure as sensed by the sensor 24 may be used as a predictor 52, as low pressure, known as under-inflation, and excessive pressure, known as over-inflation, may impact the wear rate of the tire 12.”]. It would have been obvious to obtain such signals from the vehicle and use them in estimating the wear state of the tire so that the wear state of a tire in the field could be ascertained.
Laubie, as modified, would further disclose retrieving from data storage one or more tire-specific steady state values, at least one of the one or more tire-specific steady state values corresponding to at least the current wear state of the tire [Paragraph [0032] – “Next, the procedures continue to acquire test data on roll resistance of tires for a characteristic tread depth representing the average life-cycle tire condition at step 420. The tests are performed at standard sequence of inflation pressure, temperature and load. The tire conditions include variations in tread depth from the original to removal conditions. The roll resistance data are acquired by test measurements 425 from a laboratory facility.”];
estimating a rolling resistance force acting upon the tire, based on at least the retrieved one or more tire-specific steady state values [Paragraph [0032] – “Then, the roll resistance for average tire life is determined at step 430.”] and the sensed values for tire inflation pressure and/or contained air temperature [Paragraph [0034] – “The roll resistance data are correlated with the customer's operating configuration to determine the average value over the period that the tire is used at step 470. The operating configuration includes average tire load based on average truck loading data, inflation pressure, tire position (i.e., steer, drive or trailer).” As sensed per the sensors of Singh for evaluation of tires in the field.]; and
generating an output signal corresponding to the estimated rolling resistance force acting on the tire [Paragraph [0034] – “The fuel consumption based on roll resistance and vehicle drag is determined at step 480 to determine the operating cost.” Roll resistance is output for further analysis.Paragraph [0036] – “Also, while the customer can use the terminal 550 to use the test data or other information in the database 530, the customer may also query the processor 510 via the server 540 to perform calculations based on customer-supplied data.” Output of calculation results to terminal 550.].
Regarding the “onboard computing device” of Claim 33, Laubie fails to disclose that the computer is onboard the vehicle. However, Singh discloses an oboard computing device [Paragraph [0050]]. It would have been obvious to use such device because doing so would have allowed for performing the analysis at the vehicle.
Regarding Claim 17, Singh discloses that the signals representative of sensed values for tire inflation pressure and/or contained air temperature are obtained via at least one sensor mounted to an inner liner of the tire [Paragraph [0050] – “The sensor 24 preferably is affixed to an inner liner 22 of the tire 12 by suitable means such as adhesive.”].
Regarding Claim 18, the combination would disclose that the estimating of a current wear state of the tire [See Fig. 10 and Paragraph [0061] of Singh – “Other predictors 52 may optionally be employed in the tire wear estimation system 50. For example, tire pressure as sensed by the sensor 24 may be used as a predictor 52, as low pressure, known as under-inflation, and excessive pressure, known as over-inflation, may impact the wear rate of the tire 12.”] is performed in real time based on obtained signals, via the at least one sensor mounted to the inner liner of the tire [Paragraph [0050] of Singh – “Each tire 12 preferably is equipped with a sensor or transducer 24 that is mounted to the tire for the purpose of detecting certain real-time tire parameters, such as tire pressure and temperature. … The sensor 24 may be a tire pressure monitoring (TPMS) module or sensor, and is of a type commercially available. The sensor 24 preferably is affixed to an inner liner 22 of the tire 12 by suitable means such as adhesive.”], corresponding to dynamic mechanical behavior of the tire [Paragraph [0034] of Laubie – “The operating configuration includes average tire load based on average truck loading data, inflation pressure, tire position (i.e., steer, drive or trailer).”]; and
updating the at least one tire-specific steady-state value corresponding to at least the current wear state of the tire based on the estimated current wear state [Paragraph [0034] of Laubie – “The roll resistance data are correlated with the customer's operating configuration to determine the average value over the period that the tire is used at step 470.” The roll resistance data includes tread depth, see Paragraph [0032].].
Regarding Claim 22, the combination would disclose that the estimating of a current wear state of the tire is performed in real time [See Fig. 10 and Paragraph [0061] of Singh – “Other predictors 52 may optionally be employed in the tire wear estimation system 50. For example, tire pressure as sensed by the sensor 24 may be used as a predictor 52, as low pressure, known as under-inflation, and excessive pressure, known as over-inflation, may impact the wear rate of the tire 12.”] based at least in part on a determined location in which the tire is mounted on the vehicle [Paragraph [0034] of Laubie – “The roll resistance data are correlated with the customer's operating configuration to determine the average value over the period that the tire is used at step 470. The operating configuration includes average tire load based on average truck loading data, inflation pressure, tire position (i.e., steer, drive or trailer).” The roll resistance data includes tread depth, see Paragraph [0032] and Abstract – “The roll resistance can be determined for the pressure and load of the tire at a characteristic tread depth.”];
updating the at least one tire-specific steady-state value corresponding to at least the current wear state of the tire based on the estimated current wear state [Paragraph [0034] of Laubie – “The roll resistance data are correlated with the customer's operating configuration to determine the average value over the period that the tire is used at step 470.” The roll resistance data includes tread depth, see Paragraph [0032].].
Regarding Claim 23, the combination would disclose estimating the rolling resistance force acting upon the tire based on at least the one or more tire-specific steady state values [Abstract of Laubie – “The roll resistance can be determined for the pressure and load of the tire at a characteristic tread depth.”] and/or the sensed values [Per use of the TPMS of Singh in order for estimating the wear state of the tire while in the field.] and/or the determined location in which the tire is mounted on the vehicle [Paragraph [0034] of Laubie – “The roll resistance data are correlated with the customer's operating configuration to determine the average value over the period that the tire is used at step 470. The operating configuration includes average tire load based on average truck loading data, inflation pressure, tire position (i.e., steer, drive or trailer).”].
Regarding Claims 24, 32, and 35, the combination would disclose selecting a predictive model relating to energy consumption for the tire and/or the vehicle and/or an operator of the vehicle; predicting energy consumption values based on at least the output signal corresponding to the estimated rolling resistance force [Per use of the TPMS of Singh in order for estimating the wear state of the tire while in the field.] acting on the tire as an input to the selected predictive model [Abstract of Laubie – “The roll resistance can be determined for the pressure and load of the tire at a characteristic tread depth. The fuel consumption required for overcoming the roll resistance by the vehicle can be determined from the roll resistance and a unit cost of the fuel consumption.”The use of the fuel consumption calculation reads on “selecting” the model for use. The model is also based on the type of tire, see Paragraph [0031] of Laubie – “The determination of fuel costs based on a realistic assessment of the roll resistance, together with reclamation offsets and the costs for taxes, delivery, installation, inventory, storage and maintenance, provide a comprehensive measure of comparison between brands and models.”]; and
generating a display output corresponding to the predicted energy consumption values to an onboard user interface and/or a user interface [Paragraph [0036] of Laubie – “Also, while the customer can use the terminal 550 to use the test data or other information in the database 530, the customer may also query the processor 510 via the server 540 to perform calculations based on customer-supplied data.” Output of calculation results to terminal 550.] associated with a fleet management telematics platform [See the platform of Fig. 5 of Laubie.Paragraph [0004] of Laubie – “Such pricing information can be helpful to prospective customers for deciding which brand and model to purchase for their trucking fleets.”].
Regarding Claim 25, the combination would disclose the predicted energy consumption values comprise a predicted fuel economy [Abstract of Laubie – “The roll resistance can be determined for the pressure and load of the tire at a characteristic tread depth. The fuel consumption required for overcoming the roll resistance by the vehicle can be determined from the roll resistance and a unit cost of the fuel consumption.”] and/or a predicted driving range.
Regarding Claim 26, Laubie discloses selectively retrieving from data storage historical data relating to driving behavior for the tire [Paragraph [0034] of Laubie – “The roll resistance data are correlated with the customer's operating configuration to determine the average value over the period that the tire is used at step 470. The operating configuration includes average tire load based on average truck loading data, inflation pressure, tire position (i.e., steer, drive or trailer).”] and/or the vehicle and/or an operator of the vehicle; and
predicting one or more of the energy consumption values further based on the selectively retrieved historical data as an input to the selected predictive model [Paragraph [0034] – “The fuel consumption based on roll resistance and vehicle drag is determined at step 480 to determine the operating cost.”].
Regarding Claim 27, Laubie discloses that the predicted one or more of the energy consumption values comprises an estimated fuel savings upon changing to a respective alternative tire [Paragraph [0031] – “The determination of fuel costs based on a realistic assessment of the roll resistance, together with reclamation offsets and the costs for taxes, delivery, installation, inventory, storage and maintenance, provide a comprehensive measure of comparison between brands and models.”] and/or an estimated driving range upon changing to the respective alternative tire.
Regarding Claim 28, Laubie discloses selectively retrieving from data storage tire data relating to a type of the tire and one or more alternative types of tires; and
predicting relative energy consumption values for each of the type of the tire and the one or more alternative types of tires [Paragraph [0031] – “The determination of fuel costs based on a realistic assessment of the roll resistance, together with reclamation offsets and the costs for taxes, delivery, installation, inventory, storage and maintenance, provide a comprehensive measure of comparison between brands and models.”], but fails to do so specifically for tires that are mounted on the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to present such information for comparison so that a fleet manager could decide whether or not to switch tire types for the fleet.
Regarding Claims 31 and 34, the combination would disclose that the computing device is further configured to: estimate the current wear state of the tire [Paragraph [0034] of Laubie – “The roll resistance data are correlated with the customer's operating configuration to determine the average value over the period that the tire is used at step 470. The operating configuration includes average tire load based on average truck loading data, inflation pressure, tire position (i.e., steer, drive or trailer).” The roll resistance data includes tread depth, see Paragraph [0032] and Abstract – “The roll resistance can be determined for the pressure and load of the tire at a characteristic tread depth.”]: in real time based on obtained signals corresponding to dynamic mechanical behavior of the tire [Per use of the TPMS of Singh in order for estimating the wear state of the tire while in the field, where dynamic mechanical driving forces would be encountered.]; in an event-driven manner based on obtained signals corresponding to at least a tread depth of the tire; and/or in real time based at least in part on a determined location in which the tire is mounted on the vehicle [Paragraph [0034] of Laubie – “The operating configuration includes average tire load based on average truck loading data, inflation pressure, tire position (i.e., steer, drive or trailer).”];
update the at least one tire-specific steady-state value corresponding to at least the wear state of the tire based on the estimated current wear state [Paragraph [0034] of Laubie – “The roll resistance data are correlated with the customer's operating configuration to determine the average value over the period that the tire is used at step 470.” The roll resistance data includes tread depth, see Paragraph [0032].]; and
estimate the rolling resistance force acting upon the tire based on at least the one or more tire-specific steady state values and/or the sensed values and/or the determined location in which the tire is mounted on the vehicle [Paragraph [0034] of Laubie – “The roll resistance data are correlated with the customer's operating configuration to determine the average value over the period that the tire is used at step 470.”].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laubie et al. (US 20060149688 A1)[hereinafter “Laubie”], Singh (US 20180272813 A1), and Landolsi et al. (US 20190353561 A1)[hereinafter “Landolsi”].
Regarding Claim 19, Singh fails to disclose that signals representative of sensed values for tire inflation pressure are obtained via a sensor mounted to a valve of the tire.
However, Landolsi discloses measuring signals representative of sensed values for tire inflation pressure are obtained via a sensor mounted to a valve of the tire [Paragraph [0031] – “In the depicted example, TPMS sensor 197 is coupled inside tire 132 as a tire-mounted sensor (TMS). The tire-mounted location, such as coupled to an inner liner of the tire, offers increased coupling of the sensor with road contact properties. For example, the TMS enables a footprint of tire 132 to be characterized, which further enables characterization of a contact patch between the tire and the road. In other examples, TPMS sensor 197 may be coupled to a valve stem of tire 132 instead of the inner liner of tire 132. In still other examples, TPMS sensor 197 may be directly mounted to a rim of wheel 130 with a metal strap or other attachment means. In each location, TPMS sensor 197 may be configured as a direct TPMS sensor as it directly mounted to tire 132, either internally or externally, and provides direct pressure, temperature, and acceleration measurements.”]. It would have been obvious to monitor tire pressure in such a manner because this is a known and effective manner for doing so.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laubie et al. (US 20060149688 A1)[hereinafter “Laubie”], Singh (US 20180272813 A1), and Munch et al. (US 20030201879 A1)[hereinafter “Munch”].
Regarding Claim 20, Singh fails to disclose that signals representative of sensed values for tire inflation pressure are obtained indirectly via a wheel speed sensor external to the tire.
However, Munch discloses the use of an external wheel speed sensor [Fig. 1 – wheel speed sensor 42] to determine tire pressures [Paragraph [0022] – “The rolling radius of a tire is a function of the pressure within the vehicle tire. Ideally, four identical sized tires at the same pressure would provide the same number of wheel speed sensor counts per a given distance during vehicle movement. Therefore, the ABS controller 60 could monitor the number of counts per unit of time from the four wheel speed sensors and determine a relative pressure between the four tires knowing how pressure-effects the radius or diameter of the tire. If one of the tires was under-inflated relative to the other three tires, it would have a smaller diameter and would produce more counts over the same time or distance traveled by the vehicle 20.”Paragraph [0026] – “The wheel speed count or counts per unit of time is correlated to the actual tire pressure. The wheel speed sensor 42 then functions as a reference wheel speed signal by which the other wheel speed signals are compared. Assuming the tires are all the same size, the counts or counts per unit of time from the other wheel speed sensors correlated with the reference wheel speed signal (counts or counts per unit of time) can accurately indicate the pressure within those associated tires.”].
It would have been obvious to determine tire pressure in such a manner because Munch discloses that this is an effective manner of doing so.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laubie et al. (US 20060149688 A1)[hereinafter “Laubie”], Singh (US 20180272813 A1), and Wei (US 20170349007 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Laubie fails to disclose estimating a current wear state of the tire in an event-driven manner based on obtained signals, via at least one external sensor proximate the tire, corresponding to at least a tread depth of the tire; and updating the at least one tire-specific steady-state value corresponding to at least the wear state of the tire based on the estimated current wear state.
However, Wei discloses the measuring or tire tread depth using an external sensor [See Fig. 1A (camera 110), Fig. 8, and corresponding text] in an event-driven manner [Paragraph [0028] – “Tread depth measuring device and system 100 may be configured to measure tread depth while the vehicle is either stationary or moving. Tread depth measuring device and system 100 may be configured to at least one of: measure tread depth intermittently, measure tread depth continuously, be operated manually by a vehicle operator, and be operated automatically by at least one of camera 110, processor 130, and onboard computer 145. Tread depth measuring device and system 100 may be configured to measure tread depth intermittently according to a predetermined schedule based on at least one of: driving time of tire on vehicle and mileage of tire on vehicle.” Either of these constituting “events.”]. It would have been obvious to use such a strategy to better track actual tire tread depth.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laubie et al. (US 20060149688 A1)[hereinafter “Laubie”], Singh (US 20180272813 A1), and Bremmer et al. (US 20210379954 A1)[hereinafter “Bremmer”].
Regarding Claim 29, Laubie discloses the link between tire wear and traction [Paragraph [0021] – “Due to wear from the friction against the road surface, a tire has a limited service life before replacement is mandated by regulation or structural failure. Tires form a cylindrical toroid and engage the road surface along its outer cylindrical surface. In order to improve traction for a variety of weather conditions, this outer surface is indented with tread marks running in multiple circumferential and transverse directions.”], but fails to disclose that the estimated current tire wear is further utilized as an input to a tire traction detection model, and wherein the estimated current tire wear and/or an estimated tire traction based at least in part on the estimated tire wear is provided as an input to a vehicle control unit.
However, Bremmer discloses the determination of tire traction based on tread wear in the performance of vehicle control [See Paragraph [0051]]. It would have been obvious to determine traction based on tread wear and to send it to a vehicle control unit in order to allow for effective and safe vehicle control.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
74
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
437
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited sensor technology and/or locations are known and amount to the recitation of well-understood, routine, and conventional sensing for performing the data gathering necessary for the implementation of the mathematical algorithm (see the discussion of the prior art refences above). Retrieving data from memory for performing the algorithm amounts to mere use of a general-purpose computer for performing the algorithm through use of generic computer memory for holding algorithm parameters.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
438
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant claims do not recite “wear-state-indexed data storage,” but rather merely recite retrieving data from memory in performing the algorithm and does not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
121
784
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
398
786
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The generation of an output signal or display of the results of the algorithm amounts to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. The recited vehicle control unit is generic in that no specific vehicle control is performed.
The Examiner suggests specifying the system receiving the algorithm results and the actions performed by that system using the algorithm results. This is not currently recited, the vehicle control unit could merely store and/or display the algorithm results.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
533
789
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The algorithm is merely computer-implemented math (see the function in Fig. 10 of Singh).
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image7.png
124
787
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
With regards to the amended claim language to the determination of wear state during vehicle operation, the Examiner agrees and new grounds for rejection are presented above. With regards to the “database of steady state values indexed by wear state,” this is not recited by the instant claims but is disclosed by Laubie [See Fig. 3 and Paragraph [0023] – “The roll resistance tests are conducted on the tire with original tread depth 322, mid-life tread depth 324 and replacement tread depth 326.”].
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image8.png
257
784
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees and new grounds for rejection are presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Agarwal et al. (IN 202021054599) (and corresponding US 20220219498 A1)
US 20200262250 A1 – TREAD WEAR PROFILE TOOL
US 20080073009 A1 – Safety Tire, Method Of Making And Method Of Improved Traffic Safety With Use Thereof
US 20110172877 A1 – MASS, DRAG COEFFICIENT AND INCLINATION DETERMINATION USING ACCELEROMETER SENSOR
US 20140360256 A1 – METHOD OF TREAD WEAR SENSOR INSTALLATION IN A TIRE
US 20210138851 A1 – SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING TIRE CHANGE INFORMATION
US 3933036 A – Tread-wear Prediction
US 20220016938 A1 – SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR BAYESIAN INFERENCE IN THE CHARACTERIZATION AND PREDICTION OF VEHICLE TIRE WEAR
US 20160009290 A1 – ASSESSMENT OF TIRE CONDITION BASED ON A TIRE HEALTH PARAMETER
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857