DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2 and 5-10 have been amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Claims 11-13 have been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the recited claim language is at least integrated into a practical application because the claim language provides an improvement in the technology of roadway monitoring. The examiner respectfully disagrees, the claim as written are not integrated into a practical application and therefore does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Examiner submits the additional elements of a computer readable medium and processor merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Further, the estimating is insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception of determining a comparison of vehicle values.
Applicant's amendments filed September 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) invocation have been fully considered and therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed September 2nd, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that cited references fail to disclose estimating that road surface damage is present when a first number of the plurality of vehicle for which the first value is greater than the first threshold value and a second number of the plurality of vehicles for which the second value is greater than the second threshold value satisfies a predetermined condition. Examiner respectfully disagree, the primary reference Kimura discloses determining step at which it is determined that the road surface is rough at the one point when the calculated average value is equal to or larger than a first predetermined value and it is determined that there exists local concavity and/or convexity at the one point when a maximum value at the one point is equal to or larger than a second predetermined value that is larger than the first predetermined value (0013). Further, Kimura discloses The data collecting part 111 is configured to collect a behavior data relating to a behavior of each of the plurality of vehicles 2 from each of the plurality of vehicles 2. The road surface condition estimating part 112 is configured to estimate the condition of the road surface on the basis of the behavior data collected by the data collecting part 111 (0031, 0042). Note that a state where the vehicle 2 skids may mean a state where a slip ratio in a longitudinal direction (in other words, the front to rear direction) or a lateral direction of the vehicle 2 is larger than a predetermined ratio. Thus, a behavior that the vehicle 2 skids is another one example of the second specific behavior. A behavior that the vehicle 2 skids and then travels normally again is another one example of the second specific behavior (0056). Next, Kimura discloses The input information includes an information representing a variation in time of the wheel speed of each wheel of the vehicle 2. Therefore, when the vehicle 2 is a four-wheel vehicle, the road surface condition estimating part 112 extracts the information representing the variation in time of the wheel speed of each of four wheels (namely, a left front wheel, a right front wheel, a left rear wheel and a right rear wheel). When the vehicle 2 is a two-wheel vehicle, the road surface condition estimating part 112 extracts the information representing the variation in time of the wheel speed of each of two wheels (namely, a front wheel and a rear wheel). However, the input information may include at least one of an information representing a variation in time of the vertical acceleration rate of each wheel of the vehicle 2, an information representing a variation in time of an air pressure of each wheel of the vehicle 2 and so on (0064). Lastly, Kimura discloses The index value represented by the road surface concavity/convexity information becomes larger as the degree of the concavity and/or the convexity at the road surface is larger. Next, the road surface condition estimating part 112 calculates the average value of the index value at one point (alternatively, one section) represented by the road surface concavity/convexity information of all of the plurality of vehicles 2 (0066). Therefore, Kimura discloses a system that estimate road condition for a plurality of vehicles using multiple predetermined values and for front and rear wheels. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim 1-3 and 5-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites and abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). See 2019 PEG.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
The additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
The additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
The additional element(s) that implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
The additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
The additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
The additional element(s) merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
The additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
The additional element(s) does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See 2019 PEG.
101 analysis step 1
Claims 1 and 9 are directed to a method and claim 10 is directed to a method of executing instructions through a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a process). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas; a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
a state estimation device comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions, a first threshold value for front wheels and a second threshold value for rear wheels; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions for:
acquiring information on vehicle behavior of front wheels and rear wheels of each of a plurality of vehicles;
determining, for each of the plurality of vehicles, base on the information on vehicle behavior whether a first value associated with the front wheels in the information on vehicle behavior is greater than the first threshold value and a second value associated with the rear wheels is greater than the second threshold value; and
estimating that road surface damage is present when a first number of the plurality of vehicles for which the first value is greater than the first threshold value and a second number of the plurality of vehicles for which the second value is greater than the second threshold value satisfies a predetermined condition.
The examiner submits that the forgoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation of the human mind. For example, estimating that road surface damage is present when a value associated with the front wheels in the information on vehicle behavior is greater than a first threshold value and a value associated with the rear wheels is greater than a second threshold value in the context of this claim encompasses a user estimating that road surface damage is present derived from two unspecified threshold values which are based on the vehicle behavior of the front and rear wheels.
101 analysis – step 2A, prong II
Regarding Prong 2 of the step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlines portions are the “additional limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
a state estimation device comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions, a first threshold value for front wheels and a second threshold value for rear wheels; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions for:
acquiring information on vehicle behavior of front wheels and rear wheels of each of a plurality of vehicles;
determining, for each of the plurality of vehicles, based on the information on vehicle behavior whether a first value associated with the front wheels in the information on vehicle behavior is greater than the first threshold value and a second value associated with the rear wheels is greater than the second threshold value; and
estimating that road surface damage is present when a first number of the plurality of vehicles for which the first value is greater than the first threshold value and a second number of the plurality of vehicles for which the second value is greater than the second threshold value satisfies a predetermined condition.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of the State Estimation Device, a non-transitory computer readable medium and a processor configured to acquire information on vehicle behavior of front wheels and rear wheels of each of a plurality of vehicles, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at elements taken individually. The additional limitation steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means for gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering which does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). the additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the State Estimation Device, a behavior acquiring unit configured to acquire information on vehicle behavior of front wheels and rear wheels of a vehicle amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of the State Estimation Device, a non-transitory computer readable medium and a processor configured to acquire information on vehicle behavior of front wheels and rear wheels of each of a plurality of vehicles are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the devices and modules are anything other than conventional computer components. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving, or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Accordingly, a conclusion that the State Estimation Device, a non-transitory computer readable medium and a processor configured to acquire information on vehicle behavior of front wheels and rear wheels of each of a plurality of vehicles, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the State Estimation Device, a non-transitory computer readable medium and a processor configured to acquire information on vehicle behavior of front wheels and rear wheels of each of a plurality of vehicles are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, and 10-13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the detecting, acquiring, generating, and sending steps. The additional limitations of vehicle behavior, threshold values, and variation in rotation speed for the wheels of a vehicle are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional limitation is well understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication of additional elements are anything other than conventional computer components. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and the cases cited therein, indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 5-8 and 11-13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim.
Therefore claims 1-3 and 5-10-13 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura US 20190329786 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kimura.
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, Kimura discloses a method and system comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to store instructions, a first threshold value for front wheels and a second threshold value for rear wheels (see at least 0013, 0031, 0057-0058, 0182); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions for:
acquiring information on vehicle behavior of front wheels and rear wheels of each of a plurality of vehicles (see at least 0013, 0031, 0064, 0066, “…the road surface condition estimating part 112 extracts the information representing the variation in time of the wheel speed of each of four wheels (namely, a left front wheel, a right front wheel, a left rear wheel and a right rear wheel)”;
determining, for each of the plurality of vehicles, based on the information on vehicle behavior whether a first value associated with the front wheels in the information on vehicle behavior is greater than the first threshold value and a second value associated with the rear wheels is greater than the second threshold value (0057-0058, 0064, 0066); and
estimating that road surface damage is present when a first number of the plurality of vehicles for which the first value is greater than the first threshold value and a second number of the plurality of vehicles for which the second value is greater than the second threshold value satisfies a predetermined condition (see at least 0013, 0031, 0064, 0066).
Regarding claim 2, Kimura discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the instructions for:
determining whether the first value is greater than the first threshold value for each of a front-right wheel and a front-left wheel in the information on vehicle behavior, and determining whether the second value is greater than the second threshold value for each of a rear-right wheel and a rear-left wheel in the information on vehicle behavior (see at least paragraphs [0057] and [0064]; [0057] explains how “the road surface condition estimating part needs to be able to estimate the position of the road surface abnormality based on the amount of the variation of the wheel speed… “ and how it can do this by calculating “that the amount of the variation per unit time of the wheel speed is equal or larger than a predetermined amount…”. [0064] teaches about how “…the road surface condition estimating part 112 extracts the information representing the variation in time of the wheel speed of each of four wheels (namely, a left front wheel, a right front wheel, a left rear wheel and a right rear wheel)”,
estimating that the road surface damage is present when the first value associated with the front-left wheel is greater than the first threshold value and the second value associated with the rear-left wheel is greater than the second threshold value or when the first value associated with the front-right wheel is greater than the first threshold value and the second value associated with the rear-right wheel is greater than the second threshold value (see at least paragraph [0064]; explanation of how “…the road surface condition estimating part 112 extracts the information representing the variation in time of the wheel speed of each of four wheels (namely, a left front wheel, a right front wheel, a left rear wheel and a right rear wheel)”. As previously mentioned, paragraph [0057] teaches that the road surface condition estimating part compares the variation per unit time of the wheel speed to a predetermined amount to see if it equal to or larger than the predetermined amount).
Regarding claim 3, Kimura discloses wherein variation in wheel rotation speed of each tire of the vehicle is used as the information on vehicle behavior (see at least paragraph [0064]; explanation of how “…the road surface condition estimating part 112 extracts the information representing the variation in time of the wheel speed of each of four wheels (namely, a left front wheel, a right front wheel, a left rear wheel and a right rear wheel)”.
Regarding claim 5, Kimura discloses wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions for acquiring the information on vehicle behavior from each of the plurality of vehicles for each predetermined area (see at least paragraphs [0042], [0074], and [0112]; [0042] teaches about how the server, specifically the data collecting part, “…collects the vehicle position data and the behavior data from the plurality of vehicles, because the road surface condition estimation system SYS1 includes the plurality of vehicles”. [0074] teaches how “the road surface condition estimation system SYS1 is capable of estimating the condition of the road surface in a relatively wide area”. It should also be noted that [0112] teaches about how “…the maintenance proposing part 113 may plot a point of the road surface abnormality on a map on the basis of the road surface condition data. Namely, the maintenance proposing part 113 may generate the map in which the point of the road surface abnormality is visualized on the basis of the road surface condition data”)
performing the determination using the first threshold value and the second threshold value for each predetermined area and estimating that the road surface damage is present for each predetermined area when the predetermined condition is satisfied (see at least paragraphs [0112, 0117] and [0057]; [0112] teaches about how “…the maintenance proposing part 113 may plot a point of the road surface abnormality on a map on the basis of the road surface condition data. Namely, the maintenance proposing part 113 may generate the map in which the point of the road surface abnormality is visualized on the basis of the road surface condition data”. [0057] teaches about how “the road surface condition estimating part needs to be able to estimate the position of the road surface abnormality based on the amount of the variation of the wheel speed…” and how it can do this by calculating “that the amount of the variation per unit time of the wheel speed is equal or larger than a predetermined amount…”).
Regarding claim 6, Kimura discloses wherein the first threshold value and the second threshold value are set to different values according to information on a load and a type for each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles (see at least paragraph [0127] and [0057]; [0127] is an explanation of how “The road surface condition estimation part 112 may estimate the condition of the road surface by using unique information that is unique to the vehicle itself in addition to the previously described behavior data” (i.e. vehicle type, size, and weight). As previously described, [0057] teaches about the road surface condition estimating part which compares the amount of the variation per unit time of the wheel speed to a predetermined amount).
Regarding claim 7, Kimura discloses wherein the first threshold value is set to be smaller than the second threshold value when the type includes a vehicle body structure of front-wheel drive (see at least paragraphs [0127] and [0057]; [0127] teaches about how “The road surface condition estimation part 112 may estimate the condition of the road surface by using unique information that is unique to the vehicle itself in addition to the previously described behavior data” (i.e. vehicle type, size, and weight). As previously mentioned, [0057] teaches about the road surface condition estimating part which compares the amount of the variation per unit time of the wheel speed to a predetermined amount).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kimura, in view of Chainer et al., U.S. Patent No. 20180068495 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chainer.
Regarding claim 8, Kimura discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, Kimura discloses:
wherein the first threshold value and the second threshold value are set to different values using a trained model which has been trained by machine learning based on the information on a load of each of the plurality of vehicles, the information on vehicle behavior for training collected for a plurality of vehicle types (see at least paragraphs [0098], [0056], and [0127]; [0098] teaches about how “…the road surface condition estimating part 112 may estimate the condition of the road surface by using an estimation engine (for example, an estimating engine using an AI (Artificial Intelligence) such as a neural network)…” As mentioned previously [0056] teaches about how the road surface condition estimation part compares the amount of the variation per unit time of the wheel speed to a predetermined amount. [0127] teaches about how “The road surface condition estimation part 112 may estimate the condition of the road surface by using unique information that is unique to the vehicle itself in addition to the previously described behavior data” (i.e. vehicle type, size, and weight)),
Kimura fails to disclose …and a correct answer label of road surface damage for each of the plurality of vehicle types.
Further, Chainer teaches … and a correct answer label of road surface damage for each of the plurality of vehicle types (see at least paragraphs [0056], [0057], [0058]; [0056] teaches about a vehicle profile database that maintains distinct signatures for different types of vehicles. [0057] teaches about how the signatures correspond to different road defect events. Lastly, [0058] teaches about how the signature summarizes the predicted sensor data of the vehicle when encountering particular types of road defects such as potholes and icy patches).
Kimura discloses a method for estimating road surface conditions using the variation per unit time of the wheel speed. While Chainer teaches about a set of signatures that correspond to different types of road defect events.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kimura and include using a database of distinct signatures for different types of vehicles that correspond to different road defect events as taught by Chainer, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would improve the accuracy of road defect detection and reporting as well as provide drivers with more accurate information regarding what types of road defects they are experiencing.
Conclusion
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 Fadey S Jabr whose telephone number is (571)272-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am to 4:oopm.
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, Fadey S Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
FADEY S. JABR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668