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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Method for Simulating a Computing Unit According to a Realistic Time Sequence.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Scheduling module in Claims 1, 9, and 10. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “module” as a substitute for “means”;
The term “module” is modified by functional language, e.g., determining, by a scheduling module;
The term “module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Simulation module in Claims 1, 9, and 10. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “module” as a substitute for “means”;
The term “module” is modified by functional language, e.g., executing, by at least one simulation module;
The term “module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Extrapolation module in Claim 2. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “module” as a substitute for “means”;
The term “module” is modified by functional language, e.g., extrapolation;
The term “module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The limitation extrapolation logic could be software, hardware, or any combination thereof;
Action module in Claim 7. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “module” as a substitute for “means”;
The term “module” is modified by functional language, e.g., determining, by an action module;
The term “module” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, claim limitations “scheduling module” and “simulation module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification describes the modules as software, the specification does not provide an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer functions of scheduling and simulating, see MPEP § 2181(II)(B); “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim 2, claim limitation “extrapolation module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification describes the module as software, the specification does not provide an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer functions of extrapolation, see MPEP § 2181(II)(B); “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claims 3-6, the claim requires the limitations of Claim 1, on which these claims depend, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 7, claim limitation “action module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification describes the module as software, the specification does not provide an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function of determining an action, see MPEP § 2181(II)(B); “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim requires the limitations of Claim 1, on which this claim depends, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 9, the Claim recites “the computing unit configured to.” The computing unit lacks antecedent basis. The claim recites “A computing unit,” and “a first computing unit in a second computing unit.” The claim is unclear as to whether “the computing unit” refers to “a computing unit,” “a first computing unit,” or “a second computing unit,” all of which may be configured according to the further limitations of Claim 9. Therefore, this claim is indefinite.
The remaining limitations of Claim 9 recite substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 10, the Claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pree et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0010160 A1), hereinafter Pree.
Regarding Claim 1, Pree teaches A method for simulating a first computing unit in a second computing unit (“According further to the system described herein, a method for simulating a real-time system using a block-oriented simulation system with a static block-update order is provided.”) (e.g., paragraph [0015]).
wherein software executed in the first computing unit to be simulated is executed in the second computing unit (“The system described herein may further include a computer readable medium storing computer software with executable code that, when executed, performs the above-noted method.”) (e.g., paragraph [0015]).
the method comprising: determining, by a scheduling module in the second computing unit, a time schedule according to which processes of the software are processed in the first computing unit to be simulated (“Therefore, the timing behavior described in TDL components is compiled into an intermediate code, called the Embedded Code or E-Code. The E-Code describes an application's reactivity, i.e. time instants to release or terminate tasks or to interact with the environment.” The E-Code is a time schedule for executing tasks.) (e.g., paragraph [0052]).
executing, by at least one simulation module in the second computing unit, the software for simulating the first computing unit (“According to the E-Code instructions the E-Machine timely hands tasks to a dispatcher and executes drivers. A driver performs communication activities, such as reading sensor values, providing input values for tasks at their release time or copy output values at their termination time.” A driver is software for simulating computing units.) (e.g., paragraph [0054]).
wherein the at least one simulation module performs a predetermined action at a respective predetermined action time point based on the time schedule in order to obtain an action result (“According to the E-Code instructions the E-Machine timely hands tasks to a dispatcher and executes drivers. A driver performs communication activities, such as reading sensor values, providing input values for tasks at their release time or copy output values at their termination time.” Drivers are executed at predetermined time points according to the E-Code schedule.) (e.g., paragraph [0054]).
determining, based on the action result, an action time point of a future next action and using the determined action time point for the time schedule for generating a next increment in the schedule. (“When the E-Machine triggers the execution of a guard, it immediately reads the result via an input port. The result influences the further execution of E-Code instructions and consequently influences, too, which subsystem is to be triggered. Thus, the E-Machine block has direct feedthrough.” Influencing further execution of E-Code influences the execution time of a future next action.) (e.g., paragraph [0067]).
Regarding Claim 2, Pree teaches The method according to claim 1. Pree further teaches wherein the action time point of the future action is furthermore determined based on an extrapolation logic of an extrapolation module in the second computing unit (“Delays are introduced by explicit delay blocks, or by other blocks whose inputs have indirect feedthrough. Indirect (or non-direct) feedthrough means that a block's output y depends on the state x, but is not directly controlled by an input u of the respective block.” Determining an output y based on a state x is extrapolation, wherein the output influences further execution of E-Code.) (e.g., paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 3, Pree teaches The method according to claim 1. Pree further teaches further comprising: determining a difference of a time interval between a current action time point and the action time point of the future action (“Delays are introduced by explicit delay blocks, or by other blocks whose inputs have indirect feedthrough. Indirect (or non-direct) feedthrough means that a block's output y depends on the state x, but is not directly controlled by an input u of the respective block.”) (e.g., paragraph [0070])
and a time interval between a previous action time point and the current action time point (“For example, the delay block, which provides a delay time Δ, is described by the following state space description y(t)=x(t),x(t+Δ)=u(t),” wherein t is the previous time point and t+Δ is the current time point.) (e.g., paragraph [0070]).
and using the difference for the time schedule for generating the next increment (“The task execution block (tx) 93 which provides the desired functionality of the task function block is triggered dependent on the position of the delay block 96-either by the first trigger block 10a or by the second trigger block 10b at a second point in time (tax). In the first case, the delay block 96 is arranged downstream of the task execution block (tx) 93 and in the latter case the delay block 96 is arranged upstream of the task execution block (tx) 93.”) (e.g., paragraph [0095]).
Regarding Claim 5, Pree teaches The method according to claim 1. Pree further teaches wherein the scheduling module determines the time schedule depending on hardware components of the first computing unit to be simulated (“A driver performs communication activities, such as reading sensor values, providing input values for tasks at their release time or copy output values at their termination time. TDL compiler plug-ins generate drivers automatically for a certain platform according to the language binding rules.” A certain platform is interpreted as describing the hardware components of the simulated computing unit.) (e.g., paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Claim 6, Pree teaches The method according to claim 1. Pree further teaches wherein the predetermined actions includes reading in data and/or writing data and/or starting processing of a process (“According to the E-Code instructions the E-Machine timely hands tasks to a dispatcher and executes drivers. A driver performs communication activities, such as reading sensor values, providing input values for tasks at their release time or copy output values at their termination time.”) (e.g., paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Claim 7, Pree teaches The method according to claim 1. Pree further teaches further comprising: determining, by an action module in the second computing unit, action events depending on the time schedule according to which a predetermined action is to be performed at a respective predetermined action time point as part of the simulation of the first computing unit, wherein the at least one simulation module performs the respective predetermined action at the predetermined action time points according to the determined action events (“The clock 8 provides a time base for the simulation. After starting the simulation, the E-Machine (trigger blocks 10a, 10b) "sees" (in regular time intervals given by the time base, whereby fixed step and variable step sample time may be supported) how much time has elapsed since the begin of the simulation and subsequently triggers the different blocks of each task function block (that follows the concept of LET) at the correct time as defined by the E-code.”) (e.g., paragraph [0096]).
Regarding Claim 8, Pree teaches The method according to claim 1. Pree further teaches wherein the first computing unit to be simulated is a control device of a vehicle or a group of control devices, of the vehicle (“Examples of embedded systems include automotive systems, automation systems, railway systems and avionics systems.”) (e.g., paragraph [0003]).
Regarding Claim 9, Pree teaches A computing unit (“According to the system described herein, a system for simulating a real-time system using a block-oriented simulation with a static block-update order comprises a clock providing a time base for the simulation;”) (e.g., paragraph [0013]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 9 are substantially similar to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 10, Pree teaches A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program (“The system described herein may further include a computer readable medium storing computer software with executable code that, when executed, performs the above-noted method.”) (e.g., paragraph [0015]).
The remaining limitations of Claim 10 are substantially similar to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pree in view of Koelle et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0299599 A1), hereinafter Koelle.
Regarding Claim 4, Pree teaches The method according to claim 1. Pree further teaches wherein the action result includes output data of the first computing unit to be simulated (“A driver performs communication activities, such as reading sensor values, providing input values for tasks at their release time or copy output values at their termination time.”) (e.g., paragraph [0054]).
However, Pree does not appear to specifically teach output data including a rotational speed and/or a crankshaft angle of an internal combustion engine.
On the other hand, Koelle, which relates to controlling an internal combustion engine, does teach including a rotational speed and/or a crankshaft angle of an internal combustion engine (“The signal of sensor 3, i.e., of the crankshaft angle sensor, is plotted against time t on curve A in FIG. 2,” wherein figure 2 discloses output data representing crankshaft angle.) (e.g., paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Pree with Koelle. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Pree teaches a method for logical execution time of embedded systems in automotive systems. However, Pree does not specifically teach simulating rotational speed and/or crankshaft angle data for an internal combustion engine. On the other hand, Koelle, which provides a method for controlling an internal combustion engine, does teach rotational speed and/or crankshaft angle data. As Pree discloses that the disclosed method may be used to read sensor values from embedded systems in automotive systems (e.g., Pree; paragraphs [0003] and [0054]), and Koelle provides specific sensors and output data for an automotive system (e.g., Koelle; paragraph [0015]), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods; in combination, the simulation of Pree and the output data of Koelle merely perform the same functions as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the logical execution time simulation of Pree with the crankshaft angle sensor of Koelle in order to model specific sensors disclosed in Pree.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gemlau et al. (Gemlau, Kai-Björn, Leonie Köhler, Rolf Ernst, and Sophie Quinton. "System-level logical execution time: Augmenting the logical execution time paradigm for distributed real-time automotive software." ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems 5, no. 2 (2021): 1-27.) teaches system level logical execution time for automotive software.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights