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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
U.S. Patent No. 11,716,388 B2
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,716,388 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,716,338 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the broadened claim language of the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the previously allowed claims because the cited claim anticipates the subject matter of the instant claim. Patent claim 1 of ‘338 discloses, “A vehicle control system comprising: a controller configured to control communication between or among vehicle devices that control operation of a vehicle system via a network that communicatively couples the vehicle devices, the controller configured to control the communication using a data distribution service (DDS) and with the network operating as a time sensitive network (TSN); wherein the controller is configured to direct a first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using time sensitive communications, a different, second set of the vehicle devices to communicate using best effort communications, and a different, third set of the vehicle devices to communicate using rate constrained communications; wherein the controller is configured to receive data frames via the time sensitive network, determine classifications for the data frames based on a presence of at least one pattern in the data frames; and wherein the controller is configured to determine a presence of the at least one pattern based on a comparison of data in the data frames to a pattern data map, wherein the pattern data map is used to determine when the data frames are communicated.” anticipating the subject matter within the broadened claim 1 of the instant application.
Claims 2-20 are likewise rejected over claims 2-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,716,338 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the broadened claim language of the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the previously allowed claims because the cited claim anticipates the subject matter of the instant claim.
U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2
Claims 1, 6-10 and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 14-18 and 21-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2.
Claim 1 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the broadened claim language of the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the previously allowed claims because the cited claim anticipates the subject matter of the instant claim. Patent claims 1, 6, 7 and 8 of ‘356 teach, A vehicle control system comprising: a controller configured to control communication between or among vehicle devices that control operation of a vehicle system via a network that communicatively couples the vehicle devices, the controller configured to control the communication using a data distribution service (DDS) and with the network operating as a time sensitive network (TSN); wherein the controller is configured to direct a first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using time sensitive communications, a different, second set of the vehicle devices to communicate using best effort communications, and a different, third set of the vehicle devices to communicate using rate constrained communications (claim 1); wherein the controller is configured to receive data frames via the time sensitive network, and determine classifications for the data frames (claim 6) based on a presence of at least one pattern in the data frames (claim 7); and wherein the controller is configured to determine a presence of the at least one pattern based on a comparison of data in the data frames to a pattern data map, wherein the controller is configured to use the pattern data map (claim 8) to determine when the data frames are communicated (claims 1, 6 and 8).
Claim 6 is further rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Patent claim 2 of ‘356 teaches, wherein the time sensitive network is an Ethernet network at least partially disposed onboard the vehicle system (claim 2).
Claim 7 is further rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Patent claim 3 of ‘356 teaches, wherein the vehicle devices include two or more of an input/output device, an engine control unit, a traction motor controller, a display device, an auxiliary load controller, or one or more sensors (claim 3).
Claim 8 is further rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Patent claim 4 of ‘356 teaches, wherein one or more of the engine control unit or the traction motor controller is included in the first set of the vehicle devices using the time sensitive communications (claim 4).
Claim 9 is further rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Patent claim 5 of ‘356 teaches, wherein the controller is configured to direct the first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using the time sensitive communications such that the time sensitive communications are completed using bandwidth of the network while the second and third sets of the vehicle devices communicate the best effort communications and the rate constrained communications using a remaining amount of bandwidth of the network that is not used by the time sensitive communications (Claim 5).
Claim 10 is further rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Patent claim 18 of ‘356 teaches, wherein the controller is configured to receive a schedule for communication of the data frames to one or more of the vehicle devices via the time sensitive network; wherein the controller also is configured to receive destinations for the data frames, receive an upper limit on a tolerable latency for the data frames, communicate one or more of the data frames according to the schedule, access the one or more vehicle devices, verify that the one or more data frames were communicated to the one or more vehicle devices within the upper limit on the tolerable latency based on accessing the one or more vehicle devices, and control one or more operations of the vehicle based on the one or more data frames that are communicated (claim 18).
Claim 13 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14, 8 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Patent claims 14, 8 and 17 of ‘356 teach, a method for controlling one or more operations of a vehicle system, the method comprising: controlling communication between or among vehicle devices that control operation of the vehicle system via a network that communicatively couples the vehicle devices, the communication controlled using a data distribution service (DDS) and with the network operating as a time sensitive network (TSN) (claim 14), the communication controlled by receiving data frames via the time sensitive network (claim 17), determining classifications for the data frames based on a presence of at least one pattern in the data frames (claim 8), and generating a communication schedule for the data frames based on the classifications of the data frames that is based on comparing data in the data frames to a pattern data map to determine at least one pattern in the data frames (claim 14, 8); directing a first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using time sensitive communications according to the communication schedule; directing a different, second set of the vehicle devices to communicate using best effort communications according to the communication schedule; and directing a different, third set of the vehicle devices to communicate using rate constrained communications according to the communication schedule (claim 14).
Claim 14 is further rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Patent claim 15 of ‘356 teaches, wherein directing the first set of the vehicle devices includes controlling operation of one or more of an engine control unit or a traction motor controller of the vehicle system using the time sensitive communications (claim 15).
Claim 15 is further rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Patent claim 16 of ‘356 teaches, wherein directing the first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using the time sensitive communications includes completing the time sensitive communications using bandwidth of the network, and wherein directing the second set of the vehicle devices to communicate using the best effort communications and directing the third set of the vehicle devices to communicate using the rate constrained communications are completed using a remaining amount of bandwidth of the network that is not used by the time sensitive communications (claim 16).
Claim 16 is further rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Patent claim 17 of ‘356 teaches, controlling one or more operations of the vehicle based on the data frames that are communicated (claim 17).
Claim 17 is further rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Patent claim 16 of ‘356 teaches, receiving destinations for the data frames; and receiving an upper limit on a tolerable latency for the data frames, wherein one or more of the data frames are communicated according to the communication schedule; accessing one or more vehicle devices; verifying that the one or more data frames were communicated to the one or more vehicle devices within the upper limit on the tolerable latency based on accessing the one or more vehicle devices; and controlling one or more operations of the vehicle system based on the one or more data frames that are communicated (claim 16).
Claim 18 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 22 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Patent claims 21, 22 and 23 of ‘356 teach, a vehicle control system comprising: a controller configured to control communication between or among vehicle devices that control operation of a vehicle system via an Ethernet network that communicatively couples the vehicle devices, the controller configured to control the communication using a data distribution service (DDS) and with the network operating as a time sensitive network (TSN) (claim 21); wherein the controller is configured to direct a first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using time sensitive communications, a different, second set of the vehicle devices to communicate using best effort communications, and a different, third set of the vehicle devices to communicate using rate constrained communications (claim 21); wherein the controller is configured to direct the first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using the time sensitive communications such that the time sensitive communications are completed using bandwidth of the network while the second and third sets of the vehicle devices communicate the best effort communications and the rate constrained communications using a remaining amount of bandwidth of the network that is not used by the time sensitive communications (claim 21); and wherein the controller is configured to receive data frames via the time sensitive network (claim 22), determine a presence of at least one pattern based on data in the data frames, determine classifications for the data frames based on the presence of the at least one pattern in the data frames (claim 23), generate a communication schedule for the data frames based on the classifications for the data frames (claim 21), communicate the data frames based on the communication schedule, and control one or more operations of the vehicle system based on the data frames that are communicated (claim 22).
Claim 19 is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,072,356 B2. Patent claim 18 of ‘356 teaches, wherein the controller is configured to receive the communication schedule for the data frames to one or more of the vehicle devices via the time sensitive network, wherein the controller also is configured to receive destinations for the data frames, receive an upper limit on a tolerable latency for the data frames, communicate one or more of the data frames according to the communication schedule, access the one or more vehicle devices, verify that the one or more data frames were communicated to the one or more vehicle devices within the upper limit on the tolerable latency based on accessing the one or more vehicle devices, and control one or more operations of the vehicle system based on the one or more data frames that are communicated (claim 18).
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)(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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shah (US 2020/0204500 A1).
Regarding claim 18: Shah discloses a vehicle control system comprising: a controller configured to control communication between or among vehicle devices that control operation of a vehicle system via an Ethernet network that communicatively couples the vehicle devices (10; Fig.1), the controller configured to control the communication using a data distribution service (DDS) (publisher/subscriber network; Para.[0019], lines 18-27) and with the network operating as a time sensitive network (TSN) (Para.[0016], line 22); wherein the controller is configured to direct a first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using time sensitive communications, a different, second set of the vehicle devices to communicate using best effort communications, and a different, third set of the vehicle devices to communicate using rate constrained communications (Para.[0017], lines 17-28); wherein the controller is configured to direct the first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using the time sensitive communications such that the time sensitive communications are completed using bandwidth of the network while the second and third sets of the vehicle devices communicate the best effort communications and the rate constrained communications using a remaining amount of bandwidth of the network that is not used by the time sensitive communications (Para.[0016], lines 5-18 and Para.[0020]); and wherein the controller is configured to receive data frames via the time sensitive network, determine a presence of at least one pattern based on data in the data frames (Para.[0019], lines 1-15), determine classifications for the data frames based on the presence of the at least one pattern in the data frames (Para.[0019], lines 1-15), generate a communication schedule for the data frames based on the classifications for the data frames, communicate the data frames based on the communication schedule (Para.[0019], lines 1-15), and control one or more operations of the vehicle system based on the data frames that are communicated (Para.[0017], lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 19: Shah further discloses the vehicle control system of claim 18, wherein the controller is configured to receive the communication schedule for the data frames to one or more of the vehicle devices via the time sensitive network, wherein the controller also is configured to receive destinations for the data frames, receive an upper limit on a tolerable latency for the data frames, communicate one or more of the data frames according to the communication schedule, access the one or more vehicle devices, verify that the one or more data frames were communicated to the one or more vehicle devices within the upper limit on the tolerable latency based on accessing the one or more vehicle devices, and control one or more operations of the vehicle system based on the one or more data frames that are communicated (Para.[0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 20: Shah further discloses the vehicle control system of claim 18, wherein the controller is configured to determine that first data frames of the data frames include the at least one pattern and that second data frames of the data frames do not include the at least one pattern, and the controller is configured to direct the vehicle devices to drop the second data frames based on the second data frames not including the at least one pattern (Para.[0030], lines 9-14).
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US 2020/0204500 A1) in view of Soon (US 2010/0278189 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Shah teaches a vehicle control system comprising: a controller configured to control communication between or among vehicle devices that control operation of a vehicle system via a network that communicatively couples the vehicle devices (10; Fig.1), the controller configured to control the communication using a data distribution service (DDS) (publisher/subscriber network; Para.[0019], lines 18-27) and with the network operating as a time sensitive network (TSN) (Para.[0016], line 22); wherein the controller is configured to direct a first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using time sensitive communications, a different, second set of the vehicle devices to communicate using best effort communications, and a different, third set of the vehicle devices to communicate using rate constrained communications (Para.[0017], lines 17-28); wherein the controller is configured to receive data frames via the time sensitive network, and determine classifications for the data frames based on a presence of at least one pattern in the data frames (Fig.1 and Para.[0019], lines 1-15). Shah does not teach wherein the controller is configured to determine a presence of the at least one pattern based on a comparison of data in the data frames to a pattern data map, wherein the controller is configured to use the pattern data map to determine when the data frames are communicated.
However, Soon teaches wherein a controller is configured to determine a presence of the at least one pattern based on a comparison of data in the data frames to a pattern data map, wherein the controller is configured to use the pattern data map to determine when the data frames are communicated (Para.[0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Shah with the comparison of data in the data frames to a pattern data map to provide efficient network classification and scheduling with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2: Shah further teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to obtain the at least one pattern from outside of headers of the data frames (Para.[0028], lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 3: Shah further teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to obtain the at least one pattern from payloads of the data frames (Para.[0028], line 10).
Regarding claim 4: Shah further teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine that first data frames of the data frames include the at least one pattern and that second data frames of the data frames do not include the at least one pattern, and the controller is configured to direct the vehicle devices to drop the second data frames based on the second data frames not including the at least one pattern (Para.[0030], lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 5: Shah further teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine a user datagram protocol (UDP) source or destination port number as the at least one pattern in the data frames (Para.[0031], lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 6: Shah further teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the time sensitive network is an Ethernet network at least partially disposed onboard the vehicle system (Para.[0017], lines 12-17 and [0018], line 6).
Regarding claim 7: Shah further teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle devices include two or more of an input/output device, an engine control unit, a traction motor controller, a display device, an auxiliary load controller, or one or more sensors (Para.[0017], lines 17-28).
Regarding claim 8: Shah further teaches the vehicle control system of claim 7, wherein one or more of the engine control unit or the traction motor controller is included in the first set of the vehicle devices using the time sensitive communications (Para.[0017], lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 9: Shah further teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to direct the first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using the time sensitive communications such that the time sensitive communications are completed using bandwidth of the network while the second and third sets of the vehicle devices communicate the best effort communications and the rate constrained communications using a remaining amount of bandwidth of the network that is not used by the time sensitive communications (Para.[0016], lines 5-18 and Para.[0020]) .
Regarding claim 10: Shah further teaches the vehicle control system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to receive a schedule for communication of the data frames to one or more of the vehicle devices via the time sensitive network; wherein the controller also is configured to receive destinations for the data frames, receive an upper limit on a tolerable latency for the data frames, communicate one or more of the data frames according to the schedule, access the one or more vehicle devices, verify that the one or more data frames were communicated to the one or more vehicle devices within the upper limit on the tolerable latency based on accessing the one or more vehicle devices, and control one or more operations of the vehicle based on the one or more data frames that are communicated (Para.[0028]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 11: Shah further teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether arrival times of the data frames are within a specified time window for each of the data frames that arrives at a vehicle device of the vehicle devices (Para.[0028] and Para.[0032]).
Regarding claim 12: Shah further teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the controller is configured to determine whether departure times of the data frames are within scheduled departure times of the data frames for each of the data frames that does not arrive at a vehicle device of the vehicle devices (Para.[0028] and Para.[0032]).
Regarding claim 13: Shah teaches a method for controlling one or more operations of a vehicle system, the method comprising: controlling communication between or among vehicle devices that control operation of the vehicle system via a network that communicatively couples the vehicle devices (10; Fig.1), the communication controlled using a data distribution service (DDS) (publisher/subscriber network; Para.[0016], lines 18-27) and with the network operating as a time sensitive network (TSN) (Para.[0016], line 22), the communication controlled by receiving data frames via the time sensitive network, determining classifications for the data frames based on a presence of at least one pattern in the data frames, and generating a communication schedule for the data frames based on the classifications of the data frames (Para.[0019], lines 6-15); directing a first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using time sensitive communications according to the communication schedule; directing a different, second set of the vehicle devices to communicate using best effort communications according to the communication schedule; and directing a different, third set of the vehicle devices to communicate using rate constrained communications according to the communication schedule (Para.[0017], lines 17-28). Shah does not teach comparing data in the data frames to a pattern data map to determine at least one pattern in the data frames.
However, Soon teaches comparing data in the data frames to a pattern data map to determine at least one pattern in the data frames (Para.[0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Shah with the comparison of data in the data frames to a pattern data map to provide efficient network classification and scheduling with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14: Shah further teaches the method of claim 13, wherein directing the first set of the vehicle devices includes controlling operation of one or more of an engine control unit or a traction motor controller of the vehicle system using the time sensitive communications (Para.[0017], lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 15: Shah further teaches the method of claim 13, wherein directing the first set of the vehicle devices to communicate using the time sensitive communications includes completing the time sensitive communications using bandwidth of the network, and wherein directing the second set of the vehicle devices to communicate using the best effort communications and directing the third set of the vehicle devices to communicate using the rate constrained communications are completed using a remaining amount of bandwidth of the network that is not used by the time sensitive communications (Para.[0016], lines 5-18 and Para.[0020]).
Regarding claim 16: Shah further teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: controlling one or more operations of the vehicle based on the data frames that are communicated (Para.[0017], lines 9-14).
Regarding claim 17: Shah further teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving destinations for the data frames; and receiving an upper limit on a tolerable latency for the data frames, wherein one or more of the data frames are communicated according to the communication schedule; accessing one or more vehicle devices; verifying that the one or more data frames were communicated to the one or more vehicle devices within the upper limit on the tolerable latency based on accessing the one or more vehicle devices; and controlling one or more operations of the vehicle system based on the one or more data frames that are communicated (Para.[0028]-[0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615