DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 6-8, 10-11, 16-18, and 20 are currently pending. Claims 2-5, 9, 12-15, and 19 have been cancelled and all corresponding rejections are thus rendered moot. Claims 1, 6-8, 11, and 16-18 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101 Rejections
Applicant argues the following: “Specifically, as amended, the independent claims set forth that a model is used to estimate the wear of a tire (which would otherwise be unknown) using a variety of information (e.g., a mileage, a longitudinal acceleration, a lateral acceleration, a gear ratio, a steering angle, a slope, a yaw rate, a vehicle speed, or a tire air pressure), that the estimated wear amount of the tire is provided to a vehicle management server, and that, in response to providing the estimated wear amount to the vehicle management server, a tire replacement reservation service is received, thereby facilitating replacement of the tire. Applicant respectfully asserts that this subject matter of the amended independent claims improves vehicle safety technology (i.e., "another technology or technical field") by automatically determining estimated tire wear, and taking the actions of providing the estimated wear amount to a vehicle management server and receiving a tire replacement reservation service in response, thereby facilitating the replacement of a worn tire, which improves vehicle safety.” The examiner has considered this argument but does not find it to be persuasive. Determining estimated tire wear is a mathematical calculation, providing the estimated wear amount to a vehicle management server is mere data outputting, and merely receiving a tire replacement reservation service to facilitate the replacement of a worn tire does not itself make the vehicle any safer.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the remaining rejections under 35 USC 101 of claims 1, 6-8, 10-11, 16-18, and 20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. However, the applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11 necessitate novel consideration under 35 USC 101. Therefore, the existing rejections have been withdrawn. The new grounds for rejection are presented below, see Claims Rejections — 35 USC 101.
Prior Art (35 USC 102(a)(2) and 103) Rejections
Applicant argues the following: “From the above-described disclosure of Herrou, it is clear that the amount of wear on a tire is a known factor obtained from image data from cameras monitoring the tire, and that this known tire wear is used as an input to the model of Herrou. In contrast, in amended independent claim 1, the amount of wear on a tire is not known. Instead, a variety of items of information that do not include amount of tire wear are used as inputs to a model, and the estimated amount of wear on a tire is the output of the model. Applicant respectfully asserts that Herrou's use of a known value of tire wear as an input to a model fails to disclose the claimed use of a model to generate, as an output, an estimated tire wear amount, where the tire wear amount is not otherwise already known (as it necessarily is in Herrou). Therefore, Applicant respectfully asserts that Herrou fails to disclose the above-recited features of amended independent claim 1.” The examiner has considered this argument and finds it persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding prior art rejections relevant to the remaining rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(2) of claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding prior art rejections relevant to the remaining rejections under 35 USC 103 of claims 7-8, 10, 17-18, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, the applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11 necessitate novel consideration of all the claims under 35 USC 103. The new grounds for rejection are presented below.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…a memory storing a model configured estimate…” should read “…a memory storing a model configured to estimate…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10-11, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Claim 1 falls into the statutory category of apparatus claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites several abstract ideas:
A mathematical algorithm comprising the follow step:
Estimate the wear amount of the tire corresponding to the driving pattern of a driver based on the model to obtain, as an output from the model, an estimated wear amount.
A mental process comprising the following step:
Assign a highest weight to the mileage.
A mode of organizing human activity (i.e., “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors,” see MPEP 2106.04(a)) and/or mental process comprising the follow step:
Receive a tire replacement reservation service from the vehicle management server in response to providing the estimated wear amount .
A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2A-II: The claim language does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance thereof by the apparatus offers no physical improvement to the tires, the vehicle, or the experience of the driver.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements:
A memory storing a model configured estimate the wear amount of the tire based on a driving pattern
A controller, configured to:
Provide the estimated wear amount of the tire to a vehicle management server; and
Collect a mileage through a vehicle network as an input for the model; and
Collect a longitudinal acceleration, a lateral acceleration, a gear ratio, a steering angle, a slope, a yaw rate, a vehicle speed, or a tire air pressure through the vehicle network as additional inputs to the model.
However, additional element (a) is merely a generic memory component performing a generic data store function required for the implementation of the recited abstract ideas using a generic computer and additional element (b) is merely a generic computer component configured to perform generic computer operations for the performance of the recited abstract ideas. Additional element (c) does not amount to more than insignificant extra-solution activity as it is a mere data outputting step required for the performance of the recited abstract ideas. Additional elements (d) and (e) also do not amount to more than insignificant extra-solution activity, as they are both mere data gathering steps required for the performance of the recited abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, dependent claims 6 and 10, which also fall into the statutory category of apparatus claims, are also rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1 and because they do not set forth any further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or that amount to significantly more.
Claim 7
Step 1: Claim 7 falls into the statutory category of apparatus claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites an abstract idea as it inherits the limitations of claim 1.
Step 2A-II: The claim language does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance thereof by the apparatus offers no physical improvement to the tires, the vehicle, or the experience of the driver.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional element:
Wherein the controller is further configured to provide the wear amount of the tire to the driver.
However, providing the wear amount to the driver as recited in the above additional element does not amount to more than insignificant extra-solution activity (see Electric Power Group LLC. V. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350 (2016). From Page 9 – “But merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.”).
Claim 8
Step 1: Claim 8 falls into the statutory category of apparatus claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites an abstract idea as it inherits the limitations of claim 1.
Step 2A-II: The claim language does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance thereof by the apparatus offers no physical improvement to the tires, the vehicle, or the experience of the driver.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional element:
Wherein the controller is further configured to warn the driver to replace the tire when the wear amount of the fire exceeds a threshold value.
However, warning the driver as recited in the above additional element, which as written constitutes the triggering of an alarm, has been identified by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional practice (See Parker V. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978). From Page 595 – “Here it is absolutely clear that respondent's application contains no claim of patentable invention. The chemical processes involved in catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons are well known, as are the practice of monitoring the chemical process variables, the use of alarm limits to trigger alarms, the notion that alarm limit values must be recomputed and readjusted, and the use of computers for 'automatic monitoring alarming.’”).
Claim 11
Step 1: Claim 11 falls into the statutory category of method claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites several abstract ideas:
A mathematical algorithm comprising the follow step:
Estimating the wear amount of the tire corresponding to the driving pattern of a driver based on the model to obtain, as an output from the model, an estimated wear amount.
A mental process comprising the following step:
Assigning a highest weight to the mileage.
A mode of organizing human activity/mental process comprising the follow step:
Receiving a tire replacement reservation service from the vehicle management server in response to providing the estimated wear amount.
A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2A-II: The claim language does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance thereof by the method offers no physical improvement to the tires, the vehicle, or the experience of the driver.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements:
Storing in a memory a model that estimates the wear amount of the tire based on a driving pattern
Estimating, by a controller, the wear amount of the tire corresponding to the driving pattern of a driver based on the model to obtain, as an output from the model, an estimated wear amount.
Providing, by the controller, the estimated wear amount of the tire to a vehicle management server; and
Collecting, by the controller, a mileage through a vehicle network as an input for the model; and
Collecting, by the controller, a longitudinal acceleration, a lateral acceleration, a gear ratio, a steering angle, a slope, a yaw rate, a vehicle speed, or a tire air pressure through the vehicle network as additional inputs to the model.
However, additional element (a) is merely a generic memory component performing a generic data store function required for the implementation of the recited abstract ideas on a generic computer and additional element (b) is merely a generic computer component configured to perform generic computer operations for the performance of the recited abstract ideas. Additional element (c) does not amount to more than insignificant extra-solution activity as it is a mere data outputting step required for the performance the recited abstract ideas. Additional elements (d) and (e) also do not amount to more than insignificant extra-solution activity, as they are both mere data gathering steps required for the performance of the recited mathematical algorithm and/or mental process. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, dependent claims 16 and 20, which also fall into the statutory category of method claims, are also rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 11 and because they do not set forth any further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or that amount to significantly more.
Claim 17
Step 1: Claim 17 falls into the statutory category of method claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites an abstract idea as it inherits the limitations of claim 11.
Step 2A-II: The claim language does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance thereof by the method offers no physical improvement to the tires, the vehicle, or the experience of the driver.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional element:
Providing, by the controller, the wear amount of the tire to the driver
However, providing the wear amount to the driver as recited in the above additional element does not amount to more than insignificant extra-solution activity (see Electric Power Group LLC. V. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350 (2016). From Page 9 – “But merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.”).
Claim 18
Step 1: Claim 18 falls into the statutory category of method claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites an abstract idea as it inherits the limitations of claim 11.
Step 2A-II: The claim language does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance thereof by the apparatus offers no physical improvement to the tires, the vehicle, or the experience of the driver.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional element:
Warning, by the controller, the driver to replace the tire when the wear amount of the tire exceeds a threshold value.
However, warning the driver as recited in the above additional element, which as written constitutes the triggering of an alarm, has been identified by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional practice (See Parker V. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978). From Page 595 – “Here it is absolutely clear that respondent's application contains no claim of patentable invention. The chemical processes involved in catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons are well known, as are the practice of monitoring the chemical process variables, the use of alarm limits to trigger alarms, the notion that alarm limit values must be recomputed and readjusted, and the use of computers for 'automatic monitoring alarming.’”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrou et al. (US 20240116515 A1, hereinafter Herrou) in view of Makke et al. (US 20190255891 A1, hereinafter Makke), Sun et al. (US 20210018655, hereinafter Sun), and Benedict et al. (US 20160009290 A1, hereinafter Benedict).
Claims 1 and 11
Herrou discloses an apparatus ([0053] — “Features of embodiments as described herein may be controlled by a Central Gateway Module (CGM) ECU.”) implementing a corresponding method for estimating a wear amount of a tire, the apparatus comprising: a memory storing a model ([0042] — “Model 30 may be a ML model.”; machine learning models are stored in memory) configured estimate the wear amount of the tire ([0042] — “In some embodiments, the driver score represents a driver's contribution to vehicle wear (e.g., aggregate vehicle wear, tire wear, drive unit bearing wear, etc.).”) based on a driving pattern ([0042] — “For example, model 30 may compare (i) a correlation between a driving pattern associated with a driver and a measure of aggregate wear associated with a vehicle operated by the driver”); and a controller ([0053] — “Features of embodiments as described herein may be controlled by a Central Gateway Module (CGM) ECU.”) configured to: estimate the wear amount of the tire corresponding to the driving pattern of a driver based on the model ([0042] — “For example, model 30 may output a driver score for each driver using an objective function including a number of weighted parameters each corresponding to a contribution of a driver characteristic/metric to the driver score. In some embodiments, the driver score represents a driver's contribution to vehicle wear (e.g., aggregate vehicle wear, tire wear, drive unit bearing wear, etc.).”); and wherein: the controller is further configured to: collect ([0031] — “For example, the on-board module may receive a first set of signals…”) a mileage through a vehicle network as an input for the model ([0075] — “At step 522, control system 230 may accrue total mileage off-roading.”); and collect a longitudinal acceleration, a lateral acceleration, a gear ratio, a steering angle, a slope, a yaw rate, a vehicle speed, or a tire air pressure through the vehicle network ([0053] — “The CGM ECU may include a network switch that provides connectivity through Controller Area Network (CAN) ports, Local Interconnect Network (LIN) ports, and Ethernet ports.”) as additional inputs to the model ([0031] — “The signals may be associated with a health of the vehicle/vehicle components (e.g., vibration data, microphone data, data describing torque applied to a component of the vehicle, etc.), a user's operation of the vehicle (e.g., steering angle data, throttle/brake pedal apply data, wheel speed data, drive unit speed/torque data, etc.), and/or an environmental context of the vehicle (e.g., ambient temperature data, data describing a following distance of the vehicle, data describing characteristics of a road surface the vehicle is traveling on, etc.). The signals may include a throttle position, a measure of stopping distance, a measure of hard cornering, a measure of rapid steering, a relative position (e.g., a position in lane, a following distance, etc.), a measure of interactions with surface characteristics (e.g., pothole strikes, etc.), a measure of torsion into a frame of the vehicle, and/or a measure of speed.”).
Herrou fails to disclose the controller configured to: estimate the wear amount of the tire corresponding to the driving pattern of a driver based on the model to obtain, as an output from the model, an estimated wear amount (Herrou discloses estimating a driver’s contribution to vehicle wear corresponding to the driving pattern but does not disclose doing so to obtain, as an output from the model, an estimated tire wear amount); provide the estimated wear amount of the tire to a vehicle management server; and receive a tire replacement reservation service from the vehicle management server in response to providing the estimated wear amount; wherein: the model comprises Bayesian Ridge regression; and the controller is further configured to assign a highest weight to the mileage.
Makke discloses obtaining, as an output from a model, an estimated wear amount ([0018] — “By using the machine learning process, the system identifies coefficients that translate the histogram data into a measure of the physical wear on the tire. Once trained, actual tire wear for vehicles may be predicted using histogram data received from the vehicles.”); providing the estimated wear amount of the tire to a vehicle management server ([0041] — “At time index (B), the analysis server 108 sends a request for the wear data histogram 224. This request may be sent over the wide-area network 104 and be addressed to the vehicle 102. The wide-area network 104 may, accordingly, forward the request for the wear data histogram 224 to the vehicle at time index (C). At time index (D), the vehicle 102 sends a response including the wear data histogram 224 responsive to the request.”); and receiving a tire replacement reservation service from the vehicle management server in response to providing the estimated wear amount ([0056] — “For instance, the analysis application 310 of the analysis server 108 may determine to send a message if the wear estimate indicates that the tires have reached ¼, ½, or ¾ of tire life (e.g. indicating that the tires may need rotation, replacement, or inspection).”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to obtain, as output from a model, as estimated wear amount as disclosed by Makke when estimating the wear amount of the tire corresponding to the driving pattern of a driver based on the model and to provide the estimated wear amount of the tire to a vehicle management server and receive a tire replacement reservation service from the vehicle management server in response to providing the estimated wear amount as disclosed by Makke in combination with the apparatus disclosed by Herrou to better assess when tires need to be replaced and to have the tires replaced in a timely manner.
Herrou and Makke still fail to disclose wherein: the model comprises Bayesian Ridge regression; and the controller is further configured to: assign a highest weight to the mileage.
Sun discloses wherein a model comprises Bayesian Ridge regression ([0040] — “The other algorithms may include Huber Regressor (i.e., an algorithm that is a linear regressor model robust to outliers), RANSAC, SGD Regressor, Theil Sen Regressor, ARD Regressor, KNN Regressor, Bagging Regressor, and Bayesian Ridge.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the model disclosed by Herrou to use a Bayesian Ridge regression as disclosed by Sun to better account for collinearity.
Herrou, Makke, and Sun still fail to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: assign a highest weight to the mileage.
Benedict discloses assigning a highest weight to mileage ([0003] — “As with many other components of a vehicle, accumulated mileage [is] often used to determine when to inspect and/or perform maintenance activities on a tire…”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the apparatus disclosed by Herrou, Makke, and Sun by seeding the regression weight for mileage to be highest, since it is the most important measure of wear as disclosed by Benedict, to improve wear estimation.
Claims 6 and 16
Herrou discloses wherein the controller is further configured to grasp the driving pattern of the driver ([0032] — “The model may receive the signals as inputs and may determine a correlation between the inputs and one or more outcomes such as accelerated vehicle/vehicle component wear, unplanned downtime, and/or an accident.”; the correlation constitutes a driving pattern) based on at least one of a braking energy, a count ratio of longitudinal acceleration-lateral acceleration, an amount of work, a gear ratio, a steering angle, a slope, a yaw rate, a vehicle speed, a right front wheel tire air pressure, a left front wheel tire air pressure, a mileage, or a combination thereof ([0031] — “The signals may be associated with a health of the vehicle/vehicle components (e.g., vibration data, microphone data, data describing torque applied to a component of the vehicle, etc.), a user's operation of the vehicle (e.g., steering angle data, throttle/brake pedal apply data, wheel speed data, drive unit speed/torque data, etc.), and/or an environmental context of the vehicle (e.g., ambient temperature data, data describing a following distance of the vehicle, data describing characteristics of a road surface the vehicle is traveling on, etc.). The signals may include a throttle position, a measure of stopping distance, a measure of hard cornering, a measure of rapid steering, a relative position (e.g., a position in lane, a following distance, etc.), a measure of interactions with surface characteristics (e.g., pothole strikes, etc.), a measure of torsion into a frame of the vehicle, and/or a measure of speed.”).
Claims 7 and 17
Herrou fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to provide the wear amount of the tire to the driver.
Makke discloses providing the wear amount of the tire to the driver ([0043] — “In the illustrated example, the analysis server 108 sends a message to the mobile device 210 of the user indicating the estimated tire wear.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller disclosed by Herrou to provide the wear amount of the tire to the driver as disclosed by Makke in order to improve vehicle safety.
Claims 8 and 18
Herrou fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to warn the driver to replace the tire when the wear amount of the tire exceeds a threshold value.
Makke discloses warning the driver to replace the tire ([0056] — “For instance, the analysis application 310 may be programmed to send a first message recommending tire rotation responsive to the measure of physical tire wear exceeding a first wear threshold; and send a second message recommending tire replacement responsive to the measure of physical tire wear exceeding a second wear threshold…”) when the wear amount of the tire exceeds a threshold value ([0056] — “In an example, the analysis application 310 of the analysis server 108 may compare the estimated tire wear to a threshold amount of wear, and may determine to send a message if the estimated amount of wear exceeds the threshold amount of wear.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the controller disclosed by Herrou to warn the driver to replace the tire when the wear amount of the tire exceeds a threshold value as disclosed by Makke in order to further improve vehicle safety.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Herrou, Makke, Sun, and Benedict in view of Mitchell (US 20240221434 A1) and Iustin (US 20230260343 A1).
Claims 10 and 20
Herrou fails to disclose wherein the memory is configured to store different models corresponding to a type of vehicle and a type of tire.
Mitchell discloses memory configured to store different models corresponding to a type of vehicle ([0030] — “In this manner, since different vehicle wear models 301 may be associated with different criteria (e.g., different makes and/or models of cars, different driver profiles, different times, different locations, etc.), the same or similar set of inputs (e.g., vehicle wear input information 303) may yield different outputs (e.g., vehicle wear classifications 305 and/or 307).”; models are stored in memory, see Fig. 9 #930). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the memory disclosed by Herrou to store different models corresponding to a type of vehicle as disclosed by Mitchell in order to improve vehicle safety across different types of vehicles and to improve applicability of the apparatus.
Herrou and Mitchell still fails to disclose wherein the memory is configured to store different models corresponding to a type of tire.
Iustin discloses memory configured to store different models corresponding to a type of tire ([0041] — “Thus, this takes into account that the tires of different tire manufacturers (or different tire models from the same manufacturer) may behave differently and have different wear rates. Therefore, it may be advantageous to have the tire identification data stored in a database, e.g. in a look-up table, etc..”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the memory disclosed by Herrou to further store different models corresponding to a type of tire as disclosed by Iustin to better estimate tire wear.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN JAMES STEAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8334. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 EST/EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN JAMES STEAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights