Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 07/23/2025. The applicant has amended claims 1-6. Applicant has newly added Claim 7. Claims 1-7 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 07/23/2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 07/23/2025 have overcome each and every claim objection previously set forth. Therefore the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 07/23/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections previously set forth. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 07/23/2025, with regard to the rejections of Claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference(s).
Please see detailed rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (WO 2018159314 A1) in view of Suzuki et al (US 20210041864 A1) and Pedersen et al (WO 2018102477 A1). Hereafter referred to as Sakai, Suzuki, and Pedersen respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Sakai teaches a method for managing a remote service for a plurality of mobile objects (see at least Sakai [English Translation, Abstract] a management device which manages the statuses of a plurality of autonomous vehicles and the statuses of a plurality of remote drivers who are fewer than the number of the autonomous vehicles…If a necessity has arisen for one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to switch from autonomous travel to remote operation, the output unit outputs an assignment signal which denotes that)
wherein the task of the remote service includes the first task which affects travel efficiency…of the plurality of mobile objects…for which the remote service is provided and a second task which does not affect the travel efficiency… (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.2] according to the present embodiment, when it is necessary to shift the autonomous driving vehicle 1 to the remote operation mode, it is possible to quickly and accurately assign the stand-by remote driver. Thereby, the several autonomous driving vehicle 1 can be efficiently monitored and controlled with a small number of remote drivers. In addition, since the remote drivers are assigned to the remote drivers so that the remote operation times are equalized, the burden between the multiple remote drivers can be leveled) the disclosure teaches a first task that affects travel efficiency when it discloses that the remote drivers are assigned to vehicles to perform taxi services, and it teaches a second task which does not affect travel efficiency when it discloses the remote drivers monitoring the vehicles
and controlling a mobile object of the plurality of mobile objects to autonomously travel to a destination point based on a first task (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.5 para.7] The dispatch unit 211 dispatches the autonomous driving vehicle 1 at the requested location and time. In the case of a taxi, when the vehicle is requested to be picked up, the dispatching unit 211 selects the automatic driving control device of the automatic driving vehicle 1 selected from the automatic driving vehicles 1 having a status of “Waiting for garage” or “Automatic driving (empty)”. 10, an incoming call instruction signal including the place of arrival and the time is transmitted via the network).
However, while Sakai teaches the method comprising the steps of receiving a request for close of a task of the remote service (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.1] When the remote driver determines that the predetermined stop reason of the automatic driving vehicle 1 has disappeared, the remote operation device 30 transmits a remote operation end notification to the operation management device 20 and the automatic operation control device 10 (step S34)) it does not explicitly teach determining, when receiving a request for close of a task of the remote service, whether or not to accept the request for close and transmitting a result of the determination of the request for close to a terminal of an operator having transmitted the request for close.
Suzuki, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches determining, when receiving a request for close of a task of the remote service, whether or not to accept the request for close and transmitting a result of the determination of the request for close to a terminal of an operator having transmitted the request for close (see at least Suzuki [¶ 50-51] In step S15, at the discretion of the remote driver, a request for permission to end the remote driving is sent from the remote operation terminal 120 to the server 130…Then, in step S18, the server 130 sends a permission to end the remote driving to the remote operation terminal 120, and the remote driving permission is removed from the remote operation terminal 120. After the remote driving permission is removed from the remote operation terminal 120, the vehicle 110 autonomously travels to a predetermined place such as a garage)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Sakai to contain a system for processing to determine, when receiving a request for close of a task of the remote service, whether or not to accept the request for close with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the safety of the remotely operated vehicle as ceasing remote operation of the vehicle without requesting permission from a system that is monitoring the vehicle’s state could pose a threat to the vehicle and pedestrians.
Sakai further teaches the step of determining the request for close includes the steps of:
determining, when the request for close is a request for close of the second task, whether or not a start of the first task to the mobile object of the second task is expected (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.4] the operation management apparatus 20 assigns the remote driver when a predetermined stop event occurs, but at a timing before a predetermined time before the time at which the predetermined stop event is predicted to occur. The operation management device 20 may assign a remote driver in advance. The vehicle stop prediction unit 215 of the operation management device 20 predicts the occurrence time of a predetermined stop event. For example, when the predetermined stop reason is boarding or getting off, a remote driver is assigned to the corresponding autonomous driving vehicle 5 minutes before the expected arrival time at the destination or destination)
Sakai does not explicitly teach rejecting acceptance of the request for close of the second task when it is determined that the start of the first task is expected.
However, Sakai does teach assigning a remote driver to a vehicle in advance of when a remote driving service needs to be performed (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.4] when the predetermined stop reason is boarding or getting off, a remote driver is assigned to the corresponding autonomous driving vehicle 5 minutes before the expected arrival time at the destination or destination).
Sakai teaches a when a driver is assigned to remotely control a vehicle in advance of taking remote control of the vehicle, therefore it would be obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art that any request for close made after the in-advance assignment, would be rejected as the driver has already been assigned and tasked with remotely operating a taxi service. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving wait times of riders and the smooth operation of the provided service, because if a customer or rider is expecting a remotely operated vehicle, a system set in place to ensure that a remote operator is available would be beneficial.
Further, while Sakai teaches wherein the task of the remote service includes a first task which affects travel efficiency…of the plurality of mobile objects…for which the remote service is provided and a second task which does not affect the travel efficiency… (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.2] ) it does not explicitly teach wherein the task of the remote service includes the first task which affects travel efficiency and a time point at which the mobile object of the plurality of mobile objects arrives at the destination point for which the remote service is provided and a second task which does not affect the travel efficiency and the time point.
Pedersen, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the task of the remote service includes the first task which affects travel efficiency and a time point at which the mobile object of the plurality of mobile objects arrives at the destination point for which the remote service is provided and a second task which does not affect the travel efficiency and the time point (see at least Pedersen [¶ 178, 43, 56] [178] The disclosed technology provides a remote monitoring system that more efficiently distributes workloads among operators of the remote monitoring system (e.g., human operators such as fleet managers and vehicle managers), tasked with managing autonomous vehicles. Further, the disclosed technology is able to more effectively organize data (e.g., key status and environmental and route data related to vehicles being monitored) relating to the operation of autonomous vehicles, thereby providing human operators with a way to proactively manage the autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. The remote monitoring system incorporates external data such as real-time traffic data to aid in the instruction data that is generated and transmitted to the vehicles for optimized performance. In this way, the flow of the autonomous vehicles through a particular transportation network is enhanced, which improves the utilization of available transportation resources, increases passenger safety, and improves on-time arrival of passengers and cargo…the processor 1330 may be configured to execute instructions including instructions for remote operation which may be used to operate the vehicle 1000 from a remote location…The controller apparatus 2410 can monitor and coordinate the movement of vehicles, including autonomous vehicles. The controller apparatus 2410 may monitor the state or condition of vehicles, such as the vehicle 2100, and external objects, such as the external object 21 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Sakai to contain a system for wherein the task of the remote service includes the first task which affects travel efficiency and a time point at which the mobile object of the plurality of mobile objects arrives at the destination point for which the remote service is provided and a second task which does not affect the travel efficiency and the time point with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of optimizing performance of the two tasks, remote operating the vehicles and monitoring the autonomously driven vehicles, and also for improving on-time arrival for taxi and delivery services, as discussed in Pedersen (see at least Pedersen [¶ 178] …transmitted to the vehicles for optimized performance. In this way, the flow of the autonomous vehicles through a particular transportation network is enhanced, which improves the utilization of available transportation resources, increases passenger safety, and improves on-time arrival of passengers and cargo…).
Regarding Claim 4, Sakai teaches an apparatus for managing a remote service for a plurality of mobile objects, comprising a processor configured to manage the remote service (see at least Sakai [Abstract, English Translation pg. 3 para.3] a management device which manages the statuses of a plurality of autonomous vehicles and the statuses of a plurality of remote drivers who are fewer than the number of the autonomous vehicles…If a necessity has arisen for one of the plurality of autonomous vehicles to switch from autonomous travel to remote operation, the output unit outputs an assignment signal which denotes that…a CPU (Central Processing Unit), GPU (Image Processing Unit), DSP (Digital Signal Processor), etc. can be used as the processor)
wherein the task of the remote service includes a first task which affects travel efficiency…of a mobile object…for which the remote service is provided and a second task which does not affect the travel efficiency (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.2] according to the present embodiment, when it is necessary to shift the autonomous driving vehicle 1 to the remote operation mode, it is possible to quickly and accurately assign the stand-by remote driver. Thereby, the several autonomous driving vehicle 1 can be efficiently monitored and controlled with a small number of remote drivers. In addition, since the remote drivers are assigned to the remote drivers so that the remote operation times are equalized, the burden between the multiple remote drivers can be leveled) the disclosure teaches a first task that affects travel efficiency when it discloses that the remote drivers are assigned to vehicles to perform taxi services, and it teaches a second task which does not affect travel efficiency when it discloses the remote drivers monitoring the vehicles
wherein the processor is configured to control a mobile object of the plurality of mobile objects to autonomously travel to a destination point based on a first task (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.5 para.7] The dispatch unit 211 dispatches the autonomous driving vehicle 1 at the requested location and time. In the case of a taxi, when the vehicle is requested to be picked up, the dispatching unit 211 selects the automatic driving control device of the automatic driving vehicle 1 selected from the automatic driving vehicles 1 having a status of “Waiting for garage” or “Automatic driving (empty)”. 10, an incoming call instruction signal including the place of arrival and the time is transmitted via the network).
However, while Sakai teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute: receiving a request for close of a task of the remote service (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.1] When the remote driver determines that the predetermined stop reason of the automatic driving vehicle 1 has disappeared, the remote operation device 30 transmits a remote operation end notification to the operation management device 20 and the automatic operation control device 10 (step S34)) it does not explicitly teach a processor configured to: determine, when receiving a request for close of a task of the remote service, whether or not to accept the request for close and to transmit a result of the determination of the request for close to a terminal of an operator having transmitted the request for close.
Suzuki, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches a processor configured to: determine, when receiving a request for close of a task of the remote service, whether or not to accept the request for close and to transmit a result of the determination of the request for close to a terminal of an operator having transmitted the request for close (see at least Suzuki [¶ 50-51] In step S15, at the discretion of the remote driver, a request for permission to end the remote driving is sent from the remote operation terminal 120 to the server 130…Then, in step S18, the server 130 sends a permission to end the remote driving to the remote operation terminal 120, and the remote driving permission is removed from the remote operation terminal 120. After the remote driving permission is removed from the remote operation terminal 120, the vehicle 110 autonomously travels to a predetermined place such as a garage)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Sakai to contain a processor configured to: determine, when receiving a request for close of a task of the remote service, whether or not to accept the request for close and to transmit a result of the determination of the request for close to a terminal of an operator having transmitted the request for close with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving the safety of the remotely operated vehicle as ceasing remote operation of the vehicle without requesting permission from a system that is monitoring the vehicle’s state could pose a threat to the vehicle and pedestrians.
Sakai further teaches in the determining acceptance of the request for close, the processor is configured to:
determine, when the request for close is a request for close of the second task, whether or not a start of the first task to the object of the second task is expected (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.4] the operation management apparatus 20 assigns the remote driver when a predetermined stop event occurs, but at a timing before a predetermined time before the time at which the predetermined stop event is predicted to occur. The operation management device 20 may assign a remote driver in advance. The vehicle stop prediction unit 215 of the operation management device 20 predicts the occurrence time of a predetermined stop event. For example, when the predetermined stop reason is boarding or getting off, a remote driver is assigned to the corresponding autonomous driving vehicle 5 minutes before the expected arrival time at the destination or destination)
Sakai does not explicitly teach to reject acceptance of the request for close of the second task when it is determined that the start of the first task is expected.
However, Sakai does teach assigning a remote driver to a vehicle in advance of when a remote driving service needs to be performed (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.4] when the predetermined stop reason is boarding or getting off, a remote driver is assigned to the corresponding autonomous driving vehicle 5 minutes before the expected arrival time at the destination or destination).
Sakai teaches a when a driver is assigned to remotely control a vehicle in advance of taking remote control of the vehicle, therefore it would be obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art that any request for close made after the in-advance assignment, would be rejected as the driver has already been assigned and tasked with remotely operating a taxi service. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a modification for benefit of improving wait times of riders and the smooth operation of the provided service, because if a customer or rider is expecting a remotely operated vehicle, a system set in place to ensure that a remote operator is available would be beneficial.
Further, while Sakai teaches wherein the task of the remote service includes a first task which affects travel efficiency…of the plurality of mobile objects…for which the remote service is provided and a second task which does not affect the travel efficiency… (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.2] ) it does not explicitly teach wherein the task of the remote service includes the first task which affects travel efficiency and a time point at which the mobile object of the plurality of mobile objects arrives at the destination point for which the remote service is provided and a second task which does not affect the travel efficiency and the time point.
Pedersen, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches wherein the task of the remote service includes the first task which affects travel efficiency and a time point at which the mobile object of the plurality of mobile objects arrives at the destination point for which the remote service is provided and a second task which does not affect the travel efficiency and the time point (see at least Pedersen [¶ 178, 43, 56] [178] The disclosed technology provides a remote monitoring system that more efficiently distributes workloads among operators of the remote monitoring system (e.g., human operators such as fleet managers and vehicle managers), tasked with managing autonomous vehicles. Further, the disclosed technology is able to more effectively organize data (e.g., key status and environmental and route data related to vehicles being monitored) relating to the operation of autonomous vehicles, thereby providing human operators with a way to proactively manage the autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicles. The remote monitoring system incorporates external data such as real-time traffic data to aid in the instruction data that is generated and transmitted to the vehicles for optimized performance. In this way, the flow of the autonomous vehicles through a particular transportation network is enhanced, which improves the utilization of available transportation resources, increases passenger safety, and improves on-time arrival of passengers and cargo…the processor 1330 may be configured to execute instructions including instructions for remote operation which may be used to operate the vehicle 1000 from a remote location…The controller apparatus 2410 can monitor and coordinate the movement of vehicles, including autonomous vehicles. The controller apparatus 2410 may monitor the state or condition of vehicles, such as the vehicle 2100, and external objects, such as the external object 21 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Sakai to contain a system for wherein the task of the remote service includes the first task which affects travel efficiency and a time point at which the mobile object of the plurality of mobile objects arrives at the destination point for which the remote service is provided and a second task which does not affect the travel efficiency and the time point with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of optimizing performance of the two tasks, remote operating the vehicles and monitoring the autonomously driven vehicles, and also for improving on-time arrival for taxi and delivery services, as discussed in Pedersen (see at least Pedersen [¶ 178] …transmitted to the vehicles for optimized performance. In this way, the flow of the autonomous vehicles through a particular transportation network is enhanced, which improves the utilization of available transportation resources, increases passenger safety, and improves on-time arrival of passengers and cargo…).
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 5, Sakai in view of Suzuki and Pedersen teach all limitations of the method of Claim 1 and the apparatus of Claim 4 as set forth above. Sakai further teaches wherein, in the determining acceptance of the request for close, the processor is configured to:
calculate a time point at which a start of the first task to the mobile object of the second task is expected (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.4] when the predetermined stop reason is boarding or getting off, a remote driver is assigned to the corresponding autonomous driving vehicle 5 minutes before the expected arrival time at the destination or destination) if the processor is able to assign a driver 5 minutes before the expected arrival (at which point the driver takes remote control of the vehicle), then it is true that the processor knows a time point at which the start of the first task is expected
calculate a time period during which an operator having transmitted a request for close of the second task stands by for a start of the first task based on the time point at which a start of the first task is expected (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.4] When the remote driver determines that the predetermined stop reason of the automatic driving vehicle 1 has disappeared, the remote operation device 30 transmits a remote operation end notification to the operation management device 20 and the automatic operation control device 10 (step S34)…when the predetermined stop reason is boarding or getting off, a remote driver is assigned to the corresponding autonomous driving vehicle 5 minutes before the expected arrival time at the destination or destination) becuase the processor has the capability to calculate a time at which the vehicle is to be remotely operated, and additionally, because the processor knows when the remote operation end notification is received, Sakai discloses a time period between when the request was sent and the expected remote control start of the vehicle.
Sakai does not explicitly teach when the time period to stand by for a start of the first task is equal to or shorter than a threshold a determination that a start of the first task to the object of the second task is expected is made.
However, Sakai does teach assigning a remote driver to a vehicle 5 minutes in advance for when a remote driving service needs to be performed (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.4] when the predetermined stop reason is boarding or getting off, a remote driver is assigned to the corresponding autonomous driving vehicle 5 minutes before the expected arrival time at the destination or destination)
Sakai teaches a 5 minute threshold for when a driver is assigned to remotely control a vehicle, therefore it would be obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art that any request for close made within that 5 minute threshold to the start of remote operation, would be rejected as the driver has already been assigned and tasked with remotely operating a taxi service. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a modification for benefit of reducing wait times of riders and improving the smooth operation of the provided service, because if a customer or rider is expecting a remotely operated vehicle, a system set in place to ensure that a remote operator is available would be beneficial.
Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 6, Sakai in view of Suzuki and Pedersen teaches all limitations of the method of Claim 1 and the apparatus of Claim 5 as set forth above. Sakai further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
appoint, when a start trigger of the first task is output while an operator having transmitted a request for close of the second task stands by for a start of the first task, the operator standing by for a start of the first task as an operator to take charge of the first task (see at least Sakai [English Translation pg.8 para.4, pg.8 para.2] the operation management apparatus 20 assigns the remote driver when a predetermined stop event occurs, but at a timing before a predetermined time before the time at which the predetermined stop event is predicted to occur. The operation management device 20 may assign a remote driver in advance…it is possible to quickly and accurately assign the stand-by remote driver. Thereby, the several autonomous driving vehicle 1 can be efficiently monitored and controlled with a small number of remote drivers).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (WO 2018159314 A1) in view of Suzuki et al (US 20210041864 A1), Pedersen et al (WO 2018102477 A1), and Bush et al (US 20230049499 A1). Hereafter referred to as Sakai, Suzuki, Pedersen, and Bush respectively.
Regarding Claim 7, Sakai in view of Suzuki and Pedersen teach all limitations of Claim 1 as set forth above. However, Sakai does not explicitly teach further comprising predicting an occurrence of the task according to machine learning using a provision history of the task, the provision history including a time slot and a place.
Bush, in the same field as the endeavor, teaches further comprising predicting an occurrence of the task according to machine learning using a provision history of the task, the provision history including a time slot and a place (see at least Bush [¶ 62] The processing entity 102 is configured to: process traffic around an AV, generate a risk field around the AV, process a trajectory overlay, and determine a temporal urgency for operator intervention with the AV (operation 136). The processing entity 102 is configured to perform temporal risk prediction (operation 137). Temporal risk prediction may include considering: past, now, forecast risk prediction; mission type prior; vehicle type prior; location-time prior; behavior prior; traffic, weather; relative progress update; and bother risk. The processing entity 102 is configured to perform load balancing (operation 138) regarding assignment of AVs to operators in an operator pool. The processing entity 102 is configured to execute a handoff algorithm (operation 139) to determine when and to whom to handoff AV control to. The processing entity 102 is configured to execute a teleoperation algorithm (operation 140) to facilitate operator control of an AV. The teleoperation algorithm includes a process summary of commands to dynamically control the vehicle trajectory).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system set forth in Sakai to contain a system for predicting an occurrence of the task according to machine learning using a provision history of the task, the provision history including a time slot and a place with reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification for benefit of automating the decision process of when and whom to assign AV control based on a predicted risk that is based on past and present missions and conditions as discussed in Bush. Such improvement and automation would lead to less downtime on the operators end and would allow for more efficient services (see at least Bush [¶ 62] …to determine when and to whom to handoff AV control to…).
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 JOSEPH A YANOSKA whose telephone number is (703)756-5891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am to 5:00pm (Pacific Time).
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/JOSEPH ANDERSON YANOSKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664