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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 16, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-23 are currently pending. Claims 1, 6, 8, 15, and 22 were amended in the reply filed January 16, 2026. No claims were cancelled or added.
Response to Arguments
§ 103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites, transmitting a first message comprising location data indicating the vehicle has entered a first toll area;
collecting toll- related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area;
transmitting, while operating in the first toll area, a second message comprising the toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area; and
receiving a third message comprising a toll charge for viewing by an operator of the vehicle, where the toll charge is based on the toll- related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area.
Independent claim 15 recites, receiving a first message from a vehicle with location data indicating the vehicle has entered into a first toll area;
Calculating a toll charge for the vehicle to use the first toll area based on the location data in the first message;
receiving one or more second messages from the vehicle with toll-related data collected and transmitted by the vehicle while operating in the first toll area;
transmitting a third message to the vehicle with the toll charge for viewing by an operator of the vehicle.
Independent claim 22 recites, retrieve in- vehicle data,
dynamically adjust tolling charges using in-vehicle data accessed,
transmits a first message comprising location data indicating the vehicle has entered into a first toll area
and also transmits, while the vehicle is operating in the first toll area, a second message comprising toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area, and
receives a third message comprising a toll charge for the vehicle to use the first toll area that is calculated based on the toll-related data,
displays the toll charge for viewing by an operator of the vehicle.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, calculating a toll charge for a vehicle is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to collect toll-related data and calculate a toll charge can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 15, and 22 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1, 15, and 22 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a vehicle processor (claims 1 and 22), a remote toll managed services server (claim 1), a tolling application program executing on the vehicle processor (claim 1), an in-vehicle data storage device (claim 1, 15, and 22), a toll managed services server (claim 15), an in-vehicle network (claim 22), and a toll authority computer (claim 22). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the additional element of a geofence. This additional element is described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., identifying proximity to a particular location).
Furthermore, claims 1, 15, and 22 recite the additional element of one or more in- vehicle sensors. This additional element is described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., collecting vehicle data).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 15, and 22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 4, 6, 8-12, 17-21, and 23 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1, 15, and 22. The additional elements in claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 13, 14, and 16 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 2, 7, and 16, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 2, 7, and 16 also recite the additional elements of a wireless network/transmission (claims 2 and 16), and a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor coupled to the vehicle processor (claim 7). Each of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 3 and 4 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 3 and 4 also recite the additional element of an in-vehicle camera sensor (claims 3 and 4) and an in-vehicle seatbelt sensor (claim 4). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., collecting vehicle data) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 13 and 14 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 13 and 14 also recite the additional element of an embedded infotainment processor in the vehicle (claims 13 and 14) and an infotainment display monitor in the vehicle (claim 4). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., in vehicle display systems) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 2, 7, and 16, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a package acceptance component and a mobile device of the recipient, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 7, and 16 are also ineligible.
With respect to claims 3, 4, 13, and 14, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a digital signature, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 13-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London).
As to claim 1, Davis, III teaches, transmitting, by a vehicle processor to a remote toll managed services server (TMSS), a first message comprising location data indicating the vehicle has entered a first toll area defined by a geofence (“… If the measured GPS coordinates fall within the geo-fence, then the appropriate location is determined and recorded. The location can also be determined by communicating with roadside NFC transceivers positioned in the location, for instance, alongside an HOV lane. The transceiver on the smart vehicle communicates with the NFC transceivers to retrieve the particular location. The smart vehicle then transmits the unique identification and the location to a network or billing server S345 …” [0044]);
collecting, by a tolling application program executing on the vehicle processor, toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area by accessing one or more in-vehicle sensors (“The smart vehicle also determines a location of vehicle 100, according to this exemplary embodiment of the present invention. This determination may be performed via a GPS unit located in vehicle 100, or via a GPS unit located on a wireless communication device in communication with vehicle 100 …” and “… Once it is determined that the location is a toll location, the smart vehicle determines if there are any passengers in the vehicle S561. This is determined by detecting the presence and identities of the wireless communication devices inside the smart vehicle …” and “Smart vehicle 1100 further includes a weight scale 1116 coupled to driver seat 1110. Weight scale 1116 determines a weight of a driver …” and “… In this embodiment, wire harness 1392 can further provide an interface to various sensors within the vehicle, such as speedometers, external transceivers, biometric/weight sensors embedded in the seats, etc. …” [0038 and 0049 and 0062-0064 and 0067] Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, both the vehicle location and number of passengers in the vehicle can be considered “toll-related data”. Examiner further notes that, while Davis, III [0049] describes using the wireless communication devices to determine if there are any passengers inside the smart vehicle while at a toll location (i.e., while operating in the first toll area), Davis, III [0062-0064] teaches the use of secondary sensors and weight scales (i.e., one or more in-vehicle sensors) as an alternative to using wireless communication devices to determine the number of passengers);
transmitting, by the vehicle processor to the remote TMSS while operating in the first toll area, a second message comprising the toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area (“… Alternatively, the smart vehicle can constantly transmit a location to a server on the network, and a determination is made at the network whether or not to bill the driver …” and “… If a passenger count does not meet the minimum requirements of the HOV lane, then a notification may be transmitted to the appropriate authorities, or to a billing server …” and “The smart vehicle can transmit to the billing server several details that can be used to determine the amount for the toll or lane use fee. A location, a passenger count, speed, and distance driven on a lane are used to calculate a total fee …” [0038 and 0053 and 0056]);
and receiving, at the vehicle processor, a third message from the remote TMSS comprising a toll charge for viewing by an operator of the vehicle, where the toll charge is based on the toll- related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area (“… The user is then billed by debiting the account or by sending a bill to the user's address as stored in the user account” and “… If there are passengers in the smart vehicle, then a request is submitted to the passengers, as well as the driver, to pay the toll S562. This may be accomplished by transmitting a request to the wireless communication device of each of the occupants, i.e. via a text message, or by communicating with an application installed on the occupants' cellular telephones. The request can also be displayed on an in-dash display within smart vehicle …” and “… The receipt can be transmitted to a driver's wireless communication device, or to a dashboard display in the smart vehicle” [0039-0041 and 0049 and 0056] Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of Applicant’s specification, this limitation is interpreted to mean that the toll-related data is collected while the vehicle is operating in the first toll area, not that the third message must be sent while operating in the first toll area).
While Davis, III [060] teaches, accessing an in-vehicle data storage device, Davis, III does not teach, collecting, by a tolling application program executing on the vehicle processor, toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area by accessing an in-vehicle data storage device. However, London teaches, collecting, by a tolling application program executing on the vehicle processor, toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area by accessing an in-vehicle data storage device (“Also in various embodiments, vehicle location data is obtained at 308. In various embodiments, the vehicle location data information as to the geographic location of the vehicle 12 as it travels along a roadway. In various embodiments, the vehicle location data [i.e., toll- related data] includes geographic coordinates for the vehicle 12 along with map information (e.g., from a computer memory [i.e., in-vehicle data storage device]) corresponding to the geographic coordinates, including map information pertaining to regulated roadways (e.g., toll roads, RUC roads, HOV lanes, and roads with designated parking areas) through which the vehicle 12 travels …” and “Data monitoring [i.e., collecting] continues at 316 while the vehicle remains within the geo-fence [i.e., the toll area]. Specifically, in various embodiments, the vehicle data of 304 (including the vehicle occupant data of 306 and the vehicle location data of 308 continues to be collected so long as the vehicle 12 is travelling through (or otherwise is remaining within) the regulated roadway, using the GPS system 42 and the occupant sensors 72 of FIG. 1.” [0057-0059 and 0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, collecting, by a tolling application program executing on the vehicle processor, toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area by accessing an in-vehicle data storage device, as taught by London with the toll calculation of Davis, III. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of London that doing so would provide improved methods and systems for collecting and utilizing data for vehicles that travel on regulated roadways [0003].
As to claim 5, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III does not teach, where collecting toll-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle camera sensor or seatbelt sensor to detect a number of vehicle passengers. However, London teaches, where collecting toll-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle camera sensor or seatbelt sensor to detect a number of vehicle passengers (“In various embodiments, the occupant sensors 76 detect occupants inside the vehicle [i.e., a number of vehicle passengers] 12, preferably including data representative of how many occupants are inside the vehicle 12 at any particular point in time. In certain embodiments, the occupant sensors 76 comprise weight sensors configured to assess a weight or load on each of a plurality of passenger seats within the vehicle 12. In certain other embodiments, the occupant sensors 76 may detect occupants via one or more other different sensing techniques, such as, by way of example: detecting occupants via one or more image sensors, detection sensors, and/or light-sensitive sensors (e.g., a camera, radar, lidar, and the like) and/or detecting occupants via engagement of occupant apparatus (e.g., occupant seat belts), and so on” [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where collecting toll-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle camera sensor or seatbelt sensor to detect a number of vehicle passengers, as taught by London with the toll calculation of Davis, III. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of London that doing so would provide improved methods and systems for collecting and utilizing data for vehicles that travel on regulated roadways [0003].
As to claim 13, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III does not teach, where the vehicle processor comprises an embedded infotainment processor in the vehicle. However, London teaches, where the vehicle processor comprises an embedded infotainment processor in the vehicle (“In addition, in various embodiments, the telematics unit 24 may also provide other services, such as, by way of example: turn-by-turn directions and other navigation-related services provided in conjunction with the GPS chipset/component 42, emergency assistance services, information requests from the users of the vehicle 12 (e.g., regarding points of interest en route while the vehicle 12 is travelling), and/or infotainment-related services, for example in which music, internet web pages, movies, television programs, videogames, and/or other content are downloaded by an infotainment center 46 that may be part of the telematics unit 24 and/or operatively connected to the telematics unit 24 via vehicle bus 32 and audio bus 22, among various other types of possible services” [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where the vehicle processor comprises an embedded infotainment processor in the vehicle, as taught by London with the toll calculation of Davis, III. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of London that doing so would provide improved methods and systems for collecting and utilizing data for vehicles that travel on regulated roadways, such as toll roads, road usage charge roads, and roads with HOV lanes and/or designated parking areas [0003].
As to claim 14, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. While Davis [0066] teaches an in-dash display, Davis, III does not teach where embedded infotainment processor is configured to display the toll charge on an infotainment display monitor in the vehicle. However, London teaches, where embedded infotainment processor is configured to display the toll charge on an infotainment display monitor in the vehicle (“Also in various embodiments, the fees are collected at 330. In certain embodiments, one or more messages are transmitted by the remote server 18 of FIG. 1 to the vehicle 12 and/or the user device 15 of FIG. 1, including an invoice for the fees. Such invoice may appear, for example, on the vehicle display 85 and/or the user device 15 of FIG. 1, and in certain embodiments may also be paid by the user via the vehicle display 85 and/or user device 15. In certain other embodiments, the fees may be collected and/or paid via one or more other means, such as mail, facsimile, and/or other means.” [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where embedded infotainment processor is configured to display the toll charge on an infotainment display monitor in the vehicle, as taught by London with the toll calculation of Davis, III. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of London that doing so would provide improved methods and systems for collecting and utilizing data for vehicles that travel on regulated roadways, such as toll roads, road usage charge roads, and roads with HOV lanes and/or designated parking areas [0003].
As to claim 2, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III further teaches, wherein the vehicle processor transmits the first message wirelessly to the remote TMSS (“… Transceiver 106 allows vehicle 100 to wirelessly communicate with other devices on a network, for instance a personal area network within vehicle 100, a near-field communication (NFC) transceiver outside vehicle 100, other wireless devices, and so on …” [0036]).
As to claim 7, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III further teaches, where the vehicle processor identifies the location data by accessing a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor coupled to the vehicle processor (“The smart vehicle also determines a location of vehicle 100, according to this exemplary embodiment of the present invention. This determination may be performed via a GPS unit located in vehicle 100, or via a GPS unit located on a wireless communication device in communication with vehicle 100 …” [0038]).
As to claim 8, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III further teaches, where the toll charge in the third message is calculated based on one or more adjustments to an initial toll charge, where the initial toll charge is calculated for the vehicle to use the first toll area based on the location data in the first message (“… The smart vehicle can transmit to the billing server several details that can be used to determine the amount for the toll or lane use fee. A location, a passenger count, speed, and distance driven on a lane are used to calculate a total fee …” [0054-0058]).
As to claim 15, Davis, III in view of London teaches, receiving, by a toll managed services server (TMSS), a first message from a vehicle with location data indicating the vehicle has entered into a first toll area associated with the TMSS (“… If the measured GPS coordinates fall within the geo-fence, then the appropriate location is determined and recorded. The location can also be determined by communicating with roadside NFC transceivers positioned in the location, for instance, alongside an HOV lane. The transceiver on the smart vehicle communicates with the NFC transceivers to retrieve the particular location. The smart vehicle then transmits the unique identification and the location to a network or billing server S345 …” [0044]);
calculating, by the TMSS, a toll charge for the vehicle to use the first toll area based on the location data in the first message (“… The smart vehicle can transmit to the billing server several details that can be used to determine the amount for the toll or lane use fee. A location, a passenger count, speed, and distance driven on a lane are used to calculate a total fee …” [0054-0058])
receiving, by the TMSS, one or more second messages from the vehicle with toll-related data collected and transmitted by the vehicle while operating in the first toll area by accessing one or more in-vehicle sensors and an in-vehicle data storage device (“… Alternatively, the smart vehicle can constantly transmit a location to a server on the network, and a determination is made at the network whether or not to bill the driver …” and “… If a passenger count does not meet the minimum requirements of the HOV lane, then a notification may be transmitted to the appropriate authorities, or to a billing server …” and “The smart vehicle can transmit to the billing server several details that can be used to determine the amount for the toll or lane use fee …” [0038 and 0053 and 0056]);
transmitting, by the TMSS, a third message to the vehicle with the toll charge for viewing by an operator of the vehicle (“… The user is then billed by debiting the account or by sending a bill to the user's address as stored in the user account” and “… If there are passengers in the smart vehicle, then a request is submitted to the passengers, as well as the driver, to pay the toll S562. This may be accomplished by transmitting a request to the wireless communication device of each of the occupants, i.e. via a text message, or by communicating with an application installed on the occupants' cellular telephones. The request can also be displayed on an in-dash display within smart vehicle …” and “… The receipt can be transmitted to a driver's wireless communication device, or to a dashboard display in the smart vehicle” [0039-0041 and 0049 and 0056]).
As to claim 16, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Davis, III further teaches, wherein the TMSS receives the first message and the one or more second messages over a wireless network connecting the vehicle to the TMSS (“… Transceiver 106 allows vehicle 100 to wirelessly communicate with other devices on a network, for instance a personal area network within vehicle 100, a near-field communication (NFC) transceiver outside vehicle 100, other wireless devices, and so on …” [0036-0039]).
As to claim 17, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Davis, III further teaches, calculating, by the TMSS, an adjusted toll charge based on the toll-related data contained in the one or more second messages, where the toll-related data collected by the vehicle indicates if the vehicle is driving in a high occupancy vehicle lane, or if the vehicle is towing a trailer, or if the number of vehicle passengers exceeds a predetermined number of passengers, or if the vehicle exceeds a weight limit or axle count limit, or if the vehicle is a low-emission vehicle (“… Additionally, the driver has traveled with zero passengers in the HOV lane for a time of 12 minutes. $8.00 per minute for 12 minutes results in a fine of $96.00 …” [0054-0058]).
As to claim 22, Davis, III in view of London teaches, a vehicle comprising a processor connected over an in-vehicle network to retrieve in- vehicle data from a vehicle data storage and one or more in-vehicle sensors, where the vehicle is wirelessly coupled to communicate with a toll authority computer that is operable to dynamically adjust tolling charges using in-vehicle data accessed from the vehicle data storage and one or more in-vehicle sensors (“FIG. 1 shows a smart vehicle, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the smart vehicle is a vehicle 100, including a central processing unit (CPU) 102, a memory 104 storing a client logic 105, a transceiver 106, an antenna 108, a driver seat 110, and passenger seats 112 …” and “FIG. 8 shows a method for billing a driver of a smart vehicle on an HOV lane, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention …” and “… However, in the case that an identity of a driver cannot be ascertained, smart vehicle 1100 includes a plurality of secondary sensors …” [0036 and 0054-0058 and 0060-0064])
wherein the vehicle processor transmits a first message to the toll authority computer comprising location data accessed by an in-vehicle location sensor indicating the vehicle has entered into a first toll area associated with the toll authority computer (“… If the measured GPS coordinates fall within the geo-fence, then the appropriate location is determined and recorded. The location can also be determined by communicating with roadside NFC transceivers positioned in the location, for instance, alongside an HOV lane. The transceiver on the smart vehicle communicates with the NFC transceivers to retrieve the particular location. The smart vehicle then transmits the unique identification and the location to a network or billing server S345 …” [0044])
and also transmits, while the vehicle is operating in the first toll area, a second message to the toll authority computer comprising toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area by accessing the data storage and one or more in-vehicle sensors (“… Alternatively, the smart vehicle can constantly transmit a location to a server on the network, and a determination is made at the network whether or not to bill the driver …” and “… If a passenger count does not meet the minimum requirements of the HOV lane, then a notification may be transmitted to the appropriate authorities, or to a billing server …” and “The smart vehicle can transmit to the billing server several details that can be used to determine the amount for the toll or lane use fee …” [0038 and 0053 and 0056]),
and wherein the vehicle processor receives, from the toll authority computer, a third message comprising a toll charge for the vehicle to use the first toll area that is calculated based on the toll-related data transmitted by the vehicle processor, where the vehicle processor displays the toll charge for viewing by an operator of the vehicle (“… The user is then billed by debiting the account or by sending a bill to the user's address as stored in the user account” and “… If there are passengers in the smart vehicle, then a request is submitted to the passengers, as well as the driver, to pay the toll S562. This may be accomplished by transmitting a request to the wireless communication device of each of the occupants, i.e. via a text message, or by communicating with an application installed on the occupants' cellular telephones. The request can also be displayed on an in-dash display within smart vehicle …” and “… The receipt can be transmitted to a driver's wireless communication device, or to a dashboard display in the smart vehicle” [0039-0041 and 0049 and 0056]).
Claims 3, 9, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claims 1, 8, 17, and 22 above, in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,165,436 to Pertsel (Pertsel).
As to claim 3, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III further teaches, where collecting toll-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle (“… In the present embodiment, smart vehicles 700, 701, and 703 are riding in the HOV lane, while smart vehicle 707 is riding in a non-HOV lane. The smart vehicles detect the number of passengers each is carrying, using the methods described above …” and “… Furthermore, weight scales 1216 can help smart vehicle 1200 to determine a number of passengers regardless of whether or not the passengers have wireless communication devices. Therefore, the number of passengers can be counted even if no unique identifiers are received by antennae 1208 …” [0051-0053 and 0062-0064]).
While Davis, III teaches, where collecting toll-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle sensor to detect if the vehicle is driving in a high occupancy vehicle lane, and London teaches an in-vehicle camera to detect occupants, Davis, III in view of London does not teach an in-vehicle camera sensor. However, Pertsel teaches a camera sensor (“In some embodiments, the vehicle may implement exterior facing cameras in addition to the in-cabin camera …” and “The processors 106a-106n may be configured to perform the computer vision analysis on the external video frame 500 …” [col. 4, lines 14-30 and col. 50, line 47 – col. 51, line 12]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the in-vehicle camera sensor of Pertsel for the sensor of Davis, III. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Pertsel that doing so would enable accurate enforcement for high occupancy vehicle lanes [col. 3, line 52].
As to claim 9, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. While Davis, III [0054] teaches charging no fee when properly driving in a high-occupancy lane, Davis, III in view of London does not teach, where the toll charge is calculated by reducing the initial toll charge if the location data and the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle is properly driving in a high-occupancy lane. However, Pertsel teaches, where the toll charge is calculated by reducing the initial toll charge if the location data and the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle is properly driving in a high-occupancy lane (“… In one example, the automated roadway system may use the number of occupants read from the toll tag in order to determine whether a vehicle is eligible to drive in particular designated lanes (e.g., a high occupancy vehicle lane) …” and “… In another example, when the apparatus 100 determines that the number of occupants in the vehicle 50 enables the vehicle 50 to be eligible to use the high occupancy vehicle lane 504a, the adjusted path 522 may be presented … In some embodiments, the driver 202 may receive compensation for reporting the number of occupants in the other vehicles 506a-506c (e.g., toll fees may be waived and/or discounted for providing the extra data to the automatic roadway system 354)” [col. 3, lines 19-42 and col. 52, line 51 – col. 52, line 40]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where the toll charge is calculated by reducing the initial toll charge if the location data and the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle is properly driving in a high-occupancy lane, as taught by Pertsel with the toll calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Pertsel that doing so would enable accurate enforcement for high occupancy vehicle lanes [col. 3, line 52].
As to claim 18, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. While Davis, III [0054] teaches charging no fee when properly driving in a high-occupancy lane, Davis, III in view of London does not teach, wherein calculating the adjusted toll charge comprises reducing an initial toll charge if the location data and the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle is properly driving in a high-occupancy lane. However, Pertsel teaches, wherein calculating the adjusted toll charge comprises reducing an initial toll charge if the location data and the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle is properly driving in a high-occupancy lane (“… In one example, the automated roadway system may use the number of occupants read from the toll tag in order to determine whether a vehicle is eligible to drive in particular designated lanes (e.g., a high occupancy vehicle lane) …” and “… In another example, when the apparatus 100 determines that the number of occupants in the vehicle 50 enables the vehicle 50 to be eligible to use the high occupancy vehicle lane 504a, the adjusted path 522 may be presented … In some embodiments, the driver 202 may receive compensation for reporting the number of occupants in the other vehicles 506a-506c (e.g., toll fees may be waived and/or discounted for providing the extra data to the automatic roadway system 354)” [col. 3, lines 19-42 and col. 52, line 51 – col. 52, line 40]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein calculating the adjusted toll charge comprises reducing an initial toll charge if the location data and the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle is properly driving in a high-occupancy lane, as taught by Pertsel with the toll calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Pertsel that doing so would enable accurate enforcement for high occupancy vehicle lanes [col. 3, line 52].
As to claim 23, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 22 as discussed above. Davis, III further teaches, wherein the toll charge is calculated by adjusting an initial toll charge based on the toll-related data (“… Additionally, the driver has traveled with zero passengers in the HOV lane for a time of 12 minutes. $8.00 per minute for 12 minutes results in a fine of $96.00 …” [0054-0058]).
Davis, III in view of London does not teach, where adjusting the initial toll charge comprises: decreasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle is driving in a high occupancy vehicle lane, increasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle is towing a trailer, decreasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle has a number of vehicle passengers which exceeds a predetermined number of passengers, increasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle exceeds a weight limit or axle count limit, or decreasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle is a low- emission vehicle. However, Pertsel teaches, where adjusting the initial toll charge comprises: decreasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle is driving in a high occupancy vehicle lane, increasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle is towing a trailer, decreasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle has a number of vehicle passengers which exceeds a predetermined number of passengers, increasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle exceeds a weight limit or axle count limit, or decreasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle is a low- emission vehicle (“… In one example, the automated roadway system may use the number of occupants read from the toll tag in order to determine whether a vehicle is eligible to drive in particular designated lanes (e.g., a high occupancy vehicle lane) …” and “… In another example, when the apparatus 100 determines that the number of occupants in the vehicle 50 enables the vehicle 50 to be eligible to use the high occupancy vehicle lane 504a, the adjusted path 522 may be presented … In some embodiments, the driver 202 may receive compensation for reporting the number of occupants in the other vehicles 506a-506c (e.g., toll fees may be waived and/or discounted for providing the extra data to the automatic roadway system 354)” [col. 3, lines 19-42 and col. 52, line 51 – col. 52, line 40]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where adjusting the initial toll charge comprises: decreasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle is driving in a high occupancy vehicle lane, increasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle is towing a trailer, decreasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle has a number of vehicle passengers which exceeds a predetermined number of passengers, increasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle exceeds a weight limit or axle count limit, or decreasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates the vehicle is a low- emission vehicle, as taught by Pertsel with the toll calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Pertsel that doing so would enable accurate enforcement for high occupancy vehicle lanes [col. 3, line 52].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0201039 to Gartner et al. (Gartner) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0305436 to Maskell et al. (Maskell).
As to claim 4, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach, where collecting toll-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing an in-vehicle sensor to detect if the vehicle is towing a trailer. However, Gartner teaches, where collecting toll-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing a sensor to detect if the vehicle is towing a trailer (“In still a further aspect of some embodiments, the methods may relate specifically to checking vehicle shape-specific toll parameters. Such vehicle shape-specific parameters, which determine the amount of a road toll to be paid, can be, for example, the dimensions of the vehicle, the current number of axles (with or without trailer), a particular body design such as a truck or passenger car, and the like, and can be set or stored as toll parameters in an on-board unit. So as to detect abusive faulty settings of such toll parameters, the recording vehicle comprises a DSRC transceiver for reading out the toll parameter of a passing vehicle and a sensor for detecting a shape parameter of the vehicle, wherein the recording vehicle is configured to verify that the toll parameter is consistent with the shape parameter and, in case of inconsistency, to transmit the violation data record, including the location of the violation and the license plate number read result of the vehicle, to the violation server” and “… Hereafter, toll parameters OC that are considered include those which can be validated (cross-checked) by checking the exterior appearance, which is to say the shape of the vehicle 2 which carries the OBU 3. Such toll parameters OC are referred to as vehicle shape-specific in this description. Vehicle shape-specific toll parameters OC can, for example, include one or more dimensions of the vehicle 2, the body design thereof (boxy body, platform body, passenger car or truck body), number of axles, number of trailers [i.e., detect if the vehicle is towing a trailer], and the like” [0015 and 0034-0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where collecting toll-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing a sensor to detect if the vehicle is towing a trailer, as taught by Gartner with the toll calculation of Davis, III. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Gartner that doing so would be used to correctly calculate the toll in the road toll system [0034].
While Gartner teaches, where collecting toll-related data for the vehicle comprises accessing a sensor to detect if the vehicle is towing a trailer, Gartner does not teach an in-vehicle sensor. However, Maksell teaches an in-vehicle sensor (“The brakes subsystem controller 35 receives a plurality of signals, represented generally at 82 which are received from a plurality of vehicle sensors [i.e., in-vehicle sensors] and are representative of a variety of different parameters associated with vehicle motion … The brakes subsystem controller 35 uses these signals to determine whether a trailer is connected to the vehicle, as described in more detail below. In other embodiments, only a selection of the aforementioned sensors and/or signals may be used to determine whether a trailer is connected to the vehicle.” [0085]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the in-vehicle sensor of Maskell for the sensor of Gartner. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Maskell that doing so would improve the trailer detection accuracy and rate [0010-0011].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0201039 to Gartner et al. (Gartner).
As to claim 6, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach, where collecting toll-related data comprises collecting toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area by accessing the in-vehicle data storage device at the vehicle to determine a weight of the vehicle or an axle count for the vehicle. However, Gartner teaches, where collecting toll-related data comprises collecting toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the first toll area by accessing the in-vehicle data storage device at the vehicle to determine a weight of the vehicle or an axle count for the vehicle (“… So as to correctly calculate the toll in the road toll system 1, one or more toll parameters [i.e., toll-related data] OC that are specific to the respective vehicle 2 are set or stored in the OBUs [i.e., in-vehicle data storage device] 3. The toll parameters OC can be of any arbitrary type and can, for example, provide information about the deployment purpose of the vehicle 2 (for example emergency vehicle, means of public transportation, private vehicle, truck and the like), the status of the user of the vehicle 2, about the size, weight, emission class, number of axles of the vehicle 2 with or without trailer, and the like …” [0033-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where collecting toll-related data comprises collecting toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the toll area by accessing the in-vehicle data storage device at the vehicle to determine a weight of the vehicle or an axle count for the vehicle, as taught by Gartner with the toll calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Gartner that doing so would be used to correctly calculate the toll in the road toll system [0034].
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0076596 to Scofield et al. (Scofield).
As to claim 10, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach where the toll charge is calculated by increasing the initial toll charge if the location data and the toll-related data indicate that the vehicle is not driving in a high-occupancy lane. However, Scofield teaches, where the toll charge is calculated by increasing the initial toll charge if the location data and the toll-related data indicate that the vehicle is not driving in a high-occupancy lane (“… As a second such example, a first segment may be identified that represents a first transit area type (e.g., a high-occupancy vehicle lane or restricted-access lane of a road), and a second segment representing a second transit area type that is different from the first transit area type of the first segment (e.g., a general-use lane of the same road) …” and “… Transit volume estimates 218 may indicate that the first area 102 is exhibiting high transit volume, while a second area 102 exhibits comparatively few travelers 104 and comparatively light transit volume. In order to reduce this disparity, at a second time 1010, the transit tolls 1004 for the respective areas 102 may be adjusted (e.g., increasing the toll 1004 for the first area [i.e., the vehicle is not driving in a high-occupancy lane] 102 while reducing the toll 1004 for the second area 102) in order to persuade travelers 104 to choose a detour through the second area 102 …” [0052 and 0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where the toll charge is calculated by increasing the initial toll charge if the location data and the toll-related data indicate that the vehicle is not driving in a high-occupancy lane, as taught by Scofield with the toll calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Scofield that doing so would persuade travelers to choose routes and driving behaviors that redistribute the transit volume throughout the region [0067].
As to claim 19, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach wherein calculating the adjusted toll charge comprises increasing an initial toll charge if the location data and the toll-related data indicate that the vehicle is not driving in a high-occupancy lane. However, Scofield teaches, wherein calculating the adjusted toll charge comprises increasing an initial toll charge if the location data and the toll-related data indicate that the vehicle is not driving in a high-occupancy lane (“… As a second such example, a first segment may be identified that represents a first transit area type (e.g., a high-occupancy vehicle lane or restricted-access lane of a road), and a second segment representing a second transit area type that is different from the first transit area type of the first segment (e.g., a general-use lane of the same road) …” and “… Transit volume estimates 218 may indicate that the first area 102 is exhibiting high transit volume, while a second area 102 exhibits comparatively few travelers 104 and comparatively light transit volume. In order to reduce this disparity, at a second time 1010, the transit tolls 1004 for the respective areas 102 may be adjusted (e.g., increasing the toll 1004 for the first area [i.e., the vehicle is not driving in a high-occupancy lane] 102 while reducing the toll 1004 for the second area 102) in order to persuade travelers 104 to choose a detour through the second area 102 …” [0052 and 0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein calculating the adjusted toll charge comprises increasing an initial toll charge if the location data and the toll-related data indicate that the vehicle is not driving in a high-occupancy lane, as taught by Scofield with the toll calculation of Davis, III in view of London. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Scofield that doing so would persuade travelers to choose routes and driving behaviors that redistribute the transit volume throughout the region [0067].
Claims 11, 12, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0030882 to Davis, III et al. (Davis, III) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0334920 to London et al. (London), as applied to claims 8 and 17 above, and in further view of NPL “Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel Toll Schedule” (Chesapeake Bay).
As to claim 11, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach where the toll charge is calculated by increasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle exceeds a maximum weight measure or axle count. However, Chesapeake Bay teaches, where the toll charge is calculated by increasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle exceeds a maximum weight measure or axle count (see “Class” column showing increasing axle count and “Toll” column showing corresponding increase in toll charge).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where the toll charge is calculated by increasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle exceeds a maximum weight measure or axle count, as taught by Chesapeake Bay with the toll calculation of Davis, III in view of London. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the purposes of having toll charges be more proportionate to road wear and tear.
As to claim 12, Davis in view of London, III teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach where the toll charge is calculated by increasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle is towing a trailer. However, Chesapeake Bay teaches, where the toll charge is calculated by increasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle is towing a trailer (see “Class” column showing vehicles without trailers (class 1) and with trailers (class 2-4) and “Toll” column showing corresponding increase in toll charge).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, where the toll charge is calculated by increasing the initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle is towing a trailer, as taught by Chesapeake Bay with the toll calculation of Davis, III in view of London. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the purposes of having toll charges be more proportionate to road wear and tear.
As to claim 20, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach wherein calculating the adjusted toll charge comprises increasing an initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle exceeds a maximum weight measure or axle count. However, Chesapeake Bay teaches, wherein calculating the adjusted toll charge comprises increasing an initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle exceeds a maximum weight measure or axle count (see “Class” column showing increasing axle count and “Toll” column showing corresponding increase in toll charge).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein calculating the adjusted toll charge comprises increasing an initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle exceeds a maximum weight measure or axle count, as taught by Chesapeake Bay with the toll calculation of Davis, III in view of London. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the purposes of having toll charges be more proportionate to road wear and tear.
As to claim 21, Davis, III in view of London teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above. Davis, III in view of London does not teach wherein calculating the adjusted toll charge comprises increasing an initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle is towing a trailer. However, Chesapeake Bay teaches, wherein calculating the adjusted toll charge comprises increasing an initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle is towing a trailer (see “Class” column showing vehicles without trailers (class 1) and with trailers (class 2-4) and “Toll” column showing corresponding increase in toll charge).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein calculating the adjusted toll charge comprises increasing an initial toll charge if the toll-related data indicates that the vehicle is towing a trailer, as taught by Chesapeake Bay with the toll calculation of Davis, III in view of London. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the purposes of having toll charges be more proportionate to road wear and tear.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0031029 to Davidson (Davidson) teaches systems, methods, apparatus, and computer program products for estimating taxes. In one embodiment, the location of a vehicle can be monitored by a variety of computing entities. By using the vehicle's location, it can be determined when the vehicle enters and/or exits defined geofences. After a determination that the vehicle has entered or exited a defined geofenced area, telematics data can be collected and used to estimate taxes, such as road use taxes and fuel use taxes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628