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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 10/02/2023 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At 0045 line 4 “in particular based a group” should read --in particular a group--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP § 2161.01, subsection I. states in computer-implemented functional claims the specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. The algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator planned for in the identified predefined driving situation” in lines 10-11. The limitation is rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement of 112(a) because no algorithm for planning a power consumption for the identified predefined driving situation is disclosed.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for depending upon rejected base claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator planned for in the identified predefined driving situation” in lines 12-13. The limitation is rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement of 112(a) because no algorithm for planning a power consumption for the identified predefined driving situation is disclosed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - Enablement
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “adjusting…a steering ratio between a steering handle…and the at least two wheel steering angle actuators…such that a steering behavior of the vehicle remains unchanged” in lines 2-4. The limitation is not enabled because Applicant has not disclosed how a steering ratio can be changed without changing a steering behavior.
The nature of the invention: One of ordinary skill would understand a change in the steering ratio to inherently result in a change in the steering behavior of the vehicle as the ratio of the steering handle to road wheels is fundamental to the steering behavior of the vehicle.
The state of the prior art: While variable steering ratio steering systems are well known in the art, one of ordinary skill would understand that a change in the steering ratio necessarily changes the steering behavior of the vehicle as it alters the relationship between rotation of the steering handle and the road wheels.
The amount of direction provided by the inventor: Applicant has disclosed no details, no drawings, and no examples as to how the steering ratio of a vehicle may be changed without changing the steering behavior of the vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator planned for in the identified predefined driving situation” in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim because the claim does not recite planning for a power consumption in the identified predefined driving situation. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as best understood by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 4, the accepted meaning of the claim term “steering behavior of the vehicle” is “how the vehicle responds to driver input” while the context of the claim requires the term to necessarily take a different meaning undefined by the disclosure. The term must take a different meaning than the accepted meaning because the claim requires the steering ratio to be changed without changing the steering behavior, which given the accepted meaning of the term “steering behavior” is inherently impossible as the steering ratio is fundamental to how the vehicle responds to driver input. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a first predefined driving situation” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same predefined driving situation as introduced at claim 1 line 6. For examination purposes the limitation in claim 1 has been considered --at least one predefined driving situation-- and the limitation in claim 11 has been considered as --a first predefined driving situation of the at least one predefined driving situation--.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the wheel steering angle actuator” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- the at least one wheel steering angle actuator--.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a second predefined driving situation” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same predefined driving situation as introduced at claim 1 line 6. For examination purposes the limitation in claim 1 has been considered --at least one predefined driving situation-- and the limitation in claim 12 has been considered as --a second predefined driving situation of the at least one predefined driving situation--.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a third predefined driving situation” inline 2. It is unclear whether this is the same predefined driving situation as introduced at claim 1 line 6. For examination purposes the limitation in claim 1 has been considered --at least one predefined driving situation-- and the limitation in claim 13 has been considered as --a third predefined driving situation of the at least one predefined driving situation--.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator planned for in the identified predefined driving situation” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim because the claim does not recite planning for a power consumption in the identified predefined driving situation. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as best understood by the Examiner.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Claim Analysis - 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 1-2 and 4-15 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 1 because the claims do not recite any judicial exceptions.
Claim 3 is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the recited mental process is integrated into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
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 1-3, 5, 7, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PASZTOR (US 12,509,141) in view of NAKATA (US 2021/0245795).
Regarding claim 1, PASZTOR discloses a method for reducing an energy demand and/or energy consumption by a vehicle (title), the vehicle including a steering system having a wheel steering angle actuator (5, Fig. 1) for changing a wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle (Fig. 1, col. 2 lines 44-46), and a vehicle sensor system used for driving situation recognition (vehicle sensors implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 3 lines 2-7 and col. 4 lines 25-29), the method comprising:
reducing, in at least one operating state in which a predefined driving situation is identified using the vehicle sensor system (implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 4 lines 25-29), a power consumption by the wheel steering angle actuator (col. 4 lines 30-31), such that the reduced power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator is below a power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator planned for in the identified predefined driving situation (i.e. if the power were not reduced; col. 1 lines 31-35) that provides a method for power saving in steering systems that each decrease a thermal load on a motor of a road wheel actuator and an electronic controller thereof (col. 1 lines 41-43).
PASZTOR does not disclose the steering system having at least two wheel steering angle actuators for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle on an individual wheel basis.
NAKATA teaches a steering system having at least two wheel steering angle actuators for changing a respective wheel steering angle of a vehicle wheel of the vehicle on an individual wheel basis (34, 0030 lines 2-5, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for power saving in steering systems taught by PASZTOR to the steering system of NAKATA to provide a method for power saving in steering systems that each decrease a thermal load on a motor of a road wheel actuator and an electronic controller thereof.
PASZTOR as modified teaches a power consumption by at least one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption, such that the reduced power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator is below a power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator planned for in the identified predefined driving situation.
The limitation “in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption” is an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art method is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2111.02 (II.). In the instant case, PASZTOR discloses the limitation (col. 4 line 31).
Regarding claim 2, PASZTOR as modified teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
PASZTOR further discloses omitting, in the at least one operating state, active actuation of the at least one wheel steering angle actuator (achieved by setting motor torque request to substantially zero, col. 4 lines 30-31).
Regarding claim 3, PASZTOR as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
PASZTOR further discloses monitoring and evaluating, in the at least one operating state, at least one operating variable of the vehicle (i.e., vehicle speed, wheel speed, driver steering input, col. 3 lines 2-7) in order to identify a reactivation condition (implied/inherent in col. 4 lines 37-41); and
using the reactivation condition to reactivate a normal operation of the at least one wheel steering angle actuator (implied/inherent, col. 4 lines 37-41).
Regarding claim 5, PAZSTOR as modified teaches the method according to claim 3, further comprising:
reducing the power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator based on at least one further operating variable (i.e., vehicle speed, wheel speed, driver steering input, col. 3 lines 2-7; n.b. Applicant’s 0012 last 3 lines “the further operational variable can be identical to the operational variable”) of the vehicle (col. 4 lines 25-31).
Regarding claim 7, PASZTOR as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
PASZTOR further discloses reducing the power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator based on a vehicle speed (col. 3 lines 2-7, col. 4 lines 25-32).
Regarding claim 14, PASZTOR as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
PASZTOR further discloses a computing unit is configured to perform the method (col. 4 lines 18-23).
Regarding claim 15, PASZTOR further discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a plurality of vehicle wheels (implied, i.a. wheels col. 3 line 5);
a steering system comprising a wheel steering angle actuator (5, Fig. 1);
a vehicle sensor system configured for driving situation recognition (vehicle sensors implied/inherent in vehicle being stopped and no steering input at col. 3 lines 2-7 and col. 4 lines 25-29); and
a computing unit (10, col. 4 lines 18-23) configured to reduce an energy demand and/or energy consumption by the vehicle (i.a. col. 4 line 31) by, in at least one operating state in which a predefined driving situation is identified by the vehicle sensor system (col. 3 lines 2-7), reducing a power consumption by the wheel steering angle actuator in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption (col. 4 lines 30-31), such that the reduced power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator is below a power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator planned for in the identified predefined driving situation (i.e. if the power were not reduced; col. 1 lines 31-35) that provides a method for power saving in steering systems that each decrease a thermal load on a motor of a road wheel actuator and an electronic controller thereof (col. 1 lines 41-43).
PASZTOR does not disclose the steering system comprising at least two wheel steering angle actuators configured to change a respective wheel steering angle of the plurality of vehicle wheels on an individual wheel basis.
NAKATA teaches a steering system comprising at least two wheel steering angle actuators configured to change a respective wheel steering angle of the plurality of vehicle wheels on an individual wheel basis (34, 0030 lines 2-5, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for power saving in steering systems taught by PASZTOR to the steering system of NAKATA to save power in steering systems and decrease a thermal load on a motor of a road wheel actuator and an electronic controller thereof.
PASZTOR as modified teaches a computing unit configured to reduce an energy demand and/or energy consumption by the vehicle by, in at least one operating state in which a predefined driving situation is identified by the vehicle sensor system, reducing a power consumption by at least one wheel steering angle actuator of the at least two wheel steering angle actuators in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption, such that the reduced power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator is below a power consumption by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator planned for in the identified predefined driving situation.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the claims are directed to an apparatus (rather than a method) which must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP §2114 and 2173.05(g). Hence, the functional limitation “to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption by the vehicle” which is narrative in form has been given very little patentable weight, insomuch as the Examiner bears the burden of supplying art that discloses the claimed structure and is capable of performing the claimed functions, while not necessarily needing to explicitly disclose performing the claimed functions. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional limitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In the instant case, PASZTOR discloses the limitation (col. 4 line 31).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PASZTOR (US 12,509,141) in view of NAKATA (US 2021/0245795) and SHIMIZU (US 6,250,418).
Regarding claim 6, PASZTOR as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
PASTOR is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
SHIMIZU teaches a method for reducing the power consumption by at least one wheel steering angle actuator (motor 27) based on a course of a preceding route of travel (col. 5 lines 56-58) to enhance energy savings (col. 5 lines 56-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for reducing the power consumption of SHIMIZU to the steering system of NAKATA to enhance energy savings.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PASZTOR (US 12,509,141) in view of NAKATA (US 2021/0245795) and FUJITA (JP 2001-001919).
Regarding claim 9, PASZTOR as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
PASZTOR is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
FUJITA teaches a method for reducing power consumption comprising reducing the power consumption by at least one wheel steering angle actuator (60, Fig. 1) based on a current power demand (load current of motor 60, pg. 5 line 52)(motor 60 is stopped, pg. 5 line 53) to reduce the consumption of a battery which is the energy source of the vehicle (pg. 5 lines 53-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for reducing power consumption of FUJITA to the steering system of NAKATA to reduce the consumption of a battery which is the energy source of the vehicle.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PASZTOR (US 12,509,141) in view of NAKATA (US 2021/0245795) and MIN (WO 2024/111706).
Regarding claim 10, PASZTOR as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
PASZTOR is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
MIN teaches a method comprising reducing the power consumption (decreasing motor current decreases power consumption, pg. 2 lines 40-43) by the at least one wheel steering angle actuator (steering motor, pg. 2 line 41) based on a loading state of the vehicle (pg. 2 lines 35-48) to provide precise steering performance improvement and motor overheating prevention (pg. 2 lines 55-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method taught by MIN to the steering system of NAKATA to provide precise steering performance improvement and motor overheating prevention.
The limitation “in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption” in claim 1 is an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art method is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2111.02 (II.). In the instant case, the method of MIN is capable of decreasing the energy consumption by decreasing the motor current (pg. 2 lines 40-43).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PASZTOR (US 12,509,141) in view of NAKATA (US 2021/0245795) and QIU (CN 115158451).
Regarding claim 11, PASZTOR as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
PASZTOR is not relied upon to teach the first predefined driving situation.
QIU teaches a method wherein a first predefined driving situation corresponds to a driving operation with low steering demand (no steering operation, pg. 4 line 59), and
the power consumption by a wheel steering angle actuator (6; n.b. pg. 4 line 24) is reduced (motor is stopped, pg. 4 line 59) so that energy consumption can be reduced (pg. 4 lines 59-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for power saving in steering systems in a first predefined driving situation taught by QIU to the steering system of NAKATA so that energy consumption can be reduced.
The limitation “in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption” is an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art method is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2111.02 (II.). In the instant case, QIU discloses the limitation (pg. 4 lines 59-60).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claim 12, PASZTOR as modified teaches the method according to claim 11.
PASZTOR further discloses the predefined driving situation (vehicle being stopped, col. 4 lines 25-29) includes a second predefined driving situation corresponds to a stopping process in which the vehicle is at a standstill (vehicle being stopped, col. 4 lines 25-29), and
a power consumption by the at least two wheel steering angle actuators is reduced (col. 4 lines 30-31).
The limitation “in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption” is an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art method is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2111.02 (II.). In the instant case, PASZTOR discloses the limitation (col. 4 line 31).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PASZTOR (US 12,509,141) in view of NAKATA (US 2021/0245795) and QIU (CN 115158451), and SHIMIZU (US 6,250,418).
Regarding claim 13, PASZTOR as modified teaches the method according to claim 12.
PASZTOR is not relied upon to teach the third predefined driving situation.
SHIMIZU teaches a method wherein a third predefined driving situation corresponds to straight-ahead driving (col. 5 lines 57 and 66-67), and
a power consumption by a wheel steering angle actuator is reduced (col. 5 lines 65-67) to enhance energy saving (col. 5 lines 65-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method for power saving in steering systems in a third predefined driving situation taught by SHIMIZU to the steering system of NAKATA to enhance energy saving.
The limitation “in order to reduce the energy demand and/or the energy consumption” is an intended use recitation. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a manipulative difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art method is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2111.02 (II.). In the instant case, SHIMIZU discloses the limitation (col. 5 lines 65-67).
Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 4 and 8 are not rejected over prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747