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 .
Response to the Applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but SHOJI teaches “...the secondary battery being leased to the user... (see FIG. 1 where the vehicle 70 has a drive batter 710 and a usage recording unit model 730 and that can communicate with a 2. Server device for determining a redetermining of the lease fee 121 and 3. A lease management device 30)
wherein the control unit calculates a lease fee for the secondary battery using the battery information for each period that is different from the predetermined period”. (see paragraph 119-125 and 126-131 where the lease fee for the battery can be determined solely on the use of the battery however the units 115-125 can determine that 1. The battery has degraded and does not work and 2. That the battery is abnormally used and 3. The reuse application for the battery can still b used or 3. A planned use and that this was not used correctly and can increase the fee)
PNG
media_image2.png
830
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
774
980
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of SHOJI with the disclosure of RAHBARI with a reasonable expectation of success since SHOJI teaches that the lease fee can be determined based on the use of the vehicle. However, then the lease fee can be increased if 1. The battery is now abnormal and 2. The battery is used in a manner inconsistent with the intended use and 3. The batter is degraded and 4. That battery cannot be used again for the same application and 5. The lease actually expired. See block 110-400 and paragraph 110-130. This can provide the same lease fee if the batter is acceptable or a higher lease fee if the battery cannot be used again or is degraded and abnormal. This can provide an improved vehicle return at the lease end as a new user will have a functioning electric vehicle.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190178678A1 to RAHBARI et al that was filed in 2017 and in view of NPL, Car Creations, Everything you can do with the Carly App, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DToImBr2HhI, (4-3-2022) (hereinafter “Carly”) which is prior to the effective filing date of 11-18—22 and in view of international Patent Pub. No.: WO 2022065024A1 ( US20230360116A1) to Shoji et al. and assigned to Toyo filed in ‘20.
PNG
media_image4.png
736
1046
media_image4.png
Greyscale
RAHBARI discloses “1. A server that receives battery information not from an electric vehicle but from a terminal of a user of the electric vehicle, (see FIG. 1 where the remote fleet server RFS can communicate with the vehicle that is a first electric vehicle and also to another second vehicle and then the second vehicle can communicate with the first vehicle or a GPS navigation device 206 pr another computer in paragraph 37-38)
the battery information being information about a secondary battery of the electric vehicle, (see paragraph 48 where the server RFS can track the current state of charge of the battery and the fleet and the charging capacity)
the server comprising: (see FIG 1 and paragraph 48-52 and RFS which is the global fleet server and that can push reports to the vehicle and the devices or call pull reports from the device or vehicle)
a communication unit that communicates with the terminal; and (see FIG. 1
a control unit that controls the communication unit, wherein when the communication unit has not received the battery information from the terminal for
greater than or equal to a predetermined period, (see paragraph 68 where the CWT and CTE reports can be pushed from the RFS and received upon demand) (see paragraph 75 where going the other way the reports can be pushed from the server to replaced the reports on the hev in the global fleet)
the control unit performs control for obtaining the battery information through the terminal. (see paragraph 48 where the server RFS can track the current state of charge of the battery and the fleet and the charging capacity)”.
PNG
media_image5.png
812
1410
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
820
1468
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
850
1424
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
656
1128
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
962
1920
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The primary reference is silent but CARLY teaches “..... for causing the terminal to obtain the battery information from the vehicle via short-range wireless communication with a vehicle communication unit of the vehicle and transmit the battery information to the server”. (see video where the user connects the carly app and a smartphone via blue tooth to the user’s computer and then the user can identify the mileage being located at 3 different data points and 3 different control units are different and thus there is a tampering of the odometer and see above figure where the vehicle has 3 saved mileages 1. From 35820 to 35832 and there is possible tampering of the vehicle and a highest saved mileage and there is a mismatch and tampering is detected and where the data from the app is communicated from the odb port dongle via the vehicle computer to the smart phone and then to the server; Carly is a third-party app that provides information and tools to monitor a Tesla's battery. It offers features like battery health shown above and battery health status, fault code repair, and live data monitoring to help you manage battery drain and understand performance. While Carly provides a third-party analysis, Tesla's built-in tools on the vehicle's touchscreen also offer a "Battery Health" evaluation, which is more direct and accurate )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of CARLY APP with the disclosure of RAHBARI since CARLY teaches that a replacement ECU (smartphone) can connect via Bluetooth protocol to a dongle OBD port device. Then the replacement ECU smartphone can interrogate the three data points to determine the battery health, the battery management, if this is a low-capacity battery and to avoid purchasing it and mileage versus the odometer mileage. This can communicate to a server of a low battery health and detect a fraud and if there is no fraud then the reading is maintained. This can provide a third-party app to verify the health of the vehicle including the battery and mileage and detect tampering before any purchase. See video at 1-5 minutes.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but SHOJI teaches “...the secondary battery being leased to the user... (see FIG. 1 where the vehicle 70 has a drive batter 710 and a usage recording unit model 730 and that can communicate with a 2. Server device for determining a redetermining of the lease fee 121 and 3. A lease management device 30)
wherein the control unit calculates a lease fee for the secondary battery using the battery information for each period that is different from the predetermined period”. (see paragraph 119-125 and 126-131 where the lease fee for the battery can be determined solely on the use of the battery however the units 115-125 can determine that 1. The battery has degraded and does not work and 2. That the battery is abnormally used and 3. The reuse application for the battery can still b used or 3. A planned use and that this was not used correctly and can increase the fee)
PNG
media_image2.png
830
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
774
980
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of SHOJI with the disclosure of RAHBARI with a reasonable expectation of success since SHOJI teaches that the lease fee can be determined based on the use of the vehicle. However, then the lease fee can be increased if 1. The battery is now abnormal and 2. The battery is used in a manner inconsistent with the intended use and 3. The batter is degraded and 4. That battery cannot be used again for the same application and 5. The lease actually expired. See block 110-400 and paragraph 110-130. This can provide the same lease fee if the batter is acceptable or a higher lease fee if the battery cannot be used again or is degraded and abnormal. This can provide an improved vehicle return at the lease end as a new user will have a functioning electric vehicle.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190178678A1 to RAHBARI et al that was filed in 2017 and in view of Shoji and in view of Carly.
The primary reference is silent as to but Shoji teaches “...2. The server according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined period is shorter than the period”. (see paragraph 170 where a short range communication can occur and/or in paragraph 140 communication via a network and in paragraph 146 the battery can be determined to have been degraded and a higher lease fee is provided and a message is provided to immediately exchange the battery). (see FIG. 1 where the vehicle 70 has a drive batter 710 and a usage recording unit model 730 and that can communicate with a 2. Server device for determining a redetermining of the lease fee 121 and 3. A lease management device 30) (see paragraph 119-125 and 126-131 where the lease fee for the battery can be determined solely on the use of the battery however the units 115-125 can determine that 1. The battery has degraded and does not work and 2. That the battery is abnormally used and 3. The reuse application for the battery can still b used or 3. A planned use and that this was not used correctly and can increase the fee)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of SHOJI with the disclosure of RAHBARI with a reasonable expectation of success since SHOJI teaches that the lease fee can be determined based on the use of the vehicle. However, then the lease fee can be increased if 1. The battery is now abnormal and 2. The battery is used in a manner inconsistent with the intended use and 3. The batter is degraded and 4. That battery cannot be used again for the same application and 5. The lease actually expired. See block 110-400 and paragraph 110-130. This can provide the same lease fee if the batter is acceptable or a higher lease fee if the battery cannot be used again or is degraded and abnormal. This can provide an improved vehicle return at the lease end as a new user will have a functioning electric vehicle.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190178678A1 to RAHBARI et al that was filed in 2017 and in view of Carly and Shoji.
PNG
media_image4.png
736
1046
media_image4.png
Greyscale
RAHBARI discloses “..3. The server according to claim 1, wherein when the communication unit has not received the battery information from the terminal for greater than or equal to the predetermined period, the control unit causes 20 the terminal to perform control of transmitting the battery information to the communication unit”. (see paragraph 68 where Such updated CWTs 250 and CTEs 260 may, during charge events and/or during travel prior to charging, be pushed from RFS, and may also be received upon demand from HEV 100, and/or received real-time and/or periodically at the noted discrete time and distance intervals and/or as OC 270 changes.)
RAHBARI discloses “..4. The server according to claim 3, wherein when the communication unit has not received the battery information from the 25 terminal for greater than or equal to the predetermined period, the control unit performs control of transmitting a signal to the terminal through the communication unit, the signal controlling the terminal to obtain the battery information from the electric vehicle and to transmit the obtained battery information to the communication unit. - (see paragraph 68 where Such updated CWTs 250 and CTEs 260 may, during charge events and/or during travel prior to charging, be pushed from RFS, and may also be received upon demand from HEV 100, and/or received real-time and/or periodically at the noted discrete time and distance intervals and/or as OC 270 changes.)
RAHBARI discloses “..5. The server according to claim 1, wherein when the communication unit has not received the battery information from the terminal for greater than or equal to the predetermined period, the control unit provides a notification prompting the user to transmit the battery information from the terminal 5 to the communication unit. - (see paragraph 68 where Such updated CWTs 250 and CTEs 260 may, during charge events and/or during travel prior to charging, be pushed from RFS, and may also be received upon demand from HEV 100, and/or received real-time and/or periodically at the noted discrete time and distance intervals and/or as OC 270 changes.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190178678A1 to RAHBARI et al that was filed in 2017 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20230097762A1 to Mikolajczak and Carly and Shoji.
Mikolajczak teaches “...6. The server according to claim 1, wherein the battery information includes information about a degree of deterioration of the secondary battery”. (see abstract)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of MIKOLAJCZAK with the disclosure of RAHBARI with a reasonable expectation of success since MIKOLAJCZAK teaches that a mechanical deformation of the battery cells has passed a threshold and that notification can be provided that the battery is degraded beyond an amount and needs to be replaced. See abstract.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190178678A1 to RAHBARI et al that was filed in 2017 and Carly and Shoji.
PNG
media_image4.png
736
1046
media_image4.png
Greyscale
RAHBARI discloses “7. A-system comprising: a terminal of a user of an electric vehicle including a secondary battery; and a server that communicates with the terminal, wherein the server 15 receives battery information not from the electric vehicle but from the terminal, the battery information being information about the secondary battery, (see FIG. 1 where the remote fleet server RFS can communicate with the vehicle that is a first electric vehicle and also to another second vehicle and then the second vehicle can communicate with the first vehicle or a GPS navigation device 206 pr another computer in paragraph 37-38) (see paragraph 48 where the server RFS can track the current state of charge of the battery and the fleet and the charging capacity)and when the server has not received the battery information from the terminal for greater than or equal to a predetermined period, performs control for obtaining the battery information through the terminal. 20 (see paragraph 68 where the CWT and CTE reports can be pushed from the RFS and received upon demand) (see paragraph 75 where going the other way the reports can be pushed from the server to replaced the reports on the hev in the global fleet)”.
PNG
media_image5.png
812
1410
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
820
1468
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
850
1424
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
656
1128
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
962
1920
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but CARLY teaches “..... for causing the terminal to obtain the battery information from the vehicle via short-range wireless communication with a vehicle communication unit of the vehicle and transmit the battery information to the server”. (see video where the user connects the carly app and a smartphone via blue tooth to the user’s computer and then the user can identify the mileage being located at 3 different data points and 3 different control units are different and thus there is a tampering of the odometer and see above figure where the vehicle has 3 saved mileages 1. From 35820 to 35832 and there is possible tampering of the vehicle and a highest saved mileage and there is a mismatch and tampering is detected and where the data from the app is communicated from the odb port dongle via the vehicle computer to the smart phone and then to the server; Carly is a third-party app that provides information and tools to monitor a Tesla's battery. It offers features like battery health shown above and battery health status, fault code repair, and live data monitoring to help you manage battery drain and understand performance. While Carly provides a third-party analysis, Tesla's built-in tools on the vehicle's touchscreen also offer a "Battery Health" evaluation, which is more direct and accurate )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of CARLY APP with the disclosure of RAHBARI since CARLY teaches that a replacement ECU (smartphone) can connect via Bluetooth protocol to a dongle OBD port device. Then the replacement ECU smartphone can interrogate the three data points to determine the battery health, the battery management, if this is a low-capacity battery and to avoid purchasing it and mileage versus the odometer mileage. This can communicate to a server of a low battery health and detect a fraud and if there is no fraud then the reading is maintained. This can provide a third-party app to verify the health of the vehicle including the battery and mileage and detect tampering before any purchase. See video at 1-5 minutes.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but SHOJI teaches “...the secondary battery being leased to the user... (see FIG. 1 where the vehicle 70 has a drive batter 710 and a usage recording unit model 730 and that can communicate with a 2. Server device for determining a redetermining of the lease fee 121 and 3. A lease management device 30)
wherein the control unit calculates a lease fee for the secondary battery using the battery information for each period that is different from the predetermined period”. (see paragraph 119-125 and 126-131 where the lease fee for the battery can be determined solely on the use of the battery however the units 115-125 can determine that 1. The battery has degraded and does not work and 2. That the battery is abnormally used and 3. The reuse application for the battery can still b used or 3. A planned use and that this was not used correctly and can increase the fee)
PNG
media_image2.png
830
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
774
980
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of SHOJI with the disclosure of RAHBARI with a reasonable expectation of success since SHOJI teaches that the lease fee can be determined based on the use of the vehicle. However, then the lease fee can be increased if 1. The battery is now abnormal and 2. The battery is used in a manner inconsistent with the intended use and 3. The batter is degraded and 4. That battery cannot be used again for the same application and 5. The lease actually expired. See block 110-400 and paragraph 110-130. This can provide the same lease fee if the batter is acceptable or a higher lease fee if the battery cannot be used again or is degraded and abnormal. This can provide an improved vehicle return at the lease end as a new user will have a functioning electric vehicle.
RAHBARI discloses “8. A method for obtaining battery information by a server that receives the battery information not from an electric vehicle but from a terminal of a user of the electric vehicle, the battery information being information about a secondary battery of the electric vehicle, the method comprising: 25 communicating with the terminal; and when the server has not received the battery information from the terminal for greater than or equal to a predetermined period, performing control for obtaining the battery information through the terminal. , (see FIG. 1 where the remote fleet server RFS can communicate with the vehicle that is a first electric vehicle and also to another second vehicle and then the second vehicle can communicate with the first vehicle or a GPS navigation device 206 pr another computer in paragraph 37-38 (see paragraph 48 where the server RFS can track the current state of charge of the battery and the fleet and the charging capacity) (see FIG 1 and paragraph 48-52 and RFS which is the global fleet server and that can push reports to the vehicle and the devices or call pull reports from the device or vehicle) (see FIG. 1 ) (see paragraph 68 where the CWT and CTE reports can be pushed from the RFS and received upon demand) (see paragraph 75 where going the other way the reports can be pushed from the server to replaced the reports on the hev in the global fleet) (see paragraph 48 where the server RFS can track the current state of charge of the battery and the fleet and the charging capacity)”.
PNG
media_image5.png
812
1410
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
820
1468
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
850
1424
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
656
1128
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
962
1920
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but CARLY teaches “..... for causing the terminal to obtain the battery information from the vehicle via short-range wireless communication with a vehicle communication unit of the vehicle and transmit the battery information to the server”. (see video where the user connects the carly app and a smartphone via blue tooth to the user’s computer and then the user can identify the mileage being located at 3 different data points and 3 different control units are different and thus there is a tampering of the odometer and see above figure where the vehicle has 3 saved mileages 1. From 35820 to 35832 and there is possible tampering of the vehicle and a highest saved mileage and there is a mismatch and tampering is detected and where the data from the app is communicated from the odb port dongle via the vehicle computer to the smart phone and then to the server; Carly is a third-party app that provides information and tools to monitor a Tesla's battery. It offers features like battery health shown above and battery health status, fault code repair, and live data monitoring to help you manage battery drain and understand performance. While Carly provides a third-party analysis, Tesla's built-in tools on the vehicle's touchscreen also offer a "Battery Health" evaluation, which is more direct and accurate )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of CARLY APP with the disclosure of RAHBARI since CARLY teaches that a replacement ECU (smartphone) can connect via Bluetooth protocol to a dongle OBD port device. Then the replacement ECU smartphone can interrogate the three data points to determine the battery health, the battery management, if this is a low-capacity battery and to avoid purchasing it and mileage versus the odometer mileage. This can communicate to a server of a low battery health and detect a fraud and if there is no fraud then the reading is maintained. This can provide a third-party app to verify the health of the vehicle including the battery and mileage and detect tampering before any purchase. See video at 1-5 minutes.
PNG
media_image1.png
740
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is amended to recite and the primary reference is silent but SHOJI teaches “...the secondary battery being leased to the user... (see FIG. 1 where the vehicle 70 has a drive batter 710 and a usage recording unit model 730 and that can communicate with a 2. Server device for determining a redetermining of the lease fee 121 and 3. A lease management device 30)
wherein the control unit calculates a lease fee for the secondary battery using the battery information for each period that is different from the predetermined period”. (see paragraph 119-125 and 126-131 where the lease fee for the battery can be determined solely on the use of the battery however the units 115-125 can determine that 1. The battery has degraded and does not work and 2. That the battery is abnormally used and 3. The reuse application for the battery can still b used or 3. A planned use and that this was not used correctly and can increase the fee)
PNG
media_image2.png
830
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
774
980
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of SHOJI with the disclosure of RAHBARI with a reasonable expectation of success since SHOJI teaches that the lease fee can be determined based on the use of the vehicle. However, then the lease fee can be increased if 1. The battery is now abnormal and 2. The battery is used in a manner inconsistent with the intended use and 3. The batter is degraded and 4. That battery cannot be used again for the same application and 5. The lease actually expired. See block 110-400 and paragraph 110-130. This can provide the same lease fee if the batter is acceptable or a higher lease fee if the battery cannot be used again or is degraded and abnormal. This can provide an improved vehicle return at the lease end as a new user will have a functioning electric vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666