DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the applicant's arguments/remarks filed January 27, 2026. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
4. 35 USC § 103 rejection. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed January 27, 2026 regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection have been fully considered. Applicant's arguments/remarks are not persuasive. Accordingly, the 35 USC § 103 rejection is maintained.
The applicant argues that “amended claim 1 expressly requires to "determine a readiness state for vehicle movement, and output a control signal to the motor controller to command the motor controller to perform the fluxing operation on the electric motor in accordance with the readiness state." Thus, the readiness state is not merely an operating condition or a control parameter used to tune component behavior, but rather a determination that governs whether a fluxing operation is to be initiated. STONECIPHER does not disclose determining any such readiness state for vehicle movement, nor does STONECIPHER disclose using any operating condition to perform a fluxing operation of an electric motor”
Pursuant to MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, I. RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT, “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.”
Pursuant to MPEP 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure, “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) …; In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) (Reference disclosure of a compound where the R-S-R¢ portion has "at least one methylene group attached to the sulfur atom" implies that the other R group attached to the sulfur atom can be other than methylene and therefore suggests asymmetric dialkyl moieties.).”.
Pursuant to MPEP 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must also be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999)”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations argued by the applicant are described in the combination of the prior art reference presented in the non-final rejection. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the systems disclosed in the prior art to allow the system to be implemented in a vehicle. For example, status signals and determining vehicle readiness state are limitations disclosed by the prior art and conventional and known. Vehicles and machines are known for outputting status signals that represent condition of the vehicle component. In this case, the examiner uses broadest reasonable interpretation to examine the claim invention. The limitation of receive a status signal output by sensors and determining a status state is equivalent to the prior art when the prior art determines a condition parameter of the vehicle. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Therefore, for the above reasons, the examiner maintains rejection over claims 1-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al, US 2024/0300275, in view of Stonecipher et al. US 2016/0181959, hereinafter referred to as Anderson and Stonecipher, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a machine, comprising:
one or more sensors, each being configured to monitor a vehicle status and output a vehicle status signal (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1481, 392, 486, 491, 499, 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1384, 1208, 1388, “a vehicle state estimator 15-700 determines a vehicle's kinematic state based on a number of sensors such as accelerometers, steering angle, vehicle velocity (wheel speed sensors, GPS, etc.). This functional unit calculates how the vehicle is moving across the terrain, and outputs a change in (x, y, z) coordinates for each time step.”);
an electric motor (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 4, “An electric motor is also operatively coupled to the hydraulic motor. A controller is electrically coupled to the electric motor, and the controller controls a motor input of the electric motor to operate the hydraulic actuator in at least three of four quadrants of a force velocity domain of the hydraulic actuator”);
a motor controller configured to perform a fluxing operation on the electric motor (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1206, 919, 918, 909, 174, 134, 133, 132, 129, 66, 62, 33, 34, 31, 29, 27, 25, “This rotor position or velocity information may be used by a controller connected to the electric motor. The position information may be used for a variety of purposes such as: motor commutation ( e.g. in a BLDC motor); actuator velocity estimation (which may be a function of rotor velocity for systems with a substantially positive displacement pump); electronic cancellation of pressure fluctuations and ripples; and actuator position estimation”), (The examiner notes that fluxing operation for a motor are conventionally known to be the manipulation and control of its internal magnetic fields, or flux, to regulate its performance ); and
a supervisory controller configured to receive the vehicle status signal output by the one or more sensors, determine a readiness state for vehicle movement, and output a control signal to the motor controller to command the motor controller to perform the fluxing operation on the electric motor in accordance with the readiness state (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 935, 183, 115, 71, 70, 68, 55, 52, 18, 16, 15, 502, “This system also comprises at least one ECU with at least one algorithm to predict future power flow for at least one of the plurality of active vehicle actuators. The at least one ECU regulates the state of charge (SOC) of the at least one energy storage device to prepare for the predicted future power requirements. For example, the knowledge of an impending stop is used to raise the SOC of the energy storage device to make sure that there is enough power available for an electronic steering actuator to perform an avoidance maneuver, a dynamic stability control actuator to control skidding, and at least one active suspension actuator to mitigate nose dive of the vehicle”).
Anderson fails to explicitly disclose determine a readiness state for vehicle movement.
However, Stonecipher teaches determine a readiness state for vehicle movement (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 41, 43, 39, 28, 21, “Condition sensor 33 may be connected to controller 32 such that controller 32 may determine one or more condition parameters, which controller 32 may use in controlling one or more components of machine 10 ( e.g., motor 16). In this way, controller 32 may use operating conditions (e.g., loading conditions, uphill/downgrade conditions, speed conditions, etc.) when determining how to control components of machine 10”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Anderson and include determine a readiness state for vehicle movement as taught by Stonecipher because it would allow monitor the state of an induction motor in order to determine whether it is operating efficiently, and improve performance, as needed (Stonecipher ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson discloses the machine of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors include a brake pedal sensor configured to detect actuation of a brake pedal and output a brake pedal actuation signal indicating the actuation of the brake pedal (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, “they may use the steering angle and the vehicle speed in combination with brake pedal force, or any sensors suitable to measure or estimate those quantities, to predict the vehicle motion and thus anticipate the inertial forces on the vehicle. This allows for an estimate of the desired roll and pitch force command that is not sensitive to the actual motion of the vehicle, and may be used as a stable reference”).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson discloses the machine of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors include a payload sensor configured to detect a vehicle payload and output a vehicle payload signal indicating the vehicle payload (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, 319, “This data can later be accessed by the GPS to warn the driver of road hazards. In
addition, the system may respond to various other sensors such as load sensors that detect trailer weight”).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson discloses the machine of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors include a gear selection sensor configured to detect a vehicle gear selection and output a gear selection signal indicating the vehicle gear selection (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1329, 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, 319, 436, 557, “the electric motor may be operatively coupled to the hydraulic motor-pump ( either directly or via a mechanical gain linkage such as gears) such that movement of the electric motor creates a linear translation of the hydraulic actuator.”).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson discloses the machine of claim 1, wherein the supervisory controller is configured to determine the readiness state for vehicle movement based on a combination of the vehicle status signal output by the one or more sensors (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 118, 372, 366, 319, 73, 72, “motor torque is controlled in response to road and/or wheel conditions, may receive data from other vehicle control and sensing systems [ such as GPS, selfdriving parameters, vehicle mode setting (i.e. comfort/sport/ eco ), driver behavior ( e.g. how aggressive is the throttle and steering input), body sensors (accelerometers, IMUs, gyroscopes from other devices on the vehicle), safety system status (ABS braking engaged, ESP status, torque vectoring, airbag deployment, etc.)], and then react based on this data.”).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson discloses a supervisory controller, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
receive one or more vehicle status signals output by one or more vehicle sensors (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1481, 392, 486, 491, 499, 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1384, 1208, 1388, “a vehicle state estimator 15-700 determines a vehicle's kinematic state based on a number of sensors such as accelerometers, steering angle, vehicle velocity (wheel speed sensors, GPS, etc.). This functional unit calculates how the vehicle is moving across the terrain, and outputs a change in (x, y, z) coordinates for each time step.”);
determine a readiness state for vehicle movement in accordance with the one or more vehicle status signals, wherein the readiness state indicates an electric motor is needed for vehicle movement (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 935, 183, 115, 71, 70, 68, 55, 52, 18, 16, 15, 502, “This system also comprises at least one ECU with at least one algorithm to predict future power flow for at least one of the plurality of active vehicle actuators. The at least one ECU regulates the state of charge (SOC) of the at least one energy storage device to prepare for the predicted future power requirements. For example, the knowledge of an impending stop is used to raise the SOC of the energy storage device to make sure that there is enough power available for an electronic steering actuator to perform an avoidance maneuver, a dynamic stability control actuator to control skidding, and at least one active suspension actuator to mitigate nose dive of the vehicle”); and
output a control signal commanding a motor controller to perform a fluxing operation on an electric motor in accordance with the readiness state (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1206, 919, 918, 909, 174, 134, 133, 132, 129, 66, 62, 33, 34, 31, 29, 27, 25, “This rotor position or velocity information may be used by a controller connected to the electric motor. The position information may be used for a variety of purposes such as: motor commutation ( e.g. in a BLDC motor); actuator velocity estimation (which may be a function of rotor velocity for systems with a substantially positive displacement pump); electronic cancellation of pressure fluctuations and ripples; and actuator position estimation”), (The examiner notes that fluxing operation for a motor are conventionally known to be the manipulation and control of its internal magnetic fields, or flux, to regulate its performance ).
Anderson fails to explicitly disclose determine a readiness state for vehicle movement.
However, Stonecipher teaches determine a readiness state for vehicle movement (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 41, 43, 39, 28, 21, “Condition sensor 33 may be connected to controller 32 such that controller 32 may determine one or more condition parameters, which controller 32 may use in controlling one or more components of machine 10 ( e.g., motor 16). In this way, controller 32 may use operating conditions (e.g., loading conditions, uphill/downgrade conditions, speed conditions, etc.) when determining how to control components of machine 10”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Anderson and include determine a readiness state for vehicle movement as taught by Stonecipher because it would allow monitor the state of an induction motor in order to determine whether it is operating efficiently, and improve performance, as needed (Stonecipher ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson discloses the supervisory controller of claim 6, wherein the one or more vehicle status signals indicate actuation of a brake pedal (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, “they may use the steering angle and the vehicle speed in combination with brake pedal force, or any sensors suitable to measure or estimate those quantities, to predict the vehicle motion and thus anticipate the inertial forces on the vehicle. This allows for an estimate of the desired roll and pitch force command that is not sensitive to the actual motion of the vehicle, and may be used as a stable reference”).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson discloses the supervisory controller of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to monitor the one or more vehicle status signals indicating the actuation of the brake pedal during a gear selection (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1329, 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, 319, 436, 557, “the electric motor may be operatively coupled to the hydraulic motor-pump ( either directly or via a mechanical gain linkage such as gears) such that movement of the electric motor creates a linear translation of the hydraulic actuator.”).
Regarding claim 9, Anderson discloses the supervisory controller of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to determine the readiness state for vehicle movement in accordance with two or more vehicle status signals (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1481, 392, 486, 491, 499, 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1384, 1208, 1388, “a vehicle state estimator 15-700 determines a vehicle's kinematic state based on a number of sensors such as accelerometers, steering angle, vehicle velocity (wheel speed sensors, GPS, etc.). This functional unit calculates how the vehicle is moving across the terrain, and outputs a change in (x, y, z) coordinates for each time step.”).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson discloses the supervisory controller of claim 9, wherein the two or more vehicle status signals are each received from different vehicle sensors (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1481, 392, 486, 491, 499, 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1384, 1208, 1388, “a vehicle state estimator 15-700 determines a vehicle's kinematic state based on a number of sensors such as accelerometers, steering angle, vehicle velocity (wheel speed sensors, GPS, etc.). This functional unit calculates how the vehicle is moving across the terrain, and outputs a change in (x, y, z) coordinates for each time step.”).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson discloses the supervisory controller of claim 6, wherein the one or more vehicle status signals indicates a change in a gear selection (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1329, 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, 319, 436, 557, “the electric motor may be operatively coupled to the hydraulic motor-pump ( either directly or via a mechanical gain linkage such as gears) such that movement of the electric motor creates a linear translation of the hydraulic actuator.”).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson discloses the supervisory controller of claim 6, wherein the one or more vehicle status signals indicates a change in a vehicle payload (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, 319, “This data can later be accessed by the GPS to warn the driver of road hazards. In addition, the system may respond to various other sensors such as load sensors that detect trailer weight”).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson discloses the supervisory controller of claim 6, wherein the one or more vehicle status signals indicates a presence of a vehicle payload (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, 319, “This data can later be accessed by the GPS to warn the driver of road hazards. In addition, the system may respond to various other sensors such as load sensors that detect trailer weight”).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson discloses the supervisory controller of claim 6, wherein the one or more vehicle status signals indicates a change in a vehicle pitch (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, “they may use the steering angle and the vehicle speed in combination with brake pedal force, or any sensors suitable to measure or estimate those quantities, to predict the vehicle motion and thus anticipate the inertial forces on the vehicle. This allows for an estimate of the desired roll and pitch force command that is not sensitive to the actual motion of the vehicle, and may be used as a stable reference”).
Regarding claim 15, Anderson discloses a method, comprising:
receiving a vehicle status signal output by a vehicle sensor (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1481, 392, 486, 491, 499, 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1384, 1208, 1388, “a vehicle state estimator 15-700 determines a vehicle's kinematic state based on a number of sensors such as accelerometers, steering angle, vehicle velocity (wheel speed sensors, GPS, etc.). This functional unit calculates how the vehicle is moving across the terrain, and outputs a change in (x, y, z) coordinates for each time step.”);
determining a readiness state for vehicle movement in accordance with the vehicle status signal (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 935, 183, 115, 71, 70, 68, 55, 52, 18, 16, 15, 502, “This system also comprises at least one ECU with at least one algorithm to predict future power flow for at least one of the plurality of active vehicle actuators. The at least one ECU regulates the state of charge (SOC) of the at least one energy storage device to prepare for the predicted future power requirements. For example, the knowledge of an impending stop is used to raise the SOC of the energy storage device to make sure that there is enough power available for an electronic steering actuator to perform an avoidance maneuver, a dynamic stability control actuator to control skidding, and at least one active suspension actuator to mitigate nose dive of the vehicle”); and
outputting a control signal commanding a motor controller to perform a fluxing operation on an electric motor in accordance with the readiness state (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1206, 919, 918, 909, 174, 134, 133, 132, 129, 66, 62, 33, 34, 31, 29, 27, 25, “This rotor position or velocity information may be used by a controller connected to the electric motor. The position information may be used for a variety of purposes such as: motor commutation ( e.g. in a BLDC motor); actuator velocity estimation (which may be a function of rotor velocity for systems with a substantially positive displacement pump); electronic cancellation of pressure fluctuations and ripples; and actuator position estimation”), (The examiner notes that fluxing operation for a motor are conventionally known to be the manipulation and control of its internal magnetic fields, or flux, to regulate its performance ).
Anderson fails to explicitly disclose determine a readiness state for vehicle movement.
However, Stonecipher teaches determine a readiness state for vehicle movement (See at least fig 1-2, ¶ 41, 43, 39, 28, 21, “Condition sensor 33 may be connected to controller 32 such that controller 32 may determine one or more condition parameters, which controller 32 may use in controlling one or more components of machine 10 ( e.g., motor 16). In this way, controller 32 may use operating conditions (e.g., loading conditions, uphill/downgrade conditions, speed conditions, etc.) when determining how to control components of machine 10”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the machine of Anderson and include determine a readiness state for vehicle movement as taught by Stonecipher because it would allow monitor the state of an induction motor in order to determine whether it is operating efficiently, and improve performance, as needed (Stonecipher ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the vehicle status signal indicates actuation of a brake pedal (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, “they may use the steering angle and the vehicle speed in combination with brake pedal force, or any sensors suitable to measure or estimate those quantities, to predict the vehicle motion and thus anticipate the inertial forces on the vehicle. This allows for an estimate of the desired roll and pitch force command that is not sensitive to the actual motion of the vehicle, and may be used as a stable reference”).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the vehicle status signal indicates a change in a vehicle gear selection (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1329, 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, 319, 436, 557, “the electric motor may be operatively coupled to the hydraulic motor-pump ( either directly or via a mechanical gain linkage such as gears) such that movement of the electric motor creates a linear translation of the hydraulic actuator.”).
Regarding claim 18, Anderson discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the vehicle status signal indicates a change in a vehicle payload (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, 319, “This data can later be accessed by the GPS to warn the driver of road hazards. In addition, the system may respond to various other sensors such as load sensors that detect trailer weight”).
Regarding claim 19, Anderson discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the vehicle status signal indicates a presence of a vehicle payload (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, 319, “This data can later be accessed by the GPS to warn the driver of road hazards. In addition, the system may respond to various other sensors such as load sensors that detect trailer weight”).
Regarding claim 20, Anderson discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the vehicle status signal indicates a change in a vehicle pitch (See at least fig 1-164, ¶ 1457, 1209, 1204, 1205, 35, 1208, 1422, “they may use the steering angle and the vehicle speed in combination with brake pedal force, or any sensors suitable to measure or estimate those quantities, to predict the vehicle motion and thus anticipate the inertial forces on the vehicle. This allows for an estimate of the desired roll and pitch force command that is not sensitive to the actual motion of the vehicle, and may be used as a stable reference”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MARTINEZ whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, HUNTER LONSBERRY can be reached on (571)272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights