DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 16 have been presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of the amendments on 02/02/2026.
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 Drawings
Applicant has submitted replacement sheets for Figure 48 – 50 which are easier to read and showing the exact same table(s) and figure(s). Therefore, the replacement sheets are accepted, and the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Response to Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments overcome the claim objections. Therefore, they are withdrawn.
Response to 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 112(b) rejections. Therefore, they are withdrawn.
Response to 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. However, the Office does not consider them to be persuasive.
Applicant argues: “In other words, if the claim when considered as a whole cannot be performed in the human mind, then the claim cannot be considered abstract under prong 1 as a mental process. Thus, the claims cannot be considered as being directed to the abstract idea of a mental process.” (emphasis in original)
Examiner notes that claimed are “directed to” an abstract idea at Step 2A when they recite an abstract idea at Prong I, and when the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Prong II. The additional elements could preclude performance in the mind (i.e., implementation on a generic computer) while also not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the standard is not whether the claim when considered as a whole could be performed in the human mind.
Applicant argues: “The Action asserts that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. However, simply asserting this without proper evidence is an improper application of the practical application analysis in prong 2 … It is not proper to assert that there is no improvement without doing an in-depth analysis … in order to expedite prosecution, Claim 1 has been amended to recite: … [claim language] …” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the Office has not provided “proper evidence” for asserting that the claim is not directed to a practical application. Examiner notes that the Office Action clearly articulates a reason for determining that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application with regard to each of the additional elements, and that Applicant has not specifically challenged the reason(s) articulated in the Office Action. Further, the “proper evidence” appears to refer to Berkheimer evidence which is not required at Step 2A, Prong II. Applicant then argues that an “in-depth analysis” is required, however, Applicant does not further analyze (in-depth or otherwise) any of the additional elements previously recited. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are conclusory.
Applicant argues: “The abovementioned amendments further specify how the output data is set into practical application, so that it is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. Indeed, the specific output data is put into use for the practical application of the assessment of safety standards of a designed vehicle.
This is because the method displays a contact sphere, so that the user performs the visual inspection functionality. In other words, the moving contact sphere provides the user with a visual cue to perform the visual inspection functionality and thus assess safety standards … Thus, the display goes beyond an abstract data output, as the display is the result of a specific user interaction via the obtained new position” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues that the output data is “specific”. Examiner notes that outputting specific data using generic means, and merely using the results of the abstract idea, does not amount to a practical application. Applicant further argues that the output data is used by a user for “assessment” and “visual inspection functionality” which require no more than observations, evaluations, judgements. Although the “assessment” and “visual inspection functionality” are not recited in the instant claims, the ”displaying” and “obtaining” and “receiving” use generic means for data inputting and outputting for the purpose of helping a user to perform mental process steps.
Applicant argues: “The method includes receiving an edition performed by the user on the generated three dimensional data, e.g., a modification of the geometry of the represented vehicle. The edition updates the generated three-dimensional data based on the edition, in other words, the method modifies the trajectory of the two-point-contact curve based on the edition, thereby improving safety of the vehicle represented by the outer surface by modifying the design based on the obtained results”
Examiner notes that the recited “updating” merely effectuates the received edit (see Claim Objections) as determined by the user, therefore, it does not amount to a practical application.
Applicant argues: “In particular, the pending claims represent techniques that are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
In fact, the claims are directed to a significant improvement. Similarly to the McRO case, the claimed application is able to provide features that were not possible in the past.
Thus, the claims clearly recite a significant technical improvement.
At least on this basis, it is respectfully submitted that the pending claim features do not represent a well-understood, routine, and conventional technique. As discussed with regard Enfish, the claims represent an improvement that is more than a computer to implementation of "fundamental practices long prevalent in their fields" and therefore are not subject to Alice's holdings that such claims are still considered abstract.” (emphasis added)
Applicant provides a conclusory arguments that the claims recite techniques that are other than well-understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner notes that only the additional elements are evaluated at Step 2B for WURC, and that elements of the abstract idea are not analyzed under WURC at Step 2A, Prong I. Applicant further argues that the claims are directed to a significant improvement in computer technology (based on the reference to McRO). Examiner notes that the claimed invention requires nothing more than general purpose computer functions, therefore, it does not appear that such computer-implemented operations were “not possible in the past”.
With regard to the reference to Enfish and Alice’s holding, Examiner notes that the subject matter eligibility relies on the 2019 PEG, and that individual court cases are not explicitly relied upon. Further, that a computer implementation recited at a high-level of generality does not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 (and similarly claim 8 and 10) recite “receiving an edition” and “based on the edition“ which appears to contain a typographical error and should be “edit”. This is the limitation for examination purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter, subject to overcoming the 101 rejection.
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 1 (and similarly claim 8 and 10; and claims 2 – 7, 9, 11 – 16 by incorporation via dependency) computer-implemented method for vehicle impact analysis in a manufacturing process, the method comprising: “wherein the method further comprises, at each numeric integration step, testing condition (I) that the contact sphere intersects with a rest of the B-Rep, the testing including intersecting a local sphere having the same center as the contact sphere with a tessellation of the B-Rep, the local sphere having a radius similar in size to the radius R but smaller than R”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claim. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Miyata et al. (US 2011/0295576) teaches computing closest distance from spatial curve to boundary surface of a boundary representation. However does not appear to explicitly disclose testing an intersection with a local sphere having a similar radius to a contact sphere, or solving a differential equation based on three parameterized surfaces supporting an intersection with a contact sphere.
Sacchi, R. “Primitive-based segmentation for triangulated surfaces” teaches accurate determination of intersection curves where two adjacent segments meet. However does not appear to explicitly disclose testing an intersection with a local sphere having a similar radius to a contact sphere, or solving a differential equation based on three parameterized surfaces supporting an intersection with a contact sphere.
Macklin et al. (US 2022/0075914) teaches methods of contact for simulation. However does not appear to explicitly disclose testing an intersection with a local sphere having a similar radius to a contact sphere, or solving a differential equation based on three parameterized surfaces supporting an intersection with a contact sphere.
“Regulation No. 26 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN/ECE) – Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicles with Regards to their External Projections” teaches using a 100 mm diameter circle to check surfaces. However does not appear to explicitly disclose testing an intersection with a local sphere having a similar radius to a contact sphere, or solving a differential equation based on three parameterized surfaces supporting an intersection with a contact sphere.
Quilot et al. (US 2014/0184599) teaches tessellating a boundary representation. However does not appear to explicitly disclose identifying contact vertices, and defining transitions bounded by contact vertices, and setting starring points for a root-finding algorithm based on the transition edges.
Inui et al. “Visualizing sphere-contacting areas on automobile parts for ECE inspection” teaches some areas could make contact on a tessellated part, where it is implicit that others would not make contact. However does not appear to explicitly disclose identifying contact vertices, and defining transitions bounded by contact vertices, and setting starring points for a root-finding algorithm based on the transition edges.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
At Step 1, independent claim 1 recites a statutory category (i.e. a process) computer-implemented method for vehicle impact analysis in a manufacturing process. At Step 2A, Prong I, the method comprising: determining one or more two-point-contact curves of the B-Rep for the radius value, each two-point-contact curve being a curve lying on the B-Rep and representing a sequence of two-point contacts between the outer surface and a two-point contact sphere having the radius value, the one or more two-point-contact curves thereby representing two-point-contact impacts on the vehicle, the determining including, for each respective two-point-contact curve, solving a first respective differential equation based on the B-Rep, the first respective differential equation being based on a respective pair of surface parameterizations, wherein the first respective differential equation is:
PNG
media_image1.png
192
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
321
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein the solving of the first respective differential equation includes integrating the first respective differential equation from an initial value, wherein the integrating comprises successive numeric integration steps each yielding a respective segment portion of the respective two-point-contact curve, until one of the two following conditions is evaluated to be fulfilled: (I) the contact sphere intersects with a rest of the B-Rep, and (II) a face boundary is reached, wherein the method comprises, at each numeric integration step, testing condition (I) that the contact sphere intersects with a rest of the B-Rep, the testing including intersecting a local sphere having the same center as the contact sphere with a tessellation of the B-Rep, the local sphere having a radius similar in size to the radius R but smaller than R; wherein the method further comprises generating three dimensional data of at least one part of the vehicle based on the determining of the one or more two- point-contact curves of the B-Rep for the radius value. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “determining” and “solving” involves solving differential equations to curves having a geometrical relationship with a B-rep, and reciting what the curves and the sphere represents does not in any way change their mathematical character. The “integrating the respective differential equation from an initial value” further limits the “solving” by reciting further details about the differential equation and its solving. The “successive numeric integration steps” amounts to generating segments of a curve. The “intersecting a local sphere having the same center as the contact sphere with a tessellation of the B-Rep” amounts to a geometrical operation related to generation of the curve segments. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “generating” three dimensional data” recites at a high-level of generality how the data is generated beyond representing a vehicle part, and where it is noted that 3D data is not limited to CAD models since a 3D object could be described on a piece of paper (e.g., using 3D vectors and/or 3x3 matrices). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: that the method is computer-implemented; obtaining a B-Rep representing an outer surface of a vehicle, the B-Rep having faces, each face of the B-Rep being supported by a respective surface parameterization; obtaining a radius value for a contact sphere modelling the impact of a head or knee of a pedestrian or passenger on the vehicle; that the “determining” is on one or more processors; wherein the method further comprises outputting the three dimensional data for use in a manufacturing process; wherein the method further comprises: displaying a contact sphere with the radius value and contacting a graphical representation of the outer surface for a user to perform visual inspection functionality; obtaining a new position for the contact sphere along the graphical representation of the outer surface; displaving, in real time, the contact sphere at the new position and results of the detem1ining of the one or more t\v·o-point-contact curves to provide a visualization to the user, thereby enabling a visual inspection functionalitv; receiving an edition performed by the user on the three dimensional data; and updating the generated three dimensional data based on the edition, thereby improving safetv of the vehicle by modifying a design based on the obtained results. The “computer-implemented” and “processors” is recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “obtaining” and “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is obtained, and since the “determining” and “determining” and “updating” steps rely on the received elements merely as inputs (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “outputting the three dimensional data” and “displaying” amount to insignificant data outputting since it recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the data is outputted. The “updating” steps amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it merely effectuates the received edit which is wholly determined by a user (see Claim Objections). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “computer-implemented” and “processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the recited “obtaining” and “receiving” and “outputting the three-dimensional data” and “displaying” amount(s) to well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it encompasses any means of obtaining or outputting the data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “updating” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “obtaining” and “receiving” and “outputting the three dimensional data” and “displaying” require no more than generic computer functions. Further, the “obtaining” are data gathering steps which only depend on each other through the recited “vehicle”, and which are both used in the subsequent “determining”. Further, the “displaying” and “receiving” work in combination merely to allow a user to perform observations, judgements, and evaluations for the purpose of performing a edit to a design. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
At Step 1, dependent claims 2 – 7 recite(s) the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and at Step 2A, Prong I further recite(s):
Claim 2 wherein, when the condition (I) is fulfilled that the contact sphere intersects with a rest of the B-Rep, the determining includes further solving a second respective differential equation based on the B-Rep, the second respective differential equation being based on the respective pair of surface parameterizations and further on other surface parameterization (s3) supporting the intersection.
Claim 3 wherein the second respective differential equation is:
PNG
media_image3.png
364
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
269
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 wherein the solving of the first respective differential equation includes finding a zero (u0, v0, a0, b0) of F, the initial value for integrating the first respective differential equation being given by (u(0), v(0), a(0), b(0)) = (u0, v0, a0, b0) in claim 9.
Claim 5 wherein the finding of the zero includes a root-finding algorithm, on the B-Rep, from a pair of starting points of the B-Rep
Claim 6 tessellating the B-Rep; and processing the tessellation, the processing including: identifying, for the radius value, one-point-contact vertices and noncontact vertices; defining transition edges, each transition edge being bounded by a respective one-point-contact vertex and a respective non-contact vertex; and setting the pair of starting points based on a respective transition edge
Claim 7 wherein the setting includes, iteratively and until the root-finding algorithm finds the zero: selecting a transition edge; establishing a pair of candidate starting points based on the selected transition edge, optionally including bisecting the selected transition edge; and running the root-finding algorithm, on the B-Rep, from the pair of candidate starting points
The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “solving” and “second respective differential equation is” involves solving a differential equation based on surface parameterizations and an intersection. The “finding a zero (u0, v0, a0, b0) of F”, and “being given by (u(0), v(0), a(0), b(0)) = (u0, v0, a0, b0)” further limit the parent claim “determining” by reciting further details about the differential equation and its solving. The “root finding algorithm” encompasses any mathematical algorithm for find roots given starting points. The “tessellating the B-Rep” comprises a mathematically constructed shape. For example, the “identifying”, “defining transition edges”, “setting the pair of starting points”, “bisecting the selected transition edge”, and “running the root-finding algorithm” amount to relationships between mathematical elements (i.e. radius, vertices, edge being bounded by a vertex, points). The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “selecting” and “establishing a pair of candidate starting points” amounts to an analytical process reciting at a high-level of generality for analyzing an edge and thereby providing inputs to further mathematical steps. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there are no further claimed limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further claimed limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
At Step 1, independent claim 8 recites a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having recorded thereon a computer program, the computer program comprising instructions for performing a method for vehicle impact analysis.
At Step 2A, Prong I, the method comprising the same steps as claim 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims additional elements which overlap with claim 1. The claim is directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as in claim 1. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
At Step 1, dependent claim 9 recite(s) the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and at Step 2A, Prong I further recite(s): Claim 9 wherein the solving of the first respective differential equation includes integrating the first respective differential equation from an initial value. The recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “integrating the respective differential equation from an initial value” further limits the parent claim “solving” by reciting further details about the differential equation and its solving. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there are no further claimed limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further claimed limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
At Step 1, independent claim 10 recites a statutory category (i.e. a machine) system for vehicle impact analysis that.
At Step 2A, Prong I, the system configured to perform same steps as in claim 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims additional elements which overlap with claim 1. Claim 10 further recites: a processor coupled with a memory, the memory having recorded thereon a computer program comprising instructions for vehicle impact analysis that when executed by the processor causes the processor to be configured to. The “processor” and “memory” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons as in claim 1 and as explained above.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processor” and “memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons and those as in claim 1, the claim is not patent eligible.
At Step 1, dependent claim 11 recite(s) the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and at Step 2A, Prong I further recite(s): Claim 11 wherein the solving of the first respective differential equation includes integrating the first respective differential equation from an initial value. The recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “integrating the respective differential equation from an initial value” further limits the parent claim “solving” by reciting further details about the differential equation and its solving. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since there are no further claimed limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further claimed limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
At Step 1, dependent claim 12 - 16 recite(s) the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and at Step 2A, Prong I further recite(s): Claim 15 updating the generated three dimensional data based on the editing; Claim 16 wherein the generating three dimensional data includes iterating steps of the computer-implemented method to incrementally generate the three dimensional data. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “updating” covers judgements and evaluations and opinions of received editing resulting in a modified 3D model of an object which could be realized on a piece of paper, where it is noted that 3D model is not limited to CAD models since a 3D object could be described on a piece of paper (e.g., using 3D vectors and/or 3x3 matrices). The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The “iterating steps of the computer-implemented method” include one or more steps that cover mathematical concepts as discussed in claim 1. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 12 displaying results of the determining to provide a visualization to a user; Claim 13 displaying a moving contact sphere for a user to perform visual inspection functionality; Claim 14 interlacing storing and creating a 3D modeled object based on the generated three dimensional data; Claim 15 receiving editing performed by a user on the generated three dimensional data; Claim 16 wherein the generating three dimensional data includes iterating steps of the computer-implemented method to incrementally generate the three dimensional data. The “displaying” and “interlacing storing and creating” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the results or contact sphere are displayed, or how the modeled object is stored and created (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to editing data is obtained from the user (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “iterating steps of the computer-implemented method” includes one or more the additional elements, none of which are not integrated into a practical application as discussed as in claim 1. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited “displaying” and “interlacing storing and creating” and “receiving” amount(s) to well-understood, routine, conventional activity since it encompasses any means of obtaining or outputting the data (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “iterating steps of the computer-implemented method” includes one or more additional elements, none of which amount to significantly more as discussed in claim 1. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “displaying” and “interlacing storing and creating” and “receiving” and “iterating steps of the computer-implemented method” additional elements from claim 1 require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187