DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2007/0008084 A1) in view of Davis (US 9,221,405 B2).
Regarding Claim 1:
Wu teaches an electronic license plate for a motor vehicle (electronic license plate system capable of changing information displayed thereon; Abstract; FIG. 1), comprising:
an output configured to provide license plate information (display device 30, ¶[0013]: The display device 30 is, for example, an LED, an OLED, an LCD, or an equivalent thereof”; the display device displays identification information including characters, figures, images — ¶[0020]2);
a communication interface configured for wireless communication (wireless communication device 20 electrically connected to processing device 10 for signal reception and transmission; ¶[0013]: The wireless communication device 20 is a communication module for an integrated wireless LAN, a GPS, and a GPRS, and further comprises a 2.4 GHz antenna, a 5.8 GHz antenna, and an antenna of wireless RFID chip embedded with the GPS);
a data processing device configured to operate the license plate (processing device 10 electrically connected to display device 30 and database 40; ¶[0013]);
wherein the communication interface is configured to receive information (wireless communication device 20 receives signals from external sources; ¶[0006]: The wireless communication device is electrically connected to the processing device for signal reception and transmission”; ¶[0015]: the system receiv[es] the information from the traffic control system);
the data processing device is configured to determine the license plate information based at least in part on received information and to operate the output to output the license plate information (¶[0006]: The processing device is electrically connected to the display device and the database in order to access the database according to a request signal, and uses the wireless communication device to transmit information in the database or display the same on the display device; ¶[0015]: the system further determines whether the information is updated identification information, and if it is updated, the database of the electronic license plate system is updated and the latest identification information is transmitted to the display device and then displayed).
Wu further teaches that the displayed identification information can be changed based on received wireless signals (¶[0016]: The traffic control system may also casually change the identification information as an anti-counterfeiting measure), and that the database stores identification information, an identification code, and information under a set condition (¶[0013]).
Wu does not explicitly teach: (a) the motor vehicle has an active connection to a terminal of a user of the motor vehicle; or (b) the communication interface is configured to receive identification information from the terminal of the user.
Davis teaches a multi-function electronic display license plate system (Abstract; FIG. 2) wherein:
the motor vehicle has an active connection to a terminal of a user of the motor vehicle (Description ¶19: input module receives information from a mobile device, such as a mobile phone, via Bluetooth communication, near-field communications protocols, or the like); and
the communication interface is configured to receive identification information from the terminal (¶19: the user’s identification is verified using an input module 114 such as, but not limited to, a smart card reader, a fingerprint reader, a text input device… In an aspect, input module receives information from a mobile device, such as a mobile phone, via Bluetooth communication, near-field communications protocols, or the like; ¶20: “computing functionality 100 compares the user-supplied information received by input module 116 to information maintained in an authorization database”).
Davis further teaches that user-supplied identification information is used as a basis for determining whether and how to operate the license plate display (¶20-21: if the user is authorized, “computer system 100 receives an instruction to activate the display module 116”; ¶11: programming into each vehicle a list of ‘authorized users’ to ensure that the vehicles are only being operated by certain, preauthorized drivers. When vehicles equipped with such a license plate system are operated by the authorized person, license plate information is displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu’s electronic license plate system — which receives wireless signals and uses a processing device to determine and display updated identification information based on received signals — to receive identification information from a user’s terminal device (smartphone/mobile device) via Bluetooth or near-field communication as taught by Davis.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because:
Davis teaches that receiving user identification from a mobile device enables security benefits by ensuring only authorized users can cause the license plate system to display information (Davis, ¶11, ¶20), thereby improving the security of Wu’s system which relies on a centralized traffic control authority. Also, combining a known alternative information source (user’s terminal providing identification, as in Davis) with a known information-processing mechanism (Wu’s processing device that determines and displays content based on received signals) yields the predictable result of a license plate that determines and displays plate information based on identification received from the user’s terminal; and both Wu and Davis are directed to electronic license plate systems with wireless communication capabilities, making the combination a predictable application of known elements within the same technical field. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results”).
Regarding Claims 7:
Wu in view of Davis teaches the electronic license plate as claimed in claim 1 (as set forth above).
Wu further teaches that the data processing device is configured to process information associated with a number of different terminals, a number of different users, or a number of different terminals and users (¶[0015]-[0016]: the traffic control system transmits updated identification information for “all on-line electronic license plate systems”; the system can receive and process different signals from the traffic control system and/or base stations; the database stores multiple pieces of information — Claim 16: “at least a piece of identification information, an identification code, or a piece of information under a set condition”).
Davis teaches that the data processing device is configured to process identification information associated with a number of different users (¶11: “programming into each vehicle a list of ‘authorized users’”; ¶20: “computing functionality 100 compares the user-supplied information received by input module 116 to information maintained in an authorization database”; this database contains information for multiple authorized users).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the data processing device of the modified Wu system to process identification information associated with a number of different terminals and/or users, as taught by Davis, with the motivation of enabling multiple authorized users to operate the same vehicle, such as in fleet management or car-sharing scenarios (Davis, ¶27: “the multi-functional electronic display license plate of the present disclosure is portable and easily programmable; thus, it is usable by multiple government agencies or private entities resulting in improved vehicle utilization and reduced operational costs”).
Regarding Claim 8:
Wu in view of Davis teaches the electronic license plate as claimed in claim 1 (as set forth above).
Wu further teaches that the communication interface is configured to communicate with an external server and to receive information therefrom (¶[0015]: the traffic control system — functioning as an external server — directly transmits information to the electronic license plate system “or through a base station”; ¶[0013]: wireless communication device 20 includes GPS and GPRS communication capability for long-range server communication; FIG. 3: traffic control system 100 communicates with the electronic license plate display device 106 through base station 102; see also ¶[0016]: “the traffic control system at a specified time directly transmits a piece of updated information for all on-line electronic license plate systems or through the base station”).
To the extent that Wu’s “traffic control system” may not explicitly constitute a “server” in the narrowest sense, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the external traffic control system of Wu as a server, since servers are well-known computing infrastructure for managing and distributing data to remote networked devices, and Wu’s traffic control system performs equivalent server functions (storing data, processing requests, and transmitting information to connected client devices).
Regarding Claim 11:
Wu teaches a method for the operation of an electronic license plate for a motor vehicle (method of operating an electronic license plate system capable of changing information displayed thereon; Abstract; FIG. 2), wherein the method includes:
receiving information (FIG. 2, Step S206: “receiving a signal corresponding to the system”; ¶[0020]: “receiving a signal corresponding to the system and determining whether the signal updates the piece of identification information”);
determining license plate information based at least in part on received information (FIG. 2, Steps S208-S210, S216; ¶[0020]: determining whether the signal updates the piece of identification information… If the signal updates the identification information, it updates the identification information in the database of the electronic license plate system and the identification information is displayed”; ¶[0006]: access the database according to a request signal… display the same on the display device); and
causing output of the license plate information using an output of the electronic license plate (FIG. 2, Step S216; ¶[0020]: the identification information is displayed on the display device 30; display device 30 is part of the electronic license plate system — ¶[0013]).
Wu does not explicitly teach that the motor vehicle has an active connection to a terminal of a user, or that the method includes receiving identification information from the terminal of the user.
Davis teaches a method for operating an electronic display license plate system (FIG. 2, process 200) wherein:
the motor vehicle has an active connection to a terminal of a user (¶19: input module receives information from a mobile device, such as a mobile phone, via Bluetooth communication, near-field communications protocols); and
receiving identification information from the terminal (¶19: Step 203 — the user’s identification is verified using an input module… input module receives information from a mobile device, such as a mobile phone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wu’s method — which receives wireless signals and determines and displays updated identification information based thereon — to include receiving identification information from a user’s terminal (mobile device) as taught by Davis, for the same reasons of motivation set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13:
Wu teaches a computer-readable medium (¶[0013]: database 40 stores information; the system includes a processing device 10 that executes operations; the system performs the method steps of FIG. 2 — receiving, determining, updating, and displaying identification information).
Wu in view of Davis teaches the method of Claim 11 (as set forth above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method of Wu as modified by Davis would be implemented as instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed by a data processing device, cause it to carry out the method steps, since the use of computer-readable media to store program instructions for execution by processors is well-known and conventional in the electronic and automotive arts. See MPEP § 2144.04(III) (automating a manual activity is generally obvious); In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
Regarding Claim 14:
Wu teaches a motor vehicle containing the electronic license plate (¶[0013]: the electronic license plate system is “a display device installed on in a motor vehicle”; Abstract: “installed on in a motor vehicle showing information”; FIG. 3: electronic license plate display device 106 on vehicle).
Regarding Claim 18:
Wu in view of Davis teaches the electronic license plate as claimed in claim 1 (as set forth above).
Wu in view of Davis further teaches that the identification information comprises personal data that identifies the user.
Davis teaches that the identification information received from the user comprises personal data that identifies the user (¶19: the user’s identification is verified using an input module 114 such as, but not limited to, a smart card reader, a fingerprint reader, a text input device (e.g., keypad, keyboard, touchscreen, and the like)… The input module may be utilized by the user providing one or more passwords, biometric data, providing job-related identifying information (e.g., employee identification number) and the like. In an aspect, input module receives information from a mobile device, such as a mobile phone, via Bluetooth communication, near-field communications protocols, or the like). Biometric data (e.g., fingerprints), employee identification numbers, and passwords each constitute personal data that identifies the user.
Regarding Claim 19:
Wu in view of Davis teaches the electronic license plate as claimed in claim 1 (as set forth above).
Wu further teaches that the license plate information includes an alphanumeric sequence of letters or numbers corresponding to a license plate number of the motor vehicle ( ¶[0020]: The identification information is characters, figures, images, or a combination of the same; ¶[0016]: a vehicle with only a license plate number; Abstract: the electronic license plate system displays information serving as an illuminated license plate for easy visual identification”). See also Davis, ¶14: “license plate identification number.”
Claims 2, 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2007/0008084 A1) in view of Davis (US 9,221,405 B2), and further in view of Picolli (US 8,754,751 B1).
Regarding Claim 2:
Wu in view of Davis teaches the electronic license plate as claimed in claim 1 (as set forth above).
Wu in view of Davis does not explicitly teach that the identification information includes a key assigned to the terminal or the user, and that the data processing device is configured to match the key.
Picolli teaches a license plate identification system wherein:
the identification information includes a key assigned to the terminal or the user (Column 11: authorization signals that contain a common string within a code sequence for identification and access”; ¶25: Encryption, such as DES RFID encryption… or any other EPC Class 1, Generation 2 type encryption; the interrogator provides an encrypted access code that serves as identification — Steps 140, 410 of FIG. 4); and
the data processing device is configured to match the key (Description ¶24: a two-way challenge and response ‘handshake’ that confirms the identity of the access; the LPID tag’s controller 360 receives the access code and verifies authorization before operating — interrogator 560 receiving an authorization signal confirmation at 430; assigning in the circuitry of at least the LPID or AUTOID tags with similar authorization signals that contain a common string within a code sequence for identification and access, such that upon reception of the same… a comparison is made to ensure that the LPID tag or AUTOID tags are related).
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 electronic license plate of Wu in view of Davis to include a key-based authentication mechanism as taught by Picolli, wherein the identification information from the user’s terminal includes a cryptographic key, and the data processing device of the license plate is configured to match the key before determining the license plate information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Picolli teaches that cryptographic key matching provides enhanced security by preventing unauthorized access and detecting fraudulent or swapped identification tags (Columns 11 and 12), and because implementing encrypted key-based authentication at the license plate level provides a higher security standard than unencrypted identification transmission, thereby preventing tampering and unauthorized changes to displayed license plate information.
Regarding Claim 4:
Wu in view of Davis teaches the electronic license plate as claimed in claim 1 (as set forth above).
Wu further teaches that the data processing device is configured to process information associated with a number of different terminals, a number of different users, or a number of different terminals and users (¶[0015]-[0016]: the traffic control system transmits updated identification information for “all on-line electronic license plate systems”; the system can receive and process different signals from the traffic control system and/or base stations; the database stores multiple pieces of information — Claim 16: “at least a piece of identification information, an identification code, or a piece of information under a set condition”).
Davis teaches that the data processing device is configured to process identification information associated with a number of different users (¶11: “programming into each vehicle a list of ‘authorized users’”; ¶20: “computing functionality 100 compares the user-supplied information received by input module 116 to information maintained in an authorization database”; this database contains information for multiple authorized users).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the data processing device of the modified Wu system to process identification information associated with a number of different terminals and/or users, as taught by Davis, with the motivation of enabling multiple authorized users to operate the same vehicle, such as in fleet management or car-sharing scenarios (Davis, ¶27: “the multi-functional electronic display license plate of the present disclosure is portable and easily programmable; thus, it is usable by multiple government agencies or private entities resulting in improved vehicle utilization and reduced operational costs”).
Regarding Claim 12:
Wu in view of Davis teaches the method of claim 11 (as set forth above).
Wu in view of Davis does not explicitly teach that the identification information includes a key assigned to the terminal or the user, and that determining the license plate information includes matching the key to a key associated with the electronic license plate.
Picolli teaches a method wherein identification information includes a key (encrypted access code / authorization signal containing a common code sequence; Description ¶24-25), and determining operation of the license plate system includes matching the key to a key associated with the license plate (Column 11: two-way challenge and response handshake that confirms the identity”; controller 360 performs comparison of received authorization signals against stored code sequences).
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 method of Wu in view of Davis such that the identification information includes a key assigned to the terminal or user and determining the license plate information includes matching the key, as taught by Picolli, for the same reasons of motivation set forth in the rejection of Claim 2 above.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. ((US 2007/0008084 A1) in view of Davis (US 9,221,405 B2), in view of Picolli (US 8,754,751 B1) and further in view of Batten et al. (US 10,682,967 B2).
Regarding Claim 3:
Wu in view of Davis, and further in view of Picolli, teaches the electronic license plate as claimed in claim 2 (as set forth above).
Wu in view of Davis and Picolli does not explicitly teach that the communication interface is configured to communicate with an external server and to receive matching information, wherein the matching information is used by the data processing device to match the key.
Batten teaches a digital license plate system wherein:
the communication interface is configured to communicate with an external server (Column 22, 44-67: communication device 140 communicates with central server 1204 via cellular modem 1214 or WiFi module 1212); and
to receive matching information, wherein matching information is used by the data processing device to verify/match security credentials (Column 22, 44-67: the display systems and central server 1204 verify each other’s identities by checking that they are each presenting a valid x.509 SSL certificate; Column 22, 44-67: Display system certificates, also known as client certificates, are self-signed by a CA owned or controlled by the issuer of the display systems, and the relevant root certificate is installed on the central server 1316 running the plate service so that it can validate these client certificates; Column 23 through Column 24, 1-24: the plate communicates with the central server for configuration information and credential verification — FIG. 14).
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 electronic license plate of Wu in view of Davis and Picolli to include communication with an external server to receive matching information for key verification as taught by Batten.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Batten teaches that external server-based verification provides centralized credential management, enables real-time revocation of compromised credentials (Batten, Column 25, 57 through Column 26, 1-54]: function 7 1528… is the ability to revoke a set of credentials, and thus lock a plate or an entity out of the system), and ensures that the license plate system operates only with currently valid security credentials, thereby improving the overall security architecture beyond purely local key matching.
Regarding Claim 5:
Wu in view of Davis, and further in view of Picolli, teaches the electronic license plate as claimed in claim 4 (as set forth above — Claim 4 is rejected over Wu in view of Davis).
The additional limitation of Claim 5 (communication interface configured to communicate with an external server and to receive matching information, wherein the matching information is used by the data processing device to match the key) is taught by Batten for the same reasons and with the same motivation set forth in the rejection of Claim 3 above.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2007/0008084 A1) in view of Davis (US 9,221,405 B2), and further in view of WISNIA et al. (US 2022/0180679 A1).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10:
Wu in view of Davis teaches the electronic license plate as claimed in claim 1 (as set forth above).
Wu in view of Davis does not explicitly teach that the communication interface is configured to communicate with a motor vehicle control unit and to output at least one of a lock signal to lock a vehicle function and an unlock signal to unlock the vehicle function.
Wisnia teaches a vehicle control system wherein:
a communication interface communicates with a motor vehicle control unit (KIB device 202 communicates with PKES controller 106 and vehicle OBD interface 225; ¶[0140], [0159]-[0161]; FIG. 9, FIG. 11); and
outputs at least one of a lock signal to lock a vehicle function and an unlock signal to unlock the vehicle function (door lock/unlock controller 233 connects to vehicle OBD interface 225; ¶[0161]: “the system further has a separate door lock/unlock controller 233 that connects to the vehicle OBD interface 225 directly or via a bus input of the vehicle”; ¶[0107]: “A door lock/unlock module 268 may work with the local driver authentication 261 directly to allow locking and unlocking of the doors of the vehicles”; the system issues lock/unlock commands based on user authentication — ¶[0009]-[0010]).
Wisnia further teaches that these lock/unlock signals are issued in response to user authentication (¶[0008]: “a processor operatively connected to memory storing executable instructions causing the processor to communicate with the driver’s device to determine if a driver associated with the driver’s device is authorized to use the vehicle, and to control the disabling wireless communications of the key fob accordingly so as to permit the driver to operate said vehicle”).
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 electronic license plate of Wu in view of Davis to include communication with a motor vehicle control unit and to output lock/unlock signals as taught by Wisnia.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because Wisnia teaches that integrating user authentication with vehicle lock/unlock functionality provides enhanced security and convenience by ensuring only authenticated users can access and operate the vehicle (Wisnia, ¶[0007]-[0008]), and because Davis already contemplates that unauthorized users should be prevented from operating the vehicle (Davis, Description ¶20: “computer system 100 does not receive an instruction to activate the display mechanism… preventing the user from legally operating the vehicle”), making the addition of explicit lock/unlock signaling to a vehicle control unit a predictable enhancement.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. ((US 2007/0008084 A1) in view of Davis (US 9,221,405 B2), in view of Picolli (US 8,754,751 B1),in view of Batten et al. (US 10,682,967 B2) and further in view of WISNIA et al. (US 2022/0180679 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
Wu in view of Davis, and further in view of Picolli and Batten, teaches the electronic license plate as claimed in claim 5 (as set forth above).
The additional limitation of Claim 6 (communication interface configured to communicate with a motor vehicle control unit and to output a lock signal and/or unlock signal) is taught by Wisnia for the same reasons and with the same motivation set forth in the rejection of Claims 9 and 10 above.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2007/0008084 A1) in view of Davis (US 9,221,405 B2), and further in view of Batten et al. (US 10,682,967 B2).
Regarding Claim 15:
Wu in view of Davis teaches the motor vehicle of claim 14 (as set forth above).
Wu in view of Davis does not explicitly teach that the motor vehicle has an outer skin and an on-board electrical system, and the electronic license plate is integrated into the outer skin.
Davis teaches that an electronic display license plate system can be integrated into a vehicle during the manufacturing process (¶12: the systems of the present disclosure can be integrated into a vehicle during the manufacturing process which will allow the vehicle manufacturers to build electronic display license plates into the rear and/or front-end of the vehicles).
Batten teaches a digital license plate wherein the display system is mounted on the exterior of a vehicle and can be arranged to replace existing license plates (Column 2 through Column 2, 36-67; a display system 100 for use on the exterior of a vehicle 10 includes a display 110; Column 4, 50-67 through Column 5, 1-6: the display 110 is preferably also substantially thin, allowing the display 110 to replace existing license plates on the rear and/or front exterior of the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the electronic license plate of Wu in view of Davis into the outer skin of the motor vehicle, as suggested by Davis’s teaching of manufacturing integration and Batten’s teaching of exterior-mounted thin displays replacing existing plate locations, with the motivation of providing a seamless vehicle design, improved aesthetics, enhanced tamper resistance, and reduced risk of theft compared to a bolt-on aftermarket component.
Regarding Claim 16:
Wu in view of Davis and Batten teaches the motor vehicle of claim 15 (as set forth above).
Davis further teaches that the electronic license plate can be operated by means of the on-board electrical system (¶15: the electronic display license plate system may be powered through a connection to the vehicle’s electrical systems).
Batten teaches that the digital license plate can receive power from the vehicle power system (Column 4, 30-49: The power source is preferably a power source of the vehicle 10, such as the accessories battery of the vehicle 10; Column 12, 46-62: FIG. 4A — vehicle power system 404 supplies power to externally attachable module 402 and can recharge battery 412).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the electronic license plate of the modified system via the on-board electrical system of the motor vehicle, as taught by Davis and Batten, with the motivation of providing reliable continuous power for the display and communication functions without the limitations of an independent battery (such as limited battery life and need for periodic recharging).
Regarding Claim 17:
Wu in view of Davis teaches the motor vehicle of claim 14 (as set forth above).
Davis teaches that the electronic license plate can be operated via the on-board electrical system (Description ¶15: “the electronic display license plate system may be powered through a connection to the vehicle’s electrical systems”).
Batten teaches the same (Column 4, 30-49, as cited above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the electronic license plate of Wu in view of Davis via the on-board electrical system of the motor vehicle, as taught by Davis and Batten, for the same reasons of motivation set forth in the rejection of Claim 16 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) July 29, 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVETTA W GOINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM 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.
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.
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights