Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 08/09/2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0184073, filed on 12/18/2023.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 14. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a destination setting unit” in claim 9. The examiner has interpreted this limitation to be a generic computer as recited in the specification ([0058]; “Meanwhile, functionally, the processor 310 may include a destination setting unit 312, a cost calculation unit 314, and a path determination unit 316.”).
“a cost calculation unit” in claim 9. The examiner has interpreted this limitation to be a generic computer as recited in the specification ([0058]; “Meanwhile, functionally, the processor 310 may include a destination setting unit 312, a cost calculation unit 314, and a path determination unit 316.”).
“a path determination unit” in claim 9. The examiner has interpreted this limitation to be a generic computer as recited in the specification ([0058]; “Meanwhile, functionally, the processor 310 may include a destination setting unit 312, a cost calculation unit 314, and a path determination unit 316.”).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 9, and 15 is directed to an (apparatus, method, etc.) for claimed invention. Therefore, claim 1, 9, and 15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case, the independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims, under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. The language of independent claim 1 is used for illustration:
A path finding method comprising:
setting a destination for a transport vehicle using a battery;
calculating costs between waypoints to the destination using a cost function (mental process; A person can receive data and determine the cost going between waypoints), which includes amounts of charging and discharging occurring between the waypoints as an input variable; and
determining a path to the destination based on the calculated costs. (mental process; A person can receive data and determine the best route mentally.)
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims 9 and 15, which are of similar scope to claim 1. Likewise recite at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong I.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
A path finding method comprising:
setting a destination for a transport vehicle using a battery;
calculating costs between waypoints to the destination using a cost function (mental process; A person can receive data and determine the cost going between waypoints), which includes amounts of charging and discharging occurring between the waypoints as an input variable; and
determining a path to the destination based on the calculated costs. (mental process; A person can receive data and determine the best route mentally.)
Regarding the additional limitation of “setting a destination for a transport vehicle using a battery” and “which includes amounts of charging and discharging occurring between the waypoints as an input variable”, the examiner submits that this limitation is merely a pre-solution activity of gathering data.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong II, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea and, therefore does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitations “setting a destination for a transport vehicle using a battery” and “which includes amounts of charging and discharging occurring between the waypoints as an input variable” as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of “setting a destination for a transport vehicle using a battery” and “which includes amounts of charging and discharging occurring between the waypoints as an input variable” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g)
“setting a destination for a transport vehicle using a battery” and “which includes amounts of charging and discharging occurring between the waypoints as an input variable”… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);;
Claims 9 and 15 recite systems to operate the method of claim 1. Therefore, are also rejected for the same reasoning.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1, 9, and 15 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 fail to recite limitations that overcome the 101 rejections made in independent claims 1, 9 and 15. Therefore, are also rejected for the same reasoning.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mathews et al. (US 12311913 B2; hereafter Mathews).
Regarding claim 1, Mathews discloses a path finding method comprising:
setting a destination ([0023]; “In an embodiment in which the controller of the control system shown in FIG. 1 is disposed off-board the vehicle system, the off-board controller may wirelessly query the vehicle controller for at least some of the sensor data generated by the sensors for use in planning and/or modifying a planned trip of the vehicle”)) for a transport vehicle using a battery ([0035]; “In one non-limiting example, the hybrid consist may include three fuel-consuming vehicles and one battery-powered vehicle.”);
calculating costs between waypoints to the destination using a cost function ([0062]; “At step 708, a determination is made whether the amount of available power is sufficient to propel the vehicle system to complete the previously planned trip, based on the comparison.”), which includes amounts of charging and discharging occurring between the waypoints as an input variable ([0074]; “Optionally, the one or more processors may determine the amount of available power based at least in part on an amount of regenerative energy that the vehicle system is estimated to capture during braking on the planned trip or to receive from a catenary line or third rail.”); and
determining a path to the destination based on the calculated costs. ([0064]; “At step 714 the previously planned trip is changed in a second way that is different from the first way in step 710. For example, the previously planned trip may be changed to eliminate the shortfall by changing the vehicular makeup or the operational aspects of the trip (e.g., trip characteristics) to increase the amount of available power as a function of time relative to the power requirement as a function of time.”)
Regarding claim 2, Mathews discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mathews discloses the cost function further includes distances ([0029]; “The trip information may include a starting location and an ending location, a scheduled departure time, a scheduled arrival time, a designated period of time in which to complete the trip after starting the trip, a distance to complete the planned trip along the one or more routes, and/or the like.”) and congestion levels between the waypoints as input variables. ([0040]; “While other embodiments may account for, as an example, an unscheduled extended idle period as may be caused by a traffic jam (naturally a full stop can shut off the engine, but a slowly moving group may require the continuous use of energy), the embodiment contemplated here accounts for changes in the load and/or weather.”)
Regarding claim 8, Mathews discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Mathews discloses the transport vehicle moves along a rail ([0018]; “In one embodiment, the vehicle system may be a rail-based train, and the route may be a railroad track”), and
the rail includes powered sections where power lines for supplying power are installed and non-powered sections where the power lines are not installed. ([0074]; “Optionally, the one or more processors may determine the amount of available power based at least in part on an amount of regenerative energy that the vehicle system is estimated to capture during braking on the planned trip or to receive from a catenary line or third rail.”)
Claim 9 recites an apparatus used to perform the methods of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 10 recites an apparatus used to perform the methods of claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-7, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Mathews as evidenced by Lavertu et al. (US 12337817 B2; hereafter Lavertu).
Regarding claim 3, Mathews discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Mathews discloses costs of distance ([0029]; “The trip information may include… a distance to complete the planned trip along the one or more routes”), congestion ([0030]; “The route information may include geographic and/or geological information about the routes, such as… traffic patterns”) and charging/discharging amounts. ([0037]; “The controller may account for refueling and/or recharging opportunities during the power and energy budget analysis.”)
Although Mathews discloses the factors required for the cost calculations, Mathews does not disclose the use of weights variables. However, Lavertu does disclose weighed variables ([0023]; “The setup involves selection of a quantitative objective function, or a weighted sum (integral) of model variables that correspond to travel time, rate of fuel consumption, maximum power settings, speed limits, emissions generation, plus a term to penalize excessive throttle variation or jockeying, as examples.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathews with Lavertu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews and Lavertu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (train pathing determination) and it would have been beneficial to use the weighted sum taught by Lavertu as certain variables impact the determination for routes more than others.
Regarding claim 4, Mathews in combination with Lavertu discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Additionally Lavertu in the same field of endeavor teaches values of the weights are determined through machine learning ([0059]; “In one embodiment, the system (such as one or more controllers, a computer, and/or the like described herein) may have a local data collection system deployed that may use machine learning to enable derivation-based learning outcomes.”) to maintain a State of Charge (SoC) of the battery of the transport vehicle at a target level. ([0017]; “Furthermore, the computer 32 is programmed to generate the trip plan based on an objective function that includes factors of interest such as… state of charge of the bank of batteries”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathews with Lavertu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews and Lavertu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (train pathing determination) and it would have been beneficial as utilizing machine learning to determine the weights of the individual variables will produce more efficient routes for the vehicles.
Regarding claim 5, Mathews in combination with Lavertu discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Additionally Lavertu in the same field of endeavor teaches values of the weights are determined through machine learning ([0059]; “In one embodiment, the system (such as one or more controllers, a computer, and/or the like described herein) may have a local data collection system deployed that may use machine learning to enable derivation-based learning outcomes.”) to maximize a SoC of the battery ([0017]; “Furthermore, the computer 32 is programmed to generate the trip plan based on an objective function that includes factors of interest such as… state of charge of the bank of batteries”) of the transport vehicle while minimizing transport time of the transport vehicle. ([0024]; “It is also possible to setup, for example, a goal to minimize the total travel time without constraints on total emissions or fuel use where such relaxation of constraints would be permitted or required for the mission”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathews with Lavertu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews and Lavertu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (train pathing determination) and it would have been beneficial as utilizing machine learning to determine the weights of the individual variables will produce more efficient routes for the vehicles.
Regarding claim 6, Mathews discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Lavertu in the same field of endeavor teaches training data for learning the cost function includes weight values input by an operator when operating a line. ([0060]; “The neural network can be trained to generate an output based on these inputs, with the output representing an action or sequence of actions that the vehicle group should take to accomplish the trip plan.”
Note: One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that utilizing an operating to determine a baseline weight value is standard practice as the operator would be capable of determining a weight value that would be similar to the ideal weight values.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathews with Lavertu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews and Lavertu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (train pathing determination) and it would have been beneficial as training the machine learning algorithm is essential to generate optimal results.
Regarding claim 7, Mathews discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Lavertu in the same field of endeavor teaches training data for learning the cost function includes weight values randomly changed through simulation. ([0060]; “In one embodiment, the neural network has a set of parameters representing weights of its node connections. A number of copies of this network are generated and then different adjustments to the parameters are made, and simulations are done.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathews with Lavertu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews and Lavertu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (train pathing determination) and it would have been beneficial as training the machine learning algorithm is essential to generate optimal results.
Claim 11 recites an apparatus used to perform the methods of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected in view of Mathews and Lavertu for the same reasoning.
Claim 12 recites an apparatus used to perform the methods of claim 4. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected in view of Mathews and Lavertu for the same reasoning.
Claim 13 recites an apparatus used to perform the methods of claim 5. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected in view of Mathews and Lavertu for the same reasoning.
Claim 14 recites an apparatus used to perform the methods of claim 6 or 7. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected in view of Mathews and Lavertu for the same reasoning.
Claim 20 is a duplicate claim of claim 14. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected in view of Mathews and Lavertu for the same reasoning.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Mathews as evidenced by Yoon (US 20230328946 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Mathews discloses a transport system comprising:
a rail including powered sections where power lines for supplying power are installed and non-powered sections where the power lines are not installed ([0074]; “Optionally, the one or more processors may determine the amount of available power based at least in part on an amount of regenerative energy that the vehicle system is estimated to capture during braking on the planned trip or to receive from a catenary line or third rail.”);
a plurality of transport vehicles moving along the rail and including batteries ([0016]; “The vehicle system may include several vehicles 104, 106 that travel on a route 108.”), which store power supplied through the power lines ([0012]; “Suitable offboard power sources, such as catenary lines”); and
control system (OCS) controlling the transport vehicles ([0014]; “FIG. 1 illustrates a control system 100 for changing a planned trip and controlling movement of a vehicle system 101 on the planned trip according to an embodiment.”)
Although Mathews discloses a control system to control transport vehicles along rails as disclosed above, Mathews does not a specifically disclose a system for overhead hoist transport (OHT). However Yoon discloses ([0033]; “The transfer vehicle 20 moves along the rail 40 and transfers a container where the substrate is accommodated. The transfer vehicle 20 may be, for example, an overhead hoist transport (OHT), but the present disclosure is not limited thereto.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathews with Yoon. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews and Yoon cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (transport vehicle control) and it would have been beneficial to apply the methods disclosed by Mathews to overhead hoist transport vehicles as those disclosed by Yoon.
Regarding claim 16, Mathews in combination with Yoon discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Additionally Mathews discloses the cost function further includes distances ([0029]; “The trip information may include a starting location and an ending location, a scheduled departure time, a scheduled arrival time, a designated period of time in which to complete the trip after starting the trip, a distance to complete the planned trip along the one or more routes, and/or the like.”) and congestion levels between the waypoints as input variables. ([0040]; “While other embodiments may account for, as an example, an unscheduled extended idle period as may be caused by a traffic jam (naturally a full stop can shut off the engine, but a slowly moving group may require the continuous use of energy), the embodiment contemplated here accounts for changes in the load and/or weather.”)
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Mathews as evidenced by Yoon, and as further evidenced by Lavertu.
Regarding claim 17, Mathews in combination with Yoon discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Additionally Mathews discloses costs of distance ([0029]; “The trip information may include… a distance to complete the planned trip along the one or more routes”), congestion ([0030]; “The route information may include geographic and/or geological information about the routes, such as… traffic patterns”) and charging/discharging amounts. ([0037]; “The controller may account for refueling and/or recharging opportunities during the power and energy budget analysis.”)
Although Mathews discloses the factors required for the cost calculations, Mathews does not disclose the use of weights variables. However, Lavertu does disclose weighed variables ([0023]; “The setup involves selection of a quantitative objective function, or a weighted sum (integral) of model variables that correspond to travel time, rate of fuel consumption, maximum power settings, speed limits, emissions generation, plus a term to penalize excessive throttle variation or jockeying, as examples.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathews with Yoon and Lavertu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews, Yoon, and Lavertu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle pathing control) and it would have been beneficial to use the weighted sum taught by Lavertu as certain variables impact the determination for routes more than others.
Regarding claim 18, Mathews in combination with Yoon discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Additionally Lavertu discloses values of the weights are determined through machine learning ([0059]; “In one embodiment, the system (such as one or more controllers, a computer, and/or the like described herein) may have a local data collection system deployed that may use machine learning to enable derivation-based learning outcomes.”) to maintain a State of Charge (SoC) of the battery of the transport vehicle at a target level. ([0017]; “Furthermore, the computer 32 is programmed to generate the trip plan based on an objective function that includes factors of interest such as… state of charge of the bank of batteries”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathews with Yoon and Lavertu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews, Yoon, and Lavertu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle pathing control) and it would have been beneficial as utilizing machine learning to determine the weights of the individual variables will produce more efficient routes for the vehicles..
Regarding claim 19, Mathews in combination with Yoon discloses all the limitations of claim 15. Additionally Lavertu discloses values of the weights are determined through machine learning ([0059]; “In one embodiment, the system (such as one or more controllers, a computer, and/or the like described herein) may have a local data collection system deployed that may use machine learning to enable derivation-based learning outcomes.”) to maximize a SoC of the battery ([0017]; “Furthermore, the computer 32 is programmed to generate the trip plan based on an objective function that includes factors of interest such as… state of charge of the bank of batteries”) of the transport vehicle while minimizing transport time of the transport vehicle. ([0024]; “It is also possible to setup, for example, a goal to minimize the total travel time without constraints on total emissions or fuel use where such relaxation of constraints would be permitted or required for the mission”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mathews with Yoon and Lavertu. This modification would have been obvious because both Mathews, Yoon, and Lavertu cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle pathing control) and it would have been beneficial as utilizing machine learning to determine the weights of the individual variables will produce more efficient routes for the vehicles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668