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 .
1. Claims 48-56 are presented for examination and claims 1-47 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
2.1 Claims 48-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 48 recites determining, by the power distributor, a start time and a stop time that will cause appliance load managers of the residential customers to cycle on and off air-conditioners of residential customers, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, under human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), determining covers human activity, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II; or automated processes that merely collect, analyze, and manipulate data using common business or mathematical practices are abstract ideas, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I; Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (2016), In addition, using generic computer components (power distributor and appliance load manager) to execute a manual human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), practice more efficiently or automatically, it remains an unpatentable abstract idea, see2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim
only recites one additional element- using generic computer components (power distributor and appliance load manager) to transmit and display the optimal start/stop time, is merely a post-solution step of transmitting data and displaying information is an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the limitation of receiving /transmitting and displaying data amounts to no more than insignificant pre-activity of receiving data. Further, the “transmitting” step simply appends well-understood and conventional activity of receiving/transmiting data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i): “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL! Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”. In addition, reducing peak demand by turning units on and off—without detailing the specific technological mechanism fails to a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements 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, the additional element of using a processor to perform determining, transmitting and displaying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, the limitation of receiving /transmitting and displaying data amounts to no more than insignificant pre-activity of receiving data. Further, the “transmitting” step simply appends well-understood and conventional activity of receiving/transmitting data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i): “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL! Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)”. Furthermore, merely describes what the business or mathematical goal is (saving energy by timing cycles on and off) rather than a specific technical solution for how to improve the functioning of the computer or network itself is lack of invention concept. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of claim 48 otherwise styled as a method or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. Therefore, claims 57 and 65 are rejected for the same rational that applied to claim 48 Thus, the independent of claims 48, 57 and 65 are not patentable eligible.
As the dependent claims 49-56, 58-64 and 66-67, are further limit the abstract idea of an analysis that can be performed mentally or certain methods of human activity that were already rejected in claims 1, 11 and 19, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding claims 49, 58 and 66, Regarding claim 49, 58 and 65, recite determining… from a forecast of weather, is group of "mental processes", abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 50-51, recite send a text and an email to the residential customers, which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 52, 59 and 63, recite rejects the recommended cycling, certain methods of human activity and insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 53, 60 and 67, recite display an indication … which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 54 and 62, recite transmitted …and display, which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 55, 61 and 64, recite receiving…, acceptance, which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 56, recite a penalty when the residential customer elects to not comply, which is “organizing human activity" MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II; and generating and send data … which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, the claims are an abstract idea.
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.
3. 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.
3.1 Claim(s) 48-49, 54, 57, 58, 62, 65 and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (An Optimum Start/Stop Control Algorithm for Heating and Cooling Systems in Buildings) in view of MacLellan (US 20100060079 A1).
Regarding Claim 48, 57 and 65, Park discloses a method executed by a power distributor to reduce peak demand of residential customers (Page 1, par. 1, when a building is occupied intermittently, energy savings can be realized by minimizing the time the heating or cooling system is operated), the method comprising:
determining (Fig. 6, determine the start/end and on /off cycle), by the power distributor, a start time and a stop time (Page 1, par. 1, Page 11, optimum control algorithm to start/stop the air conditioner) that will cause appliance load managers of the residential customers (Building control algorithms Page. 1, Par. 1) to cycle on and off air-conditioners of residential customers (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 6, on and off cycle control operation. Page 23 par. 2, Page 24, the optimum start/stop control algorithm on an actual building control computer requires that the main program).
Park fails to disclose transmitting, from the power distributor and to the appliance load managers of the residential customers, the start time and the stop time to the appliance load managers that display the start time and the stop time to the residential customers and that cause the appliance load managers to reduce the peak demand by cycling on and off the air conditioners between the start time and the stope time determined by the power distributor.
However, MacLellan discloses transmitting (Fig. 1, [0043], provides data communication through one or more networks to other data devices), from the power distributor and to the appliance load managers (Abstract, managing power consumption) of the residential customers, the start time and the stop time to the appliance load managers that display (Fig. 5, display 112) the start time and the stop time to the residential customers ([0030], the scheduled cycles at that point-in-time or air conditioner run at 9:00 o'clock, and from the cycle information recorded in the repository it is known that the cycle will last for 60 minutes with a peak consumption beginning after 30 minutes) and that cause the appliance load managers (Abstract, [0018], managing electricity consumption in a residence) to reduce the peak demand (Abstract, [0006], an upper limit of power consumption is not exceeded by the collective power consumption) by cycling on and off ([0006], [0022], scheduled appliance cycles in the time slot, scheduled to run at 9:00 o'clock, and from the cycle information recorded in the repository it is known that the cycle will last for 60 minutes with a peak consumption beginning after 30 minutes) the air conditioners ([0008], electrical appliances may include washing machine, dishwasher, oven, air conditioner) between the start time and the stope time ([0022], schedule appliance cycles for multiple electrical appliances) determined by the power distributor ([0008], [0031], determining the most appropriate time for operating each appliance in a residence, and power consumption level by all appliance cycles in the current time slot is determined).
Park and MacLellan are analogous art. They relate to power management system. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify managing power consumption, taught by MacLellan, incorporated with energy management and control systems; taught by Park, in order to provide a user interface for receiving from a user an appliance selection and preferred operation time slot for the selected appliance, and automatically rescheduling appliance cycles as a function of power consumption by appliance cycles scheduled in that time slot, such that an upper limit of power consumption is not exceeded by the collective power consumption for scheduled appliance cycles in the time slot. If an appliance cycle is imposed for a time slot, then other appliance cycles in that time slot are rescheduled according to predefined schedule constraints and prioritization of appliance cycles.
Regarding claims 49, 58 and 66, Park discloses determining, by the power distributor and from a forecast of weather, the start time and the stop time that the power distributor instructs the air conditioners of the residential customers to cycle on and cycle off (Page 2 par. 1, Page 4, par. 1-2, the outdoor environmental conditions remain constant during the unoccupied period, an ideal situation is illustrated as shown in figure 1. Room air temperature, TRA, responds immediately to the starting or stopping of the heating equipment).
Regarding claims 54 and 62, MacLellan discloses transmitted by the power distributor, cause the appliance load managers ([0018], managing and optimizing electrical consumption) to automatically cycle the air conditioners on and off between the start time and the stop time and display a light to notify the residential customers ([0007], [0008], Automatically scheduling a time slot for an operation cycle of a selected appliance may further include automatically scheduling a time slot for an operation cycle of a selected appliance as a function of: power consumption by appliance cycles scheduled in that time slot, and historical power consumption patterns of said appliances, such that an upper limit of power consumption is not exceeded by the collective power consumption for scheduled appliance cycles in the time slot).
3.2 Claim(s) 50 and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (An Optimum Start/Stop Control Algorithm for Heating and Cooling Systems in Buildings) in view of MacLellan (US 20100060079 A1) further in view of Shankar et al. (US 8095233 B1).
Regarding claims 50-51, the combination of Park and MacLellan disclose the limitation of claims 47, 57 and 65, but fails to disclose the limitation of claims. However, Shankar discloses the limitation of claims 50-51 as follows:
Regarding claim 50, Shankar discloses instructions transmitted by the power distributor cause the appliance load managers to send a text message to the residential customers (Abstract, column 11, lines 5-10, column 18, lines 20-26,column 5, lines 45-50, Cellular Communications Network 70 for transmitting and receiving text messages, which allows the MCC, in certain embodiments, to send information to an end consumer that can be displayed on a cellular phone 40, Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) 30, or other SMS-enabled end communications device).
Regarding claim 51, Shankar discloses instructions transmitted by the power distributor cause the appliance load managers to send an email to the residential customers (column 11, lines 5-10, column 18, lines 20-26, an Email Client 260 is used by the MCC 200 to generate an email message in accordance with SMTP for transmission to other system components. For example, email messages may be used to notify users of events that require the use's attention or action).
Shankar, Park and MacLellan are analogous art. They relate to power management system. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify managing power consumption, taught by Shankar incorporated with teaching of MacLellan and Park, as stated above, in order to provider of the energy commodity via one or more local and remote user interfaces to managing the consumption of an energy commodity within premises. More specifically, the invention relates to direct monitoring and control of energy-consuming devices via centralized programmed control as directed by a consumer.
3.3 Claim(s) 52-53, 55-56, 59-61, 63-64 and 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (An Optimum Start/Stop Control Algorithm for Heating and Cooling Systems in Buildings) in view of MacLellan (US 20100060079 A1) further in view of Nierlich (US 2003/0158632 A1).
Regarding claims 52-53, 55-56, 59-61, 63-64 and 67, the combination of Park and MacLellan disclose the limitation of claims 47, 57 and 65, but fails to disclose the limitation of claims 52-53, 55-56, 59-60,61, 63-64 and 67. However, Shankar discloses the limitation of claims 52-53, 55-56, 59-60,61, 63-64 and 67 as follows:
Regarding claims 52, 59 and 63, Nierlich discloses receiving, at the power distributor and from one of the appliance load managers, an indication that one of the residential customers rejects cycling of an air conditioner caused by the power distributor ([Fig.5, [0073], An acceptance or rejection is then entered into the CCC 26 database, which can be accessed through the customer or end-user interface 6 or the ESP interface 8 by selecting the curtailment history. Preferably, end-user performance can be tracked by selecting any one of a user selectable performance tables or graphs that illustrate the end-user's actual demand 94. Depending on the callback schedule, curtailment can be reviewed on a programmed delay or in real-time); and the appliance load manager displays an option to reject the cycling of the air conditioner caused by the power distributor (Fig. 17, [0097], a display user selectable option 206).
Regarding claims 53, 60 and 67, Nierlich discloses instructions transmitted by the power distributor ([0034], [0036], Energy Service Providers 12) cause the appliance load managers (a management device 10) to display an indication that indicates to the residential customers that the power distributor is causing the air conditioners to cycle on and off between the start time and the stop time the to reduce the peak demand per the instructions received from the power distributor ([0007], [0035], The goal of demand side bidding is to reduce the demand for energy through efficient load utilization and efficient energy distribution. Communicating between an Energy1st-2000 ("E1-2000") 4, a customer or end-user interface 6, an Energy Service Provider ("ESP") interface 8, and a management device 10 and the scheduled callback intervals establish a standard schedule of connections between the E1-2000 4 and the management device 10).
Regarding claims 55, 61 and 64, Nierlich discloses receiving, at the power distributor and from the appliance load managers, acceptance by the residential customers allowing the power distributor to cycle on and cycle off the air conditioners ([0068] After the curtailment parameters are selected, the ESP can elect a real curtailment 74, a test curtailment 76, or a customer warning notification mode 78. When the ESP elects a real curtailment 74, E1-2000 alarm(s) are activated and pager, facsimile, and e-mail messages ("unified messages") are sent to the end-user'(s) designated contact(s). If the end-user elected automatic control, the E1-2000 4 initiates load reductions through its relay ("digital") and analog voltage channels).
Regarding claim 56, Nierlich discloses charging, by the power distributor, a residential customers a penalty when the residential customer elects to not comply with cycling of an air conditioner between the start time and the stop time ([0051], Watermark violations occur when energy usage is (1) greater than ("Hi") a user-defined limit, or (2) less than ("LO") a user-defined limit, or (3) equal to ("EQ") a user-defined limit, or (4) less than a user-defined limit BUT not equal to zero ("LONZ"). Preferably, the E1-2000 4 compares meter data or peripheral data to its user designated Watermarks each time a meter, accumulator device, or any other device is polled, however, in alternative embodiments the E1-2000 can be programmed to continuously monitor the status of one or more devices and compare the status of these devices with their prescribed Watermarks to detect Watermark violations in real-time).
Nierlich, Park and MacLellan are analogous art. They relate to power management system. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify monitor and control energy distribution manage energy distribution, taught by Nierlich, incorporated with teaching of MacLellan and Park, as stated above, in order to monitor energy use and energy supplies using either a public or a private distributed network to initiate curtailment requests and disconnect dispensable loads from energy supplies or activate end-user generators.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 48-67 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,625,059. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both Parent US Parent 11,625,059 and instant US Application 18/801,961 have a similar limitation.
Claims 48-67 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,289,909. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both Parent US Parent 11,289,909 and instant US Application 18/801,961 have a similar limitation.
Claims 48-67 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,851. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both Parent US Parent 12,066,851 and instant US Application 18/801,961 have a similar limitation. For example, See the table below
Instant US Application 18/801,961
Parent US Parent 12,066,851
48. (new) A method executed by a power distributor to reduce peak demand of residential customers, the method comprising:
determining, by the power distributor, a start time and a stop time that will cause appliance load managers of the residential customers to cycle on and off air-conditioners of residential customers; and
transmitting, from the power distributor and to the appliance load managers of the residential customers, the start time and the stop time to the appliance load managers that display the start time and the stop time to the residential customers and that cause the appliance load managers to reduce the peak demand by cycling on and off the air conditioners between the start time and the stope time determined by the power distributor.
Claims 57 and 65 similar limitations
1. A method comprising:
receiving, from a power distributor and over a wireless network at an appliance load manager of a residential customer, a start time and a stop time to cycle on and cycle off an air conditioner of the residential customer;
simultaneously displaying, on a display of the appliance load manager and before the start time occurs, both the start time and the stop time received from the power distributor when the appliance load manager will cycle on and cycle off the air conditioner of the residential customer; and
reducing peak demand for the power distributor by cycling on and cycling off, by the appliance load manager, the air conditioner between the start time and the stop time.
Claims 10 and 17 similar limitations
Dependent claims 49-56, 58-64 and 66-67
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20
Citation Pertinent prior art
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horst et al. (US 20030233201 A1) discloses increase the energy and cost efficiency of an energy supply network by providing a mechanism to reduce the peak level of energy demand. A controller in logical communication with energy consuming appliances responds to request for energy from energy.
Yellepeddy et al. (US 20040128266 A1) discloses optimizing energy costs in a home and to a method for implementing the most economical energy usage through the determination of the best time to use energy and the best source of that energy.
Miller (US 20060276938 A1) discloses energy management, and more particularly, to various systems and methods for optimizing the control of energy supply and demand in residences and businesses.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kidest Worku, whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm, ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad, can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217 - 9197. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIDEST WORKU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights