DETAILED ACTION
This is the first Office action drafted on the merits of the subject application. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-19 are rejected as cited below.
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 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
microcontroller unit (claim 1)
inertial navigation system unit (claims 7, 19)
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. However, the specification does not define the corresponding structure of either claim limitation listed above. Please refer to the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/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 it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 references a “microcontroller unit … that is capable of …”, however, there is no corresponding structure recited in the disclosure detailing a “unit” for controlling. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret “a microcontroller unit” to be a generic processor.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, and not fixing the deficiencies stated above.
Claims 7 and 19 reference an “inertial navigation system unit … capable of …”, however, there is no corresponding structure recited in the disclosure detailing a “unit” for inertial navigation. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret an “inertial navigation system unit” as any generic inertial sensor.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Limitation “microcontroller unit” (claim 1) and limitation “inertial navigation system unit” (claims 7 and 19) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions, respectively, in the claims. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 and not fixing the deficiencies
stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6, and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gharsalli et al. (US Pat. 6,062,317; hereafter Gharsalli), in view of Anderson et al. (US Pub. 2023/0313490 A1; hereafter Anderson).
Both Gharsalli and Anderson were cited in the IDS dated 02/04/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Gharsalli teaches:
An autonomous vehicle steering system using a blade tool attachment, comprising:
a bulldozer vehicle with a chassis, tracks (earthworking machine 102. FIG. 1 shows a chassis and tracks.), a blade tool attachment on a front of the chassis (implement 104), hydraulic arms between the chassis and the blade tool attachment (two tilt cylinders 108), one or more first controls for manipulating movement of the tracks (heading controller 204), and one or more second controls for manipulating the blade tool attachment via the hydraulic arms (tilt controller 206);
a control system (control system 202) on the bulldozer vehicle that is configured to be in communication with the microcontroller unit and to perform automated operations including:
determining, based at least in part on data readings from one or more sensors on the bulldozer vehicle and while the bulldozer vehicle is in motion, an actual direction of the motion of the bulldozer vehicle (At least col 6, line 24: “In a second control block 504, the actual heading of the machine 102 is determined preferably the actual heading is determined using a machine position determining system, such as GPS.”);
determining that the actual direction of the motion of the bulldozer vehicle differs from a target direction of the motion of the bulldozer vehicle by an amount that exceeds a defined threshold (At least col 6, line 41: “In a fourth control block 508, the actual heading of the machine 102 is compared to the desired heading, and any deviations are determined. A deviation from the desired heading is defined as when the machine 102 begins to deviate from the previously determined straight line path.”); and
initiating, in response to the determining that the actual direction of the motion of the bulldozer vehicle differs from the target direction by the amount that exceeds the defined threshold, autonomous operations of the bulldozer vehicle (At least col 6, line 22: “… may be determined by an operator on board the machine 102, may be determined by remote control, or may be determined autonomously using means known in the art.”) to change the actual direction of the motion of the bulldozer vehicle toward the target direction while the bulldozer vehicle remains in motion (At least col 6, line 56: “the tilt angle of the implement 104 is controlled to enable the machine 102 to be steered back onto the desired straight line path. Preferably, the tilt controller 206 provides the control needed for the lift and tilt cylinders 106,108 to responsively control the tilt angle of the implement 104.”), including using at least one of the second controls to lower one of a left side or a right side of the blade tool attachment relative to an other of the left side or the right side, wherein the lowered one left side or right side is in contact with an underlying surface on which the bulldozer vehicle is moving (At least col 7, line 29: “this compensation is achieved by lowering the right end of the implement 104 into the earth …” and at least col 5, line 26: “The tilt system 312 includes the hydraulics and electro-hydraulics necessary to control movement of the earthworking implement 104. More specifically, the tilt system 312 is adapted to control the operation of the implement lift cylinders 106 and the implement tilt cylinders 108, which in turn control the movement of the implement 104.”), and wherein lowering of the one of the left side or the right side includes selecting the one of the left side or the right side closer to the target direction (At least col 7, line 42: “the left end of the implement 104 would likely need to be tilted into the earth to re-compensate for the initial compensation at position C, and shift the heading of the machine 102 to the left …”).
Gharsalli does not teach:
a microcontroller unit on the bulldozer vehicle that is capable of effecting movement of the first and second controls via piston displacement mechanisms.
However, Anderson, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
a microcontroller unit on the bulldozer vehicle that is capable of effecting movement of the first and second controls via piston displacement mechanisms (At least ¶ [0016] “a controller such as the ECM 102”);
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 Gharsalli with Anderson. This modification would have been obvious as both Gharsalli and Anderson contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (heavy machinery control) and Gharsalli col 1, line 64 notes that “…would be a desirable addition toward an efficient autonomous or semi-autonomous earthworking machine...”. Introducing the controller as described by Anderson may help increase efficiency of the Gharsalli system. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a dedicated microcontroller capable of effecting movement of hydraulic cylinders would be much more efficient than manual operation. The algorithms used by controllers can dedicate vast amounts of computing power to ensuring that the hydraulic cylinders are operated as efficiently as possible. A user of the Gharsalli system may notice that an increase in efficiency could lead to increased profitability as more work is performed in less time.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Gharsalli and Anderson teaches the autonomous vehicle steering system of claim 1. Gharsalli further teaches wherein the data readings from the one or more sensors on the bulldozer vehicle are based at least in part on compass data and include an actual geographical compass direction, wherein the target direction is a target geographical compass direction (At least col 6, line 24: “In a second control block 504, the actual heading of the machine 102 is determined preferably the actual heading is determined using a machine position determining system, such as GPS.” A heading is analogous to a compass direction.), wherein the determining that the actual direction of the motion of the bulldozer vehicle differs from the target direction by the amount that exceeds the defined threshold includes determining an amount of difference between the actual geographical compass direction and the target geographical direction (At least col 4, line 34: “An error signal between the desired and actual headings is delivered to a filter 302, which is adapted to filter out undesirable noise elements from the actual heading signal. For example, transients and noise from the machine position determining system 208 may need to be filtered to maintain an accurate error signal.”), and wherein the lowering of the one of the left side or the right side of the blade tool attachment includes performing an amount of the lowering based at least in part on the amount of difference (At least col 6, line 51: “the heading controller 204 determines a desired implement tilt angle which would correct the steering of the machine 102 to compensate for any deviations from the desired heading.” and at least col 7, line 31: “Preferably, this compensation is achieved by lowering the right end of the implement 104 into the earth, preferably by no more than five degrees of blade tilt, to cause the machine 102 to pivot slightly about the lowered portion of the implement 104, and change direction of travel to the right.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Gharsalli and Anderson teaches the autonomous vehicle steering system of claim 1. Gharsalli further teaches wherein the data readings from the one or more sensors on the bulldozer vehicle are based at least in part on GPS (global positioning system) data (At least col 6, line 24: “In a second control block 504, the actual heading of the machine 102 is determined preferably the actual heading is determined using a machine position determining system, such as GPS.”), wherein the determining that the actual direction of the motion of the bulldozer vehicle differs from the target direction by the amount that exceeds the defined threshold includes determining an amount of difference between the actual direction and the target direction of the motion of the bulldozer vehicle (At least col 4, line 34: “An error signal between the desired and actual headings is delivered to a filter 302, which is adapted to filter out undesirable noise elements from the actual heading signal. For example, transients and noise from the machine position determining system 208 may need to be filtered to maintain an accurate error signal.”), and wherein the lowering of the one of the left side or the right side of the blade tool attachment includes performing an amount of the lowering based at least in part on the amount of difference (At least col 6, line 51: “the heading controller 204 determines a desired implement tilt angle which would correct the steering of the machine 102 to compensate for any deviations from the desired heading.” and at least col 7, line 31: “Preferably, this compensation is achieved by lowering the right end of the implement 104 into the earth, preferably by no more than five degrees of blade tilt, to cause the machine 102 to pivot slightly about the lowered portion of the implement 104, and change direction of travel to the right.” The word “compensation” implies that the lowering amount was determined with respect to the amount of difference between the actual and desired headings.).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gharsalli and Anderson teaches the autonomous vehicle steering system of claim 1. Gharsalli further teaches wherein the determining that the actual direction of the motion of the bulldozer vehicle differs from the target direction by the amount that exceeds the defined threshold includes determining that the actual direction is part of an actual travel path of the bulldozer vehicle that differs from a planned travel path of the bulldozer vehicle (At least col 2, line 19: “determining a straight line path for the machine as a function of the machine position information, determining a deviation of an actual heading of the machine from a desired heading,”), while Anderson further teaches wherein one of the actual and planned travel paths is a straight path and an other of the actual and planned travel paths is a curved path (At least ¶ [0034] “The machine may automatically steer in a straight line mode (i.e., following a straight line (or a line of infinite radius of curvature)) or in a grade line following mode …”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gharsalli and Anderson teaches the autonomous vehicle steering system of claim 1. Gharsalli further teaches wherein the automated operations further include determining an amount of the lowering of the one of the left side or the right side using at least one of reinforcement learning with a reward function corresponding to a fastest reduction of a difference between the target direction and further actual direction of the bulldozer vehicle after the lowering, or of imitation learning to learn a steering policy from prior human operator steering activities, or of a defined exponential function that increases the amount of the lowering relative to an amount of a difference between the target and actual directions of the motion of the bulldozer vehicle (At least col 2, line 22: “determining a desired tilt angle of the implement as a function of the deviation …”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Gharsalli and Anderson teaches the autonomous vehicle steering system of claim 1. Gharsalli further teaches wherein the autonomous operations of the bulldozer vehicle to change the actual direction of the motion of the bulldozer vehicle toward the target direction while the bulldozer vehicle remains in motion includes repeatedly lowering the one of the left side or the right side of the blade tool attachment by increasing amounts (At least col 7, line 36: “It is noted that, at position D, the machine 102 is back on the desired straight line path 702 at a heading which will cause the machine 102 to continue along the straight line path 702 until some force causes the machine 102 once again to deviate from the desired heading. The transition from position C to position D would likely require additional blade tilt commands to incrementally cause the machine 102 to move back to the desired heading. For example, the left end of the implement 104 would likely need to be tilted into the earth to re-compensate for the initial compensation at position C, and shift the heading of the machine 102 to the left for a net result that the machine 102 is eventually at the desired heading.”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Gharsalli and Anderson teaches the autonomous vehicle steering system of claim 1. Anderson further teaches wherein the control system is configured to implement at least some automated operations of an earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system by executing software instructions of the earth-moving vehicle autonomous operations control system (At least ¶ [0024] “The memory or secondary storage device associated with ECM 102 may store data and/or software routines that may assist ECM 102 in performing its functions …”), and wherein the determining of the actual direction of the motion of the bulldozer vehicle and the determining that the actual direction differs from the target direction by the amount that exceeds the defined threshold and the initiating of the autonomous operations are performed autonomously without receiving human input and without receiving external signals other than GPS signals and real-time kinematic (RTK) correction signals (At least ¶ [0019] “Autonomous operation may be selectively implemented by the user of the machine 101 or may be automatically entered (e.g., based on a location of the machine with respect to a feature of a work site as described in greater detail herein).”).
Claim 9 recites a method performed by the system in claim 1, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 10 recites a method performed by the system in claim 1, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 11 recites a method performed by the system in claim 8, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 12 recites a method performed by the system in claim 2, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 13 recites a method performed by the system in claim 3, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 14 recites a method performed by the system in claim 4, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gharsalli and Anderson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9. Gharsalli further teaches wherein one of the actual and target travel paths is a first straight path in a first direction and an other of the actual and target travel paths is a second straight path in a second direction (See FIG. 7, the path between points A and D is a straight line path. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method described in Gharsalli could be repeated for a second straight path in a second direction.).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Gharsalli and Anderson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9. Anderson further teaches wherein one of the actual and target travel paths is a first curved path with a first degree of curvature and an other of the actual and target travel paths is a second curved path with a second degree of curvature (At least ¶ [0034] “The machine may automatically steer in a straight line mode (i.e., following a straight line (or a line of infinite radius of curvature)) or in a grade line following mode …”. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method described in Anderson could be repeated for a second curved path with a second degree of curvature.).
Claim 17 recites a method performed by the system in claim 5, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 18 recites a method performed by the system in claim 6, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gharsalli, in view of Anderson, in further view of Banninga et al. (US Pub. 2025/0137227 A1; hereafter Banninga).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Gharsalli and Anderson teaches the autonomous vehicle steering system of claim 1. Gharsalli further teaches:
one or more GPS antennas mounted at one or more positions on the chassis and capable of receiving GPS signals for use in determining GPS coordinates of at least some of the chassis (the machine position determining system 208);
one or more inertial navigation system units mounted at one or more positions on the chassis and capable of determining a current direction of the bulldozer vehicle (machine roll angle sensor 210); and
one or more first position sensors mounted on the hydraulic arms and configured to detect one or more first angles between the chassis and the hydraulic arms (left and right lift cylinder position sensors 212,214), and one or more second position sensors mounted on the blade tool attachment and configured to detect one or more second angles between the blade tool attachment and at least one of the hydraulic arms (left and right tilt cylinder position sensors 216,218).
The combination of Gharsalli and Anderson does not teach:
a LiDAR component that is mounted on the bulldozer vehicle and configured to obtain LiDAR data indicating a plurality of three-dimensional (“3D”) points on surfaces of at least some of a job site on which the bulldozer vehicle is located.
However, Banninga, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
a LiDAR component that is mounted on the bulldozer vehicle and configured to obtain LiDAR data indicating a plurality of three-dimensional (“3D”) points on surfaces of at least some of a job site on which the bulldozer vehicle is located (At least ¶ [0052] “ground image sensor 148 includes one or more of a two dimensional camera, a radar device, and a laser scanning device, and a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) …”).
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 the combination of Gharsalli and Anderson with Banninga. This modification would have been obvious as both the Gharsalli/Anderson combination and Banninga contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (heavy machinery control) and Gharsalli col 1, line 64 notes that “…would be a desirable addition toward an efficient autonomous or semi-autonomous earthworking machine...”. Introducing the LiDAR as described by Banninga may help increase efficiency of the Gharsalli system. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a LiDAR capable of mapping a work surface/environment may spot surface anomalies invisible to the human eye. The LiDAR map may be able to feed data to the Gharsalli system and allow for more efficient use of the blade (e.g. surface penetration is exact minimum to steer vehicle). A user of the Gharsalli system may notice that an decreased blade penetration could yield lower fuel costs and thus increase profits.
Claim 19 recites a method performed by the system in claim 7, thus is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J Lee can be reached at (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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668