DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is in response to application with case number 18/868,419 filed on 11/22/2024, in which claims 11-21 are presented for examination.
Priority
3. 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. DE102022113285.4, filed on 05/25/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 11/22/2024 has/have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
5. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure (see MPEP §2163.06). Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein it is determined there is a higher probability of uphill sections than downhill sections and the target state of charge is specified as being more than 50 to 60% of the battery capacity” should read “wherein when it is determined there is a higher probability of uphill sections than downhill sections, the target state of charge is specified as being more than 50 to 60% of the battery capacity.”
7. Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein it is determined there is a higher probability of downhill sections than uphill sections and the target state of charge is specified as being less than 50 to 60% of the battery capacity” should read “wherein when it is determined there is a higher probability of downhill sections than uphill sections, the target state of charge is specified as being less than 50 to 60% of the battery capacity.”
8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. Claim 12-15 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.
11. Claim 12 recites the limitation “the target state of charge is specified as being more than 50 to 60%” which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how a number in the range of 50 to 60% is more than the range of 50 to 60% range. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “the target state of charge is specified as being more than 50 or 60%.”
12. Claim(s) 13 rejected by virtue of its/their dependency on claim 12.
13. Claim 14 recites the limitation “the target state of charge is specified as being less than 50 to 60% of the battery capacity” which renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how a number in the range of 50 to 60% is less than the range of 50 to 60% range. For the purpose of prior art rejection, the limitation was interpreted as “the target state of charge is specified as being less than 50 or 60% of the battery capacity.”
14. Claim(s) 15 rejected by virtue of its/their dependency on claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
15. 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.
16. Claim(s) 11-20
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
17. The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
18. Claim(s) 11-21 is/are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
Therefore, claim(s) 11-21 is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
19. 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 follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c).
20. Independent claim(s) 11 include(s) limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Claim 11 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 11 recites:
A method for operating an electric vehicle, the method comprising:
determining a position of the electric vehicle, wherein the electric vehicle has at least one fuel cell system and at least one traction battery having a battery capacity [mental process/step];
determining, from a digital map and based on the determined position of the electric vehicle, elevations in a specified perimeter around the electric vehicle [mental process/step];
determining a probability of occurrence of uphill road sections and downhill road sections based on the determined elevation [mental process/step]s; and
specifying, based on the determined probability of the occurrence of the uphill road sections and the downhill road sections, a target state of charge of the at least one traction battery [mental process/step].
21. The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers steps that could be carried out in the human mind. For example, “determining a position of the electric vehicle, wherein the electric vehicle has at least one fuel cell system and at least one traction battery having a battery capacity,” “determining, from a digital map and based on the determined position of the electric vehicle, elevations in a specified perimeter around the electric vehicle,” “determining a probability of occurrence of uphill road sections and downhill road sections based on the determined elevation,” and “specifying, based on the determined probability of the occurrence of the uphill road sections and the downhill road sections, a target state of charge of the at least one traction battery” step(s) encompass(es) a user, such as the driver of a vehicle, making observation, evaluation or judgement about the state of charge of the battery to ensure the battery has enough charge to arrive at its destination based on the topology of the route, could all be carried out in one’s mind. The same user looking at the data collected, could form a simple judgement and conclude whether the state of charge of the battery is adequate or not and set a target state of charge to ensure the vehicle would arrive at its destination based on the topology of the route. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
22. Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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.”
23. In the present case, there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
24. Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea.
25. Dependent claim(s) 12-20 does/do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 12-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 11.
26. Dependent claim(s) 21 recites further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
27. Therefore, claim(s) 11-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
28. 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.
29. Claim(s) 11-12, and 18
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kokubo et al. (US-20180236883-A1).
In regard to claim 11
, Kokubo discloses a method for operating an electric vehicle, the method comprising (Kokubo, in at least Figs. 1-2, and [0041], discloses Fig. 2 is a flowchart [i.e., a method] illustrating an uphill road predicting process which is performed by the ECU 180. A step-up control process is repeatedly performed while the fuel-cell vehicle 100 [i.e., for operating an electric vehicle] is traveling):
determining a position of the electric vehicle, wherein the electric vehicle has at least one fuel cell system and at least one traction battery having a battery capacity (Kokubo, in at least Fig. 1, and [0018 & 0028], discloses the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is a vehicle that is driven by a drive motor 160 using a fuel cell 110 and a secondary battery 130 as power sources [i.e., wherein the electric vehicle has at least one fuel cell system and at least one traction battery having a battery capacity]. The position information detecting unit 172 detects position information of the fuel-cell vehicle 100 [i.e., determining a position of the electric vehicle]);
determining, from a digital map and based on the determined position of the electric vehicle, elevations in a specified perimeter around the electric vehicle (Kokubo, in at least Fig. 1, [0010 & 0036], discloses the controller is configured to charge the secondary battery such that a state of charge of the secondary battery is equal to or greater than a first lower limit and is equal to or less than a first upper limit when it is predicted that the fuel-cell vehicle is not to travel on an uphill road in a predetermined section based on position information and map information of the fuel-cell vehicle [i.e., in a specified perimeter around the electric vehicle]. The ECU 180 predicts whether the fuel-cell vehicle 100 will travel on an uphill road [i.e., determining elevations] based on the signal which indicates position information and map information [i.e., from a digital map and based on the determined position of the electric vehicle] and which is output from the navigation device 170 when the car navigation device is performing guidance for a route to a destination);
determining a probability of occurrence of uphill road sections and downhill road sections based on the determined elevations (Kokubo, in at least Fig. 3, and [0042], discloses when the uphill road predicting process is started, it is determined whether the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is predicted to travel on an uphill road (Step S100) [i.e., determining a probability of occurrence of uphill road sections and downhill road sections based on the determined elevations]); and
specifying, based on the determined probability of the occurrence of the uphill road sections and the downhill road sections, a target state of charge of the at least one traction battery (Kokubo, in at least Fig. 3, and [0042-0048], discloses when it is determined that the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is predicted not to travel on an uphill road (NO in Step S100), the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 45% to 60% (Step S110) [i.e., specifying, based on the determined probability of the occurrence of the downhill road sections, a target state of charge of the at least one traction battery]. When it is determined that the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is predicted to travel on an uphill road (YES in Step S100), the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 60% to 70% (Step S125) [i.e., specifying, based on the determined probability of the occurrence of the uphill road sections, a target state of charge of the at least one traction battery]).
In regard to claim 12
, Kokubo discloses the method of claim 11, wherein it is determined there is a higher probability of uphill sections than downhill sections and the target state of charge is specified as being more than 50 to 60% of the battery capacity (Kokubo, in at least Figs. 1-3, and [0048], discloses when it is determined that the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is predicted to travel on an uphill road (YES in Step S100) [i.e., wherein it is determined there is a higher probability of uphill sections than downhill sections], the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 60% to 70% (Step S125) [i.e., the target state of charge is specified as being more than 50 to 60% of the battery capacity]. Examiner notes, the range of range of 60% to 70% is more than 50 to 60% of the battery capacity).
In regard to claim 18
, Kokubo discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the specified perimeter has an angle of 360° around the electric vehicle (Kokubo, in at least Fig. 1, and [0056], discloses an uphill road is predicted based on whether an uphill road is included in a circle having a radius of a preset distance from a center which is a position of the fuel-cell vehicle 100 on a map [i.e., wherein the specified perimeter has an angle of 360° around the electric vehicle ]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
30. 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.
31. Claim(s) 13-15, and 17
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubo et al. (US-20180236883-A1).
In regard to claim 13
, Kokubo discloses the method of claim 12, accordingly the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated.
While Kokubo discloses the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 60% to 70% (Step S125) (Kokubo, see at least Figs. 1, 3, and [0048]), Kokubo is silent on wherein the target state of charge is specified as being more than 80% of the battery capacity.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a target state of charge more than 80% of the battery capacity, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that a target state of charge more than 80% of the battery capacity solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other target states of charge.
In regard to claim 14
, Kokubo discloses the method of claim 11, wherein it is determined there is a higher probability of downhill sections (Kokubo, in at least Figs. 1-2, and [0042], discloses when it is determined that the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is predicted not to travel on an uphill road (NO in Step S100) [implies a higher probability of downhill sections than uphill sections, i.e., zero probability of an uphill road], the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 45% to 60% (Step S110) [i.e., the target state of charge is specified as being less than 50 to 60% of the battery capacity]. Examiner notes, the range of 45% to 60% is less than 50 to 60% of the battery capacity).
While Kokubo discloses predicting that the fuel-cell vehicle is not to travel on an uphill road in a predetermined section based on position information and map information of the fuel-cell vehicle (Kokubo, see at least [0006]) Kokubo is silent on comparing probability of downhill sections to uphill sections. Examiner asserts that predicting that the fuel-cell vehicle is not to travel on an uphill road means the probability of the vehicle travelling downhill or on a flat surface is higher that probability of travelling uphill. That is, Kokubo teaches using uphill and downhill probability for determining the state-of-charge of the battery.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the probability of travelling downhill for specifying the state-of-charge of the battery, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that a higher probability of downhill sections than uphill sections solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other sets of probabilities.
In regard to claim 15
, Kokubo discloses the method of claim 14, accordingly the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated.
While Kokubo discloses the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 45% to 60% (Step S110) (Kokubo, see at least Figs. 1, 3, and [0042]), Kokubo is silent on wherein the target state of charge is specified as being less than 30% of the battery capacity.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a target state of charge less than 30% of the battery capacity, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that a target state of charge less than 30% of the battery capacity solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other target states of charge.
In regard to claim 17
, Kokubo discloses the method of claim 11, accordingly the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
While Kokubo discloses the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 45% to 60%, when it is predicted that the fuel-cell vehicle 100 will not travel on an uphill road within a range of less than 10 km on a guided route from a current location of the fuel-cell vehicle 100 to a destination (Kokubo, see at least Fig. 1, and [0030]), Kokubo is silent on wherein the specified perimeter has a radius of 50 km around the electric vehicle.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to specify a perimeter having a radius of 50 km, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that a specified perimeter with a radius of 50 km around solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other target states of charge.
32. Claim(s) 16
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubo et al. (US-20180236883-A1) in view of Hancock et al. (US-20170225742-A1).
In regard to claim 16
, Kokubo discloses the method of claim 11, accordingly the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
Kokubo is silent on wherein it is determined there is a similar probability of uphill sections and downhill sections and the target state of charge is specified in a range of 50 to 60% of the battery capacity.
However, Hancock teaches wherein it is determined there is a similar probability of uphill sections and downhill sections (Hancock, in at least [0104], teaches if a route is expected to be generally flat [implies similar probability of uphill sections and downhill sections, i.e., the probability of uphill and downhill sections are both zero], a “hill climbing” mode is disabled, or if a route is purely uphill, a “battery charging” mode that utilizes power generated by the rider to charge a battery is disabled. Examiner asserts when a vehicle is to travel on a flat section of a road, the probabilities of the uphill and downhill sections are 0. That is, determining there is a similar probability of uphill sections and downhill sections).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kokubo in view of Hancock with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems – and determine the probability of downhill and uphill and determine whether these probabilities are similar, and the combination would provide for maintaining a higher cadence in order to maintain momentum or speed (Hancock, see at least [0007]).
While Kokubo discloses when it is determined that the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is predicted to travel on an uphill road (YES in Step S100), the ECU 180 determines whether the gradient of the uphill road is equal to or greater than a predetermined gradient (Step S200). When it is determined that the gradient of the uphill road is less than the predetermined gradient (NO in Step S200), the ECU 180 charges the secondary battery 130 such that the state of charge of the secondary battery 130 is maintained in a range of 55% to 60% (Step S210) (Kokubo, see at least Fig. 4, and [0051-0052]), Kokubo, as modified by Hancock, is silent on the target state of charge is specified in a range of 50 to 60% of the battery capacity.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to maintain the state of charge of the vehicle around 50% when the vehicle is moving on a flat road or a road with similar probability of uphill sections and downhill sections, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that a target state of charge 50 to 60% of the battery capacity solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other target states of charge.
33. Claim(s) 19-20
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubo et al. (US-20180236883-A1) in view of Wagner (EP-2692604-A1).
In regard to claim 19
, Kokubo discloses the method of claim 11, wherein when there is a driving route planned via a navigation system to a known destination without a planned driving route or when driving routes frequently travelled in past when the electric vehicle is in the determined position, an angle of the perimeter is restricted to an angle section along an expected direction of travel (Kokubo, in at least Fig. 1, and [0056], discloses when the car navigation device does not perform guidance for a route to a destination [i.e., wherein when there is a driving route planned via a navigation system to a known destination without a planned driving route], the ECU 180 predicts whether the fuel-cell vehicle 100 is to travel on an uphill road based on the signal which indicates position information and map information and which is output from the navigation device 170. An uphill road is predicted based on whether an uphill road is included in a circle having a radius of a preset distance from a center which is a position of the fuel-cell vehicle 100 on a map).
Kokubo is silent on an angle of the perimeter is restricted to an angle section along an expected direction of travel.
However, Wagner teaches an angle of the perimeter is restricted to an angle section along an expected direction of travel (Wagner, in at least Figs. 6-7, and [0043], teaches the hybrid electric vehicle is located at the position 405 in the direction of travel 406, but no route is specified. Based on map data assigned to the area surrounding the hybrid electric vehicle, taking into account position 405 and direction of travel 406 [i.e., an angle of the perimeter is restricted to an angle section along an expected direction of travel], it is determined that the hybrid electric vehicle is located on the first road 401 and is traveling in the direction of the cross road 402).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kokubo in view of Wagner with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems – and the position and the direction of the vehicle is taken into account, which is restricting the angle of the perimeter to an angle section along an expected direction of travel, and the combination would provide for using a navigation device and other devices that are already found on board most hybrid vehicles, so that the installation of additional hardware is avoided (Wagner, see at least [0014]).
In regard to claim 20
, Kokubo, as modified by Wagner, teaches the method of claim 19, accordingly the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated.
While Wagner teaches taking into account position 405 and direction of travel 406 (Wagner, see at least Figs. 6-7, and [0043]), Kokubo, as modified by Wagner, is silent on wherein the angle is restricted in a range from 90 to 270°.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to restrict the angle to an angle around direction of the travel which covers the left and right turn of the vehicle, which is an angle from 90 to 270°, since Applicant(s) has/have not disclosed that from 90 to 270° solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other target states of charge.
34. Claim(s) 21
is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kokubo et al. (US-20180236883-A1) in view of Crombez et al. (US-20140114514-A1).
In regard to claim 21
, Kokubo discloses the method of claim 11, accordingly the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
Kokubo is silent on all limitations of the claim.
However, Crombez teaches further comprising:
operating the electric vehicle along a road based on the specified target state of charge of the at least one traction battery (Crombez, in at least [0005], teaches a vehicle with an engine, an electric machine, a traction battery electrically connected with the electric machine, and at least one controller which is configured to selectively operate the electric machine and the engine to propel the vehicle [i.e., operating the electric vehicle along a road] such that a state of charge of the traction battery is generally maintained at a target value within a predefined range of states of charge [i.e., specified target state of charge]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Kokubo in view of Crombez with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – vehicle systems – and operate the electric machine such that a state of charge of the traction battery is maintained at a target value, and the combination would provide for operating the vehicle and meeting user demand (Crombez, see at least [0002]).
Conclusion
35. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Preston J Miller whose telephone number is (703)756-1582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
36. 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.
37. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-6011. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
38. 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.
/P.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661