DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action in response to communications received on 09/20/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority or Provisional
Priority to 09/22/2023 is recognized.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/20/2024 are acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed for this application. The Examination is conducted without any Prior Art search help from the Applicant. Applicant is reminded of the duty to disclose from section 2100 of the MPEP: 37 C.F.R. 1.56; Duty to disclose information material to patentability. A patent by its very nature is affected with a public interest. The public interest is best served, and the most effective patent examination occurs when, at the time an application is being examined, the Office is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability. Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sharkey (US 2007/0084974) in view of Carlson (US 11,700,075).
Regarding claim 1, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
A communication structure comprising: a first track system comprising a first microprocessor and first control circuitry associated with a first track; and a second track system comprising a second microprocessor and second control circuitry associated with a second track; wherein the first control circuitry is configured to determine when there is an inbound train on the first track, and the second control circuitry is configured to determine an inbound train on the second track, wherein the first control circuitry is configured to communicate the inbound train on the first track to the second control circuitry, and the second control circuitry is configured to communicate the inbound train on the second track to the first control circuitry, wherein the first microprocessor and the second microprocessor are configured to communicate with one another, wherein the first microprocessor is configured to determine that a first activation of warning devices is to be activated at a grade crossing and communicate the first activation to the second microprocessor, and wherein the second microprocessor is configured to determine a second sustained activation of the warning devices and communicate the second sustained activation to the first microprocessor.
Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0001], [0011]-[0014], [0027]-[0032], [0043]-[0046], and Figs. 1-4, teaches an apparatus, methods, and communication systems for highway-rail grade crossing warning system. The crossing warning system monitors and controls a plurality of tracks (up to six tracks) at a highway-rail crossing. And further teaches a remote controller and crossing controller configured to monitor track circuits (island and approach circuits) to determine or predict the approach (inbound status) of a train on the tracks. Also teaches activating a warning device (first activation) when an approaching train is predicted, and further teaches utilizing timers, directional logic, and speed determinations to manage, delay, or sustained the warning activation (second sustained activation). And shows routing track monitoring and warning activation through a centralized crossing controller (controller 40).
Sharkey does not explicitly disclose:
A first track system comprising a first microprocessor and first control circuitry and a second track system comprising a second microprocessor and second control circuitry.
Carlson, Abstract, Col. 3, ll. 39-47, Col. 4, ll. 8-41, Col. 8, ll. 30-43, and Figs. 1-3, teaches a decentralized rail signaling and train control communication architecture. Also teaches moving away from centralized entities (back office or centralized data structures) and instead utilizes decentralized control circuitries/microprocessors (wayside units/anchors 130 and carborne units 120) deployed near the tracks. And further teaches that the independent control units or microprocessors are configured to bi-directionally communicate directly with one another (peer-to-peer or anchor-to-anchor) rather than routing data through a central hub. “The anchors communicate with each other by “hopping” data from anchor to anchor, ….. . The anchors support wireless communications from anchor to train as well, with all communication being bi-directional”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the centralized multi-track crossing warning system of Sharkey with the decentralized, peer-to-peer communication architecture of Carlson, in order to reduce the amount of wayside cabling and the maintenance required by centralized systems.
Regarding claim 2, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Sharkey-Carlson disclose:
The communication structure of claim 1 wherein the first track includes at least two separate train tracks monitored by the first control circuitry. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0027]-[0032], teaches a railroad grade crossing system designed to monitor and control multiple separate train tracks, where the controller monitors up to six tracks. And when it is modified by utilizing decentralized control nodes (the first and second control circuitries) as taught by Carlson, then it would have been an obvious design choice to configure the first localized node (the first control circuitry) to manage and monitor at least two of the multiple separate tracks traversing the intersection.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Sharkey-Carlson discloses:
The communication structure of claim 2 wherein the second track includes at least two separate train tracks monitored by the second control circuitry. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0027]-[0032], teaches a system monitoring multiple separate train tracks, where the controller monitors up to six tracks. And when it is modified by utilizing decentralized control nodes (the first and second control circuitries) as taught by Carlson, then it would have been an obvious design choice to configure the second localized node (the second control circuitry) to manage at least two of the remaining tracks traversing the intersection.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Sharkey-Carlson discloses:
The communication structure of claim 1 wherein the first microprocessor is configured to communicate a warning device activation signal to warning indicators next to the first track upon an advancement of a train on the first track to the grade crossing. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0011]-[0014], teaches a grade crossing system that monitors multiple separate train tracks to detect the inbound motion and advancement of a train towards a crossing. Upon detecting the advancement, the system communicates an activation signal to actuate the crossing warning devices (e.g., flashing lights and gates) situated next to the track. And when it is modified by utilizing decentralized node based architecture as taught by Carlson, the first localized node (the first microprocessor) communicates the warning device activation signal directly to the warning indicators located next to its assigned first track upon detecting the train’s advancement.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Sharkey-Carlson discloses:
The communication structure of claim 1 wherein the second microprocessor is configured to communicate a warning device activation signal to warning indicators next to the second track upon an advancement of a train on the second track to the grade crossing. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0011]-[0014], teaches a grade crossing system that monitors multiple separate train tracks to detect the inbound motion and advancement of a train towards a crossing. Upon detecting the advancement, the system communicates an activation signal to actuate the crossing warning devices (e.g., flashing lights and gates) situated next to the track. And when it is modified by utilizing decentralized multi-track system as taught by Carlson, the second localized node (the second microprocessor) communicates the warning device activation signal directly to the warning indicators located next to its assigned second track upon detecting the train’s advancement.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Sharkey-Carlson discloses:
The communication structure of claim 1 wherein at least one of the first microprocessor and the second microprocessor communicate an inbound movement of a first train on the corresponding track with one another. Carlson, Abstract, Col. 3, ll. 39-47, Col. 4, ll. 8-41, Col. 8, ll. 30-43, and Figs. 1-3, teaches a decentralized train control architecture utilizing a first track system with a first microprocessor and a second track system with a second microprocessor, where the independent microprocessors are configured to establish wireless communication and bi-directionally share train operation data (such as a train’s location, speed, direction, and inbound status) directly with one another in a peer-to-peer manner. When Sharkey’s method of detecting the inbound movement of a train at a grade crossing is integrated into the decentralized architecture as taught by Carlson, it results in the first microprocessor (monitoring the first track) detecting the inbound movement of the first train and communicating that inbound movement data directly to the second microprocessor.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Sharkey-Carlson discloses:
The communication structure of claim 8 wherein at least one of the first microprocessor and the second microprocessor communicate a first advancement of the first train on the corresponding track with one another. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0011]-[0014], teaches detecting the continuous advancement (inbound motion and progress) of a train towards the crossing to manage crossing warning times.
Carlson, Abstract, Col. 3, ll. 39-47, Col. 4, ll. 8-41, Col. 8, ll. 30-43, and Figs. 1-3, teaches microprocessors on separate track systems configured to establish wireless communication and bi-directionally share continuous, updated train operation data (such as a train’s location, speed, and direction) with one another as a train traverses the track. When Sharkey’s grade crossing system is integrated into the decentralized architecture as taught by Carlson, the microprocessors do not communicate the initial inbound movement (as established in claim 8), instead they continue to cross-communicate the updated data representing the “first advancement” of the first train as it continuously progress along the corresponding track towards the grade crossing.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Sharkey-Carlson discloses:
The communication structure of claim 9 wherein the first advancement of the first train communicated between the first microprocessor and the second microprocessor causes at least one warning indicator on one or both the first track system and the second track system to activate, disallowing any vehicles from entering the grade crossing. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0011]-[0014], teaches a multi-track grade crossing system where the detection of a train’s continuous advancement triggers the activation of crossing warning devices (e.g., gates and flashing lights). The purpose of activating these warning devices is to secure the crossing and disallow vehicle traffic from entering the hard zone. When Sharkey’s grade crossing system is integrated into the decentralized cross-communicating microprocessors as taught by Carlson, the “first advancement” data communicated form the first microprocessor to the second microprocessor serves as the actionable trigger. Upon receiving the communicated advancement data, the microprocessors cause the warning indicators on their track systems to activate disallowing vehicles from entering the grade crossing.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Sharkey-Carlson discloses:
The communication structure of claim 10 wherein a second advancement of a second train at or near the same time as the first advancement communicated between the first microprocessor and the second microprocessor causes the at least one warning indicator on one or both the first track and the second track to remain activate, disallowing any vehicles from entering the grade crossing during an entirety of the first advancement and the second advancement. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0011]-[0014], teaches utilizing timers alongside track circuit inputs (such as the island circuit and approach circuits) to constantly monitor train presence and motion. The system’s fail-safe logic ensures that as long as track signal magnitudes indicate inbound train motion or track occupancy, the crossing controller maintains the warning devices in an active state. By applying the continuous monitoring logic to distributed Sharkey-Carlson combination, when a second trin advances on the second track at the same time as the first train, the microprocessor communicates the overlapping advancement data which causes commanding the warning indicators on the track to remain active, disallowing vehicles from entering the grade crossing for the entirety of both advancements.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Sharkey-Carlson discloses:
The communication structure of claim 11 wherein the warning devices are deactivated upon clearance of the first train and the second train from the grade crossing. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0011]-[0014], teaches utilizing directional and island circuit to deactivate a warning device once a train safely clears the crossing. When applied to the distributed multi-track system of Sharkey-Carlson combination, the decentralized microprocessors execute the deactivation step only after communicating with each other and confirming that both the first train and the second train fully cleared the tracks at the crossing.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Sharkey-Carlson discloses:
The communication structure of claim 11 wherein the warning devices remain active after clearance of one of the first train or the second train from the grade crossing. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0011]-[0014], teaches a multi-track grade crossing where warning devices activate upon a train’s arrival and deactivates only when the track circuits indicate that the train cleared the island circuit and is receding. In a multi-track system, if one train clears the crossing but a second train is still detected on an adjacent track, the controller must maintain the warning devices in an active state. When the multi-track system is applied to the distributed multi-track system of Sharkey-Carlson combination, the decentralized microprocessors cross-communicate train clearance data. Therefore, if the microprocessors determine that only one of the trains cleared the track while the other one is still occupying its track or approaching, then the system maintains the warning devices in an active state.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 1 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Claims 4, 6 and 14-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Sharkey (US 2007/0084974) in view of Carlson (US 11,700,075), and further in view of Harp (US 2020/0047783).
Regarding claim 4, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Sharkey, Carlson and Harp disclose:
The communication structure of claim 1 wherein the first microprocessor is configured to communicate a clearance signal to a traffic indicator at the grade crossing upon an inbound movement of a train on the first track. Harp, Abstract, Paras. [0004]-[0005], [0026], teaches a traffic control system that transmits a preemption sequence/signal to a traffic signal control unit (the traffic indicator) when rail vehicles are approaching on the track (an inbound movement). And teaches that the preemption signal acts as a clearance signal, designed to have a longer preemption warning times to turn traffic lights to red earlier to “allow longer vehicles, semi-trailers, to clear the tracks before the crossing lights and gates are activated”. By applying the preemption signaling of Harp to the decentralized Sharkey-Carlson system, the second localized node (the second microprocessor) communicates the clearance signal to the adjacent traffic indicator as soon as an inbound movement is detected on its assigned second track.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the centralized multi-track crossing warning system of Sharkey with the decentralized, peer-to-peer communication architecture of Carlson, and further modify the system to include the traffic indicator preemption signals as taught by Harp, in order to prevents vehicles from being trapped on the railroad, and increase the system’s safety.
Regarding claim 6, Sharkey and Carlson disclose the limitations of claim 1. Sharkey, Carlson and Harp disclose:
The communication structure of claim 1 wherein the second microprocessor is configured to communicate a clearance signal to a traffic indicator at the grade crossing upon an inbound movement of a train on the second track. Harp, Abstract, Paras. [0004]-[0005], [0026], teaches a traffic control system that transmits a preemption sequence/signal to a traffic signal control unit (the traffic indicator) when rail vehicles are approaching on the track (an inbound movement). And teaches that the preemption signal acts as a clearance signal, designed to have a longer preemption warning times to turn traffic lights to red earlier to “allow longer vehicles, semi-trailers, to clear the tracks before the crossing lights and gates are activated”. By applying the preemption signaling of Harp to the decentralized Sharkey-Carlson system, the second localized node (the second microprocessor) communicates the clearance signal to the adjacent traffic indicator as soon as an inbound movement is detected on its assigned second track.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the centralized multi-track crossing warning system of Sharkey with the decentralized, peer-to-peer communication architecture of Carlson, and further modify the system to include the traffic indicator preemption signals as taught by Harp, in order to prevents vehicles from being trapped on the railroad, and increase the system’s safety.
Regarding claim 14, Sharkey, Carlson and Harp disclose the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
A method for communicating train grade crossing signals comprising: detecting a first inbound movement of a first train on a first track towards a grade crossing via a first control circuitry of a first track system associated with the first track; communicating the first inbound movement via the first control circuitry to a first microprocessor of the first track system; communicating the first inbound movement via the first microprocessor to a second microprocessor of a second track system associated with a second track, and a traffic indicator; communicating a first advancement of the first train towards the grade crossing via the first microprocessor to the second microprocessor, the traffic indicator, and first warning devices; detecting a second inbound movement of a second train on the second track towards the grade crossing via a second control circuitry of the second track system; communicating the second inbound movement via the second control circuitry to the second microprocessor; communicating the second inbound movement via the second microprocessor to the first microprocessor and the traffic indicator; and communicating a second advancement of the second train towards the grade crossing via the second microprocessor to the first microprocessor, the traffic indicator, and second warning devices; wherein communication of the first inbound movement causes the traffic indicator to enter a clearance phase, wherein communication of the first advancement causes the traffic indicator to enter a dwell phase and the first warning devices and the second warning devices to become active; and wherein communication of the second inbound movement or the second advancement causes the traffic indicator to remain in the dwell phase and the first warning devices and the second warning devices to remain active.
Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0001], [0011]-[0014], [0027]-[0032], [0043]-[0046], and Figs. 1-4, teaches an apparatus, methods, and communication systems of detecting inbound train movements and actuating warning devices at a multi-track crossing.
Carlson, Abstract, Col. 3, ll. 39-47, Col. 4, ll. 8-41, Col. 8, ll. 30-43, and Figs. 1-3, teaches a decentralized rail signal by communicating the train movements directly between a first microprocessor on a first track system and a second microprocessor on a second track system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the centralized multi-track crossing warning system of Sharkey with the decentralized, peer-to-peer communication architecture of Carlson, in order to reduce the amount of wayside cabling and the maintenance required by centralized systems.
Harp, Abstract, Paras. [0004]-[0008], [0026]-[0035], teaches a traffic control system where a signalized road intersection exists in close proximity to a railroad crossing. And communicating a preemption signal from the railroad crossing control system to the traffic control system (traffic indicator) when train vehicles are approaching. And further teaches that the preemption communication allows vehicles “to clear the tracks before the crossing lights and gates are activated” (the clearance phase initiated by the initial inbound movement) and subsequently ensures that “vehicle traffic has stopped prior to lights and gate activation” (the dwell phase initiated upon further train advancement where the warning device activates). And defines the preemption signal as a “request to turn red” sent to the traffic signal control unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the centralized multi-track crossing warning system of Sharkey with the decentralized, peer-to-peer communication architecture of Carlson, and further modify the system to include the traffic indicator preemption signals as taught by Harp, in order to prevents vehicles from being trapped on the railroad, and increase the system’s safety.
Regarding claim 15, Sharkey, Carlson and Harp disclose the limitations of claim 14. Sharkey-Carlson disclose:
The method of claim 14 wherein the first track includes at least two separate train tracks monitored by the first control circuitry. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0027]-[0032], [0043]-[0046], and Figs. 1-4, teaches a system monitoring multiple separate train tracks, where the controller monitors up to six tracks. And when it is modified by utilizing decentralized control nodes (the first and second control circuitries) as taught by Carlson, then it would have been an obvious design choice to configure the first localized node (the first control circuitry) to manage at least two of the multiple separate tracks traversing the intersection.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 14 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Sharkey, Carlson and Harp disclose the limitations of claim 14. Sharkey-Carlson discloses:
The method of claim 14 wherein the second track includes at least two separate train tracks monitored by the second control circuitry. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0027]-[0032], teaches a system monitoring multiple separate train tracks, where the controller monitors up to six tracks. And when it is modified by utilizing decentralized control nodes (the first and second control circuitries) as taught by Carlson, then it would have been an obvious design choice to configure the second localized node (the second control circuitry) to manage at least two of the remaining tracks traversing the intersection.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 14 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, Sharkey, Carlson and Harp disclose the limitations of claim 14. Sharkey, Carlson and Harp disclose:
The method of claim 14, further comprising communicating a clearance signal to the traffic indicator at the grade crossing upon an inbound movement of the train on the first track. Harp, Abstract, Paras. [0004]-[0005], [0026], teaches a traffic control system that transmits a preemption sequence/signal to a traffic signal control unit (the traffic indicator) when rail vehicles are approaching on the track (an inbound movement). And teaches that the preemption signal acts as a clearance signal, designed to have a longer preemption warning times to turn traffic lights to red earlier to “allow longer vehicles, semi-trailers, to clear the tracks before the crossing lights and gates are activated”. By applying the preemption signaling of Harp to the decentralized Sharkey-Carlson system, the second localized node (the second microprocessor) communicates the clearance signal to the adjacent traffic indicator as soon as an inbound movement is detected on its assigned second track.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 14 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 18, Sharkey, Carlson and Harp disclose the limitations of claim 14. Sharkey, Carlson disclose:
The method of claim 14, further comprising: triggering a communication of the control signal when a second advancement of a second train, occurring within a threshold duration as the first advancement communicated between the first microprocessor and the second microprocessor, and controlling warning indicator on one or both the first track and the second track to remain activate and inhibiting vehicles from entering the grade crossing during an entirety of the first advancement and the second advancement. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0011]-[0014], [0043]-[0046], teaches utilizing timers alongside track circuit inputs (such as the island circuit and approach circuits) to constantly monitor train presence and motion. The system ensures that as long as track signal magnitudes indicate inbound train motion or track occupancy, the crossing controller maintains the warning devices in an active state. Therefore, by applying the continuous monitoring, to the distributed multi-track system of Sharkey-Carlson, when a second train enters the approach or island circuit (within the window of the first train’s advancement/threshold duration), the warning indicators are commanded to remain active, successfully inhibiting vehicles from entering the grade crossing for the entirety of both advancement.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 14 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 19, Sharkey, Carlson and Harp disclose the limitations of claim 14. Sharkey-Carlson disclose:
The method of claim 14, further comprising: deactivating the first warning devices and the second warning devices upon clearance of the first train and the second train from the grade crossing. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0011]-[0014], teaches utilizing directional logic and island circuits to deactivate a warning device once the train safely clears the crossing. The system monitors a plurality of tracks, and when applied to the distributed multi-track system of Sharkey-Carlson, the decentralized microprocessors execute the deactivation step only after they communicating with each other and confirming that both the first train and the second train fully cleared the tracks.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 14 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 20, Sharkey, Carlson and Harp disclose the limitations of claim 14. Sharkey-Carlson disclose:
The method of claim 14, further comprising: maintaining the first warning devices and the second warning devices active after clearance of only one of the first train or the second train from the grade crossing. Sharkey, Abstract, Paras. [0011]-[0014], [0032], teaches a multi-track grade crossing where warning devices activate upon a train’s approach and deactivate only when the track circuits indicate the train has cleared the island circuit and is receding. Therefore, if one trains clears but a second train is still detected on another track, the controller must maintain the warning devices in an active state. When applied to the distributed multi-track system of Sharkey-Carlson, the decentralized microprocessors cross-communicates train clearance data. if the microprocessors determine that only one of the trains has cleared the track (while the other is still occupying the track), then the system maintains the warning devices in an active state.
The same motivation to combine utilized in claim 14 is equally applicable in the instant claim.
References Considered But Not Relied Upon
Hilleary (US 2021/0142684) describes a traffic preemption controller which is configured to supply a track clearance signal causing multiple traffic signal lights to preemptively. The traffic preemption controller issues a green light allowing automotive vehicles on the first road surface at the railroad grade crossing to cross and clear the railroad track (206) in advance of the detected train's arrival.
Schmidt (US 2022/0315071) describes a grade crossing control system includes a track circuit with a grade crossing predictor (GCP) system coupled to rails of a railroad track at a grade crossing, wherein a railroad vehicle travelling on the railroad track causes a change of impedance when entering the track circuit, and wherein the GCP system generates grade crossing activation signals in response to the change of the impedance of the track circuit.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH BARZEGAR whose telephone number is (703)756-4755.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Samuel Morano can be reached on 571-272-6684. 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/patentcenter 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.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights