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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 04/02/2025 and 12/10/2025 (2) has been acknowledged
Status of Application
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 07/27/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 8 is directed to a method. Therefore, claim 8 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1 and 8 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: A system comprising: at least one computing device comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions, when executed, cause the at least one computing device to at least:
receive, by a sensor position detection device, a plurality of tire sensor values from a tire sensor device, wherein the plurality of tire sensor values are measured or calculated for a respective one of: a tire footprint length parameter, a longitudinal acceleration parameter, and a lateral acceleration parameter;
process, by the sensor position detection device, the plurality of tire sensor values for the tire footprint length parameter, the longitudinal acceleration parameter, and the lateral acceleration parameter, wherein the sensor position detection device generates at least a longitudinal acceleration coefficient and a lateral acceleration coefficient;
assign, by the sensor position detection device, the tire sensor device to a particular tire position in relation to a vehicle based at least in part on a sign of the longitudinal acceleration coefficient and a sign of the lateral acceleration coefficient as generated by the sensor position detection device; and
communicate the assigned tire position to a vehicle control system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “calculating, processing, assigning, and generating” steps encompass a user to gather data and make calculations using that data. Calculating a parameter is doing calculations to determine a value. Processing/generating the parameters to generate coefficients is simply plugging in the parameters into an equation to generate a value. Assigning the tire position to a sign of a coefficient is a limitation that can be done in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “computing device comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “computing device” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating, processing, and assigning steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the computing device is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computing device.
Additionally, the additional limitation of “sensor position detection device”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “sensor position detection device” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating, processing, generating, and assigning steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the sensor position detection device is claimed generically and operates in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a sensor position detection device.
In addition to that, the examiner submits that receiving a plurality of tire sensor values using a tire sensor device and communicating the assigned tire positions to a vehicle control system, is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a device to perform the process. In particular, the receiving and communicating steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering/transferring data), and amounts to mere data gathering/trasnferring, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computing device, a sensor position detection device, or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 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, the additional element of the system, the computing device and sensor position detection device amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of receiving data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of receiving the data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors from which the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors ([0016]). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Further Claim 8 is not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2-7 and 9-14 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1 and 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20220230481-A1 to Singh et. al. (“Singh”) in view of US-6204758-B1 to Wacker et. al. (“Wacker”), further in view of US-20130207796-A1 to Stewart et. al. (“Stewart”).
Regarding claim 1, Singh teaches a system comprising: at least one computing device comprising at least one processor (Singh Claim 1); and at least one memory comprising instructions, when executed, cause the at least one computing device to at least (Singh [0034] – [0035]):
receive, by a sensor position detection device (Singh Abstract “A processor is in electronic communication with the sensor unit”), a plurality of tire sensor values from a tire sensor device (Singh Fig. 3A – 3B and [0039] “The sensor unit 26 includes wireless transmission means 44, such as an antenna, for wirelessly sending the sensed parameters 42 to a processor 46.” and Claim 1 “a sensor unit being mounted on the tire” ), wherein the plurality of tire sensor values are measured or calculated for a respective one of: a tire footprint length parameter (Singh Abstract “footprint length”), a longitudinal acceleration parameter, and a lateral acceleration parameter (Singh [0039] - [0041] “output data 52 from the sensed parameters 26 are analyzed by an initial assessment module 50… The output data 52 may include, by way of example, tire footprint length 28, lateral acceleration of the vehicle 14, longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle”);
process, by the sensor position detection device, the plurality of tire sensor values for the tire footprint length parameter (Singh claim 1 “the processor receiving the measured footprint length; a driving event classifier executed on the processor, the driving event classifier employing the measured footprint length to determine the position of the tire on the vehicle”);
assign, by the sensor position detection device, the tire sensor device to a particular tire position in relation to a vehicle (Singh Fig. 1 and claim 1 “generating a message correlating the sensor unit to the position of the tire on the vehicle.”);
and communicate the assigned tire position to a vehicle control system (Singh [0063] “the identified location or positions of each sensor unit 26 and its respective tire 12A, 12B, 12C and 12D is transmitted from the output block 158 to a cloud-based server 160. The cloud-based server 160 may be in electronic communication with control systems of the vehicle 14, a fleet management device, or a vehicle operator device. In this manner, the parameters sensed by each sensor unit 26 may be correlated to each respective tire 12A, 12B, 12C and 12D for use in vehicle control systems, a fleet manager, and/or an operator of the vehicle 14.”).
Singh does not teach processing, by the sensor position detection device, the plurality of tire sensor values for the longitudinal acceleration parameter, and the lateral acceleration parameter, wherein the sensor position detection device generates at least a longitudinal acceleration coefficient and a lateral acceleration coefficient;
However, Wacker teaches
processing, by the sensor position detection device, the plurality of tire sensor values for the longitudinal acceleration parameter, and the lateral acceleration parameter, wherein the sensor position detection device generates at least a longitudinal acceleration coefficient and a lateral acceleration coefficient (Wacker (12) “the sign of the detected tangential acceleration will correspond to the side of the vehicle, with positive acceleration indicating location on the left side of the vehicle and negative acceleration indicating location on the right side of the vehicle.” & (18) – (20) “the front wheels 602, 604 turn to the right. This turning motion requires pivoting about an axis perpendicular to the x-axis and the z-axis of the x-z axes 626 in FIG. 7. This pivoting introduces a yaw acceleration which is detected as acceleration in the z direction, illustrated by the arrow 628 on the x-z axes 626. The rear wheels 606,608, which do not pivot or turn, experience no yaw acceleration. This is illustrated on the axes 630.”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the system of Singh to incorporate the teachings of Wacker such that the system comprises processing, by the sensor position detection device, the plurality of tire sensor values for the longitudinal acceleration parameter, and the lateral acceleration parameter, wherein the sensor position detection device generates at least a longitudinal acceleration coefficient and a lateral acceleration coefficient. Doing so would allow for a fully automatic tire position detecting system and allows for the determining from acceleration data the position of the tire monitors on a vehicle (Wacker (8) – (10)).
Singh as modified by Wacker does not explicitly teach assigning, by the sensor position detection device, the tire sensor device to a particular tire position in relation to a vehicle based at least in part on a sign of the longitudinal acceleration coefficient and a sign of the lateral acceleration coefficient as generated by the sensor position detection device. However, Stewart teaches assigning, by the sensor position detection device, the tire sensor device to a particular tire position in relation to a vehicle based at least in part on a sign of the longitudinal acceleration coefficient and a sign of the lateral acceleration coefficient as generated by the sensor position detection device (Stewart Claim 1 “a lateral force sensor that is responsive to forces exerted on the respective tire along a lateral axis that is parallel with an axle of the vehicle on which the respective tire is mounted in use, said lateral force sensor being arranged to produce an output signal that indicates the direction of said exerted forces, control means arranged to determine whether a respective tire unit is mounted in said first orientation or said second orientation depending on said exerted force direction indicated by said output signal.” & Claim 8 “a longitudinal force sensor that is responsive to forces exerted on the respective tire along a longitudinal axis that is substantially tangential to a footprint section of the tire during use, said longitudinal force sensor being arranged to produce an output signal that indicates the direction of said longitudinally exerted forces, and control means arranged to detect changes in said longitudinal force direction indicated by said output signal and to determine whether a respective tire unit is mounted on the left side or the right side of said vehicle depending on said detected changes.” and [0077] – [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Stewart to Singh as modified by Wacker such that the system comprises assigning, by the sensor position detection device, the tire sensor device to a particular tire position in relation to a vehicle based at least in part on a sign of the longitudinal acceleration coefficient and a sign of the lateral acceleration coefficient as generated by the sensor position detection device. Doing so would improve the methods for determining the position and/or orientation of a tire in a wheel monitoring system (Stewart [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Singh as modified by Wacker and Stewart teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Singh further discloses that the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one computing device to at least: identify a tire footprint length model that defines a relationship between at least: a tire footprint length, a nominal footprint length, the longitudinal acceleration coefficient, the longitudinal acceleration, the lateral acceleration coefficient, and the lateral acceleration (Singh Fig. 3A – 3B and [0041] “output data 52 from the sensed parameters 26 are analyzed by an initial assessment module 50 to determine if the incoming data is for an ongoing trip, or if a new trip by the vehicle 14 is in progress 54. The output data 52 may include, by way of example, tire footprint length 28, lateral acceleration of the vehicle 14, longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle, yaw rate of the vehicle, a time stamp, a revolution time of the tire 12, a vehicle speed from a global positioning system (GPS), a received signal strength indication (RSSI) from each sensor unit 26, and/or sensor ID information.”).
Regarding claim 3, Singh as modified by Wacker and Stewart teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Singh further discloses that the plurality of tire sensor values are processed in real-time by the sensor position detection device (Singh Fig. 3A - 3H and [0006] “A processor is in electronic communication with the sensor unit and receives the measured footprint length. A driving event classifier is executed on the processor and employs the measured footprint length to determine the position of the tire on the vehicle. An auto-location output block is executed on the processor and receives the determined position of the tire on the vehicle and generates a message correlating the sensor unit to the position of the tire on the vehicle.”).
Regarding claim 5, Singh as modified by Wacker and Stewart teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Singh further discloses that the tire sensor device is assigned to a tire position based at least in part on storing a unique tire sensor device identifier of the tire sensor device in association with data indicating the tire position (Singh [0036] “The system 10 employs sensor ID and sensor ID information to identify each sensor unit 26, and analyses data from each sensor unit to determine the location of each respective tire 12 on the vehicle”).
Regarding claim 6, Singh as modified by Wacker and Stewart teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Singh further discloses that the sensor position detection device processes the plurality of tire sensor values to further identify a nominal tire footprint length (Singh [0037] “the sensor unit 26 (FIG. 1) preferably also measures a length 28 of a centerline 30 of a footprint 32 of the tire 12. More particularly, as the tire 12 contacts the ground, the area of contact created by the tread 20 with the ground is known as the footprint 32.” and [0048] “mean footprint length”).
Regarding claim 7, Singh as modified by Wacker and Stewart teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Singh further discloses that the instructions, when executed, cause the at least one computing device to at least: transmit the particular tire position to at least one of a server environment, a client device, or any combination thereof (Singh [0063] “the identified location or positions of each sensor unit 26 and its respective tire 12A, 12B, 12C and 12D is transmitted from the output block 158 to a cloud-based server 160.”).
With respect to claims 8 – 10 and 12 - 14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claims 1 – 3 and 5 - 7. The system taught/disclosed in claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 7 can clearly perform the method of claims 8 – 10 and 12 - 14. Therefore claims 8 – 10 and 12 – 14 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Wacker, further in view of Stewart and US-20170246915-A1 to Besnoin et. al. (“Besnoin”).
Regarding claim 4, Singh as modified by Wacker and Stewart teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3. Singh as modified by Wacker and Stewart does not teach that the sensor position detection device processes the plurality of tire sensor values in real-time based at least in part on a recursive least squares fitting process. However, Besnoin teaches that the sensor position detection device processes the plurality of tire sensor values in real-time based at least in part on a recursive least squares fitting process (Besnoin [0049] “Wear estimation methods may use the sensor data for utilizing vibration mode frequency shift as an indicator of the tire wear. Tire wear state may be recursively estimated by using a recursive least squares (RLS) algorithm formulated based on a polynomial model, capturing the dependencies between the tire wear state, inflation pressure, and/or the tire vertical mode frequency.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to further incorporate the teachings of Besnoin to Singh as modified by Wacker and Stewart such that the sensor position detection device processes the tire sensor values in real-time based at least in part on a recursive least squares fitting process. Doing so would allow for parameter dependencies to be captured in the model (Besnoin [0011]).
With respect to claim 11, all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in claim 4. The system taught/disclosed in claim 4 can clearly perform the method of claim 11. Therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 07/27/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicants’ remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
Office Note: Claims 15-20 has been cancelled, therefore any rejection or objection pertaining thereupon is now considered moot.
With respect to the Abstract Objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the Drawing Objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the Claim Objections, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Applicant remarks:
Independent Claim 1 recites a system that determines and assigns a tire sensor device to a particular tire position in relation to a vehicle. The system includes at least one computing device including at least one processor, and at least one memory including instructions. The instructions cause the computing device to receive, by a sensor position detection device, a plurality of tire sensor values from a tire sensor device, in which the plurality of tire sensor values are measured or calculated for a respective one of: a tire footprint length parameter, a longitudinal acceleration parameter, and a lateral acceleration parameter. The sensor position detection device processes the plurality of tire sensor values for the tire footprint length parameter, the longitudinal acceleration parameter, and the lateral acceleration parameter, in which the sensor position detection device generates at least a longitudinal acceleration coefficient and a lateral acceleration coefficient. The sensor position device assign the tire sensor device to a particular tire position in relation to a vehicle based at least in part on a sign of the longitudinal acceleration coefficient and a sign of the lateral acceleration coefficient, as generated by the sensor position detection device. The instructions also cause the computing device to communicate the assigned tire position to a vehicle control system. Independent Claim 8 recites a method with similar elements. The extensive, complex structure and operation of the elements of the system recited in Claim 1 and the method recited in Claim 8 cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Therefore, independent Claims 1 and 8 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
Office Response:
Assigning a tire sensor device to a particular tire position can reasonably be performed in the human mind. The computing device is an attempt to generally link elements to a technological environment. Receiving data is insignificant extra-solution activities. Using tire sensor values to calculate parameters is a process that can reasonably be performed in the human mind. Using the parameters to calculate coefficients is a process that can reasonably be performed in the human mind. Communicating the assigned tire positions to a control system is insignificant extra-solution activities.
Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments regarding the 101 have been considered, and the rejections remain.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant has amended the independent claims, and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application, and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot. However, even though applicants have amended the scope of the claims and the Office has provided new mapping of cited prior art below, the Office is still using some of the same cited prior art, thus the Office will attempt to address all remarks that remain relevant.
Applicant remarks:
Turning first to Singh, the Reference fails to disclose or teach processing by a sensor position detection device of a plurality of tire sensor values for a tire footprint length parameter, a longitudinal acceleration parameter, and a lateral acceleration parameter, in which the sensor position detection device generates at least a longitudinal acceleration coefficient and a lateral acceleration coefficient, as recited in independent Claims 1 and 8. Singh also fails to disclose or teach assignment by a sensor position detection device of a tire sensor device to a particular tire position in relation to a vehicle, based at least in part on a sign of a longitudinal acceleration coefficient and a sign of a lateral acceleration coefficient, as generated by the sensor position detection device, as recited in amended independent Claims 1 and 8.
Office response:
This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Singh alone for this limitation. Applicants must address the proposed combination.
Therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments. Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are allowable and the dependent claims are also allowable since they depend on allowable subject matter, and the Office respectfully disagrees. It is the Office's stance that all the claimed subject matter has been properly rejected; therefore, the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicants’ arguments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
