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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on October 21, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a machine. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of “select, based on the emissions target, the first emissions output, and the second emissions output, a first consumption rate for the first energy source and a second consumption rate for the second energy source” as recited in independent claim 1 and “execute an objective function to select, based on the emissions target, the first emissions output, the second emissions output, and an operating parameter of the vehicle, a first consumption rate for the first fuel and a second consumption rate for the second fuel, wherein the operating parameter of the vehicle correlates negatively with a third emissions output for the vehicle”.
The steps fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.’’).
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
In addition, limitations reciting data gathering such as “receive an indication of an emissions target for a vehicle, the vehicle comprising one or more energy conversion devices configured to generate mechanical movement from a first energy source and a second energy source; receive an indication of a first emissions output corresponding to the first energy source and a second emissions output corresponding to the second energy source” in claim 1 and “receive an indication of an emissions target for the vehicle; receive an indication of a first emissions output corresponding to a first fuel of the plurality of fuels and a second emissions output corresponding to a second fuel of the plurality of fuels” in claim 20 are also insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gather data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: system, controller, processor and memory do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, ¶¶ 95-98, 199-202 of the specification). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1081), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1078), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
As for dependent claims 2-15, these claims include all the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims also fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the invention of the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 11, 13-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Donnelly et al., US 2005/0251299 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Donnelly teaches a controller for energy source selection configured to:
receive an indication of an emissions target for a vehicle, (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0071] “The locator device allows an on-board computer, which contains a detailed map of the commuter route and route emissions requirements, to determine when the locomotive is in a zone where any of a number of emissions and noise restrictions must be observed or where certain locomotive performance is required.”) the vehicle comprising one or more energy conversion devices configured to generate mechanical movement from a first energy source and a second energy source; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0064] “This invention is preferably directed to dual-mode hybrid locomotives whose power for acceleration may be provided by both an energy storage unit such as for example a large battery pack and a power generating system such as for example one or more diesel engines.”)
receive an indication of a first emissions output corresponding to the first energy source and a second emissions output corresponding to the second energy source; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0104] “In an emissions strategy, it is desired to make the best use of available energy-generating sources. These include: on-board engines which, when in operation, produce emissions, regenerative braking systems which recapture energy used previously to accelerate the train, external energy sources which include: third electrified rails (emissions generated elsewhere) overhead catenaries (emissions generated elsewhere) railside generators which, when in operation, produce emissions railside energy storage units which obtain their energy from various sources including regenerative braking energy delivered from prior locomotives that have exceeded their on-board energy storage capacity (no emissions produced) rail side connections into a power grid (emissions generated elsewhere)”) and
select, based on the emissions target, the first emissions output, and the second emissions output, a first consumption rate for the first energy source and a second consumption rate for the second energy source. (Donnelly, see at least claim 6 “The method of claim 1, further comprising: (g) determining a projected energy consumption as the selected locomotive traverses a plurality of upcoming spatial zones; and (h) based on the controlled parameter and the projected energy consumption over the plurality of upcoming spatial zones, selecting an operating mode, from among a plurality of operating modes, for the current zone.”)
Regarding claim 4, Donnelly teaches a controller for energy source selection, wherein:
the vehicle comprises an alternator including a rotor, wherein the mechanical movement comprises a movement the rotor, the alternator configured to provide electrical energy to propel the vehicle; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0017] “The second power source may be charged by the first power source, for example through an alternator and a set of switches. The wheels of the vehicle system may be driven by an electric motor(s). The electric motor may be powered by the first power source, for example through an alternator, and/or the second power source.”) and
the controller is further configured to control a transfer of energy from an internal combustion engine of the one or more energy conversion devices to the alternator according to a quantity of fuel provided to the internal combustion engine. (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0023] “The ICE is connected to an alternator 17 that generates electrical power and supplies the electrical power to one or more electric (traction) motors 18 through a power transmission line(s) 12 and a bank of switching elements 20. The electric (traction) motor supplies the motive force to turn wheels 14 of the propulsion-generating vehicle. The electric (traction) motor is coupled to a battery 22 (e.g., a bank of batteries) by the bank of switching elements. The bank of switching elements includes a set of switches 24, 26, 28 configured to selectively couple: (1) the electric (traction) motor with the ICE (through the alternator), or (2) the electric (traction) motor to the battery, or (3) the electric (traction) motor to both the ICE and the battery. The set of switches are controlled by a controller 30 that is coupled to a computer 32.”)
Regarding claim 5, Donnelly teaches a controller for energy source selection, further configured to:
receive a route comprising: an indication of a grade for a plurality of route-segments; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0018] “The computer may also obtain other orientation information regarding the determined travel route, for example information regarding a condition of a route(s) (e.g., a track for a rail vehicle) during the trip. For example, the information may include a grade of a portion of the determined travel route or a speed limit of a portion of the determined travel route.”)
an indication of a load for the plurality of route-segments; and an indication of a distance for the plurality of route-segments; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0026] “The control algorithm computes a trip plan based on the determined travel route, a number of low temperature combustion conditions such as power and torque requirements at several points along the determined travel route, the number of propulsion-generating vehicles in the vehicle system, a total load, and the like. The control algorithm also takes into account several other objectives of the trip that may include selection of power sources under varying low temperature combustion conditions, total trip time, maximum power setting, maximum speed limits, exhaust emissions, an amount of throttle transitions of the hybrid propulsion system, or the like.”) and
determine, for each of the plurality of route-segments, a route plan comprising the first consumption rate and the second consumption rate such that: a summation of the first emissions output and the second emissions output for a first portion of the plurality of route-segments exceeds the emissions target; and a summation of the first emissions output and the second emissions output for the route plan does not exceed the emissions target. (Donnelly, see at least claim 6 “The method of claim 1, further comprising: (g) determining a projected energy consumption as the selected locomotive traverses a plurality of upcoming spatial zones; and (h) based on the controlled parameter and the projected energy consumption over the plurality of upcoming spatial zones, selecting an operating mode, from among a plurality of operating modes, for the current zone.”)
Regarding claim 6, Donnelly teaches a controller for energy source selection, further configured to:
receive the emissions target from a second controller communicatively connected to a plurality of vehicles comprising the vehicle, the second controller configured to: determine, based on a total emissions target for the plurality of vehicles, the emissions target for the vehicle and a second emissions target for a second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0104] “In an emissions strategy, it is desired to make the best use of available energy-generating sources. These include: on-board engines which, when in operation, produce emissions, regenerative braking systems which recapture energy used previously to accelerate the train, external energy sources which include: third electrified rails (emissions generated elsewhere) overhead catenaries (emissions generated elsewhere) railside generators which, when in operation, produce emissions railside energy storage units which obtain their energy from various sources including regenerative braking energy delivered from prior locomotives that have exceeded their on-board energy storage capacity (no emissions produced) rail side connections into a power grid (emissions generated elsewhere)”) and
provide the emissions target to the vehicle, and the second emissions target to the second vehicle. (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0104] “In an emissions strategy, it is desired to make the best use of available energy-generating sources. These include: on-board engines which, when in operation, produce emissions, regenerative braking systems which recapture energy used previously to accelerate the train, external energy sources which include: third electrified rails (emissions generated elsewhere) overhead catenaries (emissions generated elsewhere) railside generators which, when in operation, produce emissions railside energy storage units which obtain their energy from various sources including regenerative braking energy delivered from prior locomotives that have exceeded their on-board energy storage capacity (no emissions produced) rail side connections into a power grid (emissions generated elsewhere)”)
Regarding claim 7, Donnelly teaches a controller for energy source selection, wherein:
the first energy source comprises a conductive element exterior to the vehicle for one or more route-segments of a route; and the controller is configured to receive, from the conductive element, a quantity of electrical energy during the one or more route-segments. (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0104] “In an emissions strategy, it is desired to make the best use of available energy-generating sources. These include: on-board engines which, when in operation, produce emissions, regenerative braking systems which recapture energy used previously to accelerate the train, external energy sources which include: third electrified rails (emissions generated elsewhere) overhead catenaries (emissions generated elsewhere) railside generators which, when in operation, produce emissions railside energy storage units which obtain their energy from various sources including regenerative braking energy delivered from prior locomotives that have exceeded their on-board energy storage capacity (no emissions produced) rail side connections into a power grid (emissions generated elsewhere)”)
Regarding claim 8, Donnelly teaches a controller for energy source selection, wherein:
the first energy source comprises an on-board fuel; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0015] “The hybrid locomotive is commonly comprised of at least a prime mover, an energy conversion device to convert the energy output by the prime mover into a form suitable for storage or propulsion, an energy storage unit, a supply of fuel for the prime energy source and appropriate controls, all mounted on a frame which includes two or more truck assemblies, each truck assembly being further comprised of AC or DC traction motors each of which may be controlled by its own inverters and/or chopper circuits.”)and
the controller is further configured to: detect a current state of fill of the on-board fuel; compare the current state of fill to a predefined state of fill; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0015] “The hybrid locomotive is commonly comprised of at least a prime mover, an energy conversion device to convert the energy output by the prime mover into a form suitable for storage or propulsion, an energy storage unit, a supply of fuel for the prime energy source and appropriate controls, all mounted on a frame which includes two or more truck assemblies, each truck assembly being further comprised of AC or DC traction motors each of which may be controlled by its own inverters and/or chopper circuits.”) and
select the first consumption rate and the second consumption rate based on the comparison of the current state of fill to the predefined state of fill. (Donnelly, see at [0025] “In another embodiment of the present invention, a hybrid locomotive operates in a plurality of operating modes which include one or more of: zero emissions; specified low emissions; maximum fuel economy; maximum energy recovery (optionally including with engines off); maximum power for acceleration; low noise levels; moderate noise levels;”)
Regarding claim 9, Donnelly teaches a controller for energy source selection, further configured to select the first consumption rate and the second consumption rate to extend a distance traveled between refueling. (Donnelly, see at [0025] “In another embodiment of the present invention, a hybrid locomotive operates in a plurality of operating modes which include one or more of: zero emissions; specified low emissions; maximum fuel economy; maximum energy recovery (optionally including with engines off); maximum power for acceleration; low noise levels; moderate noise levels;”)
Regarding claim 11, Donnelly teaches a controller for energy source selection, further configured to select the first consumption rate and the second consumption rate, based on a remaining fuel level of the first energy source, to extend a time of operation for the vehicle. (Donnelly, see at [0025] “In another embodiment of the present invention, a hybrid locomotive operates in a plurality of operating modes which include one or more of: zero emissions; specified low emissions; maximum fuel economy; maximum energy recovery (optionally including with engines off); maximum power for acceleration; low noise levels; moderate noise levels;”)
Regarding claim 13, Donnelly teaches a controller for energy source selection, further configured to:
receive an indication of an unavailability of the first energy source; (Donnelly, see at [0035] “Feed forward knowledge of the trip along with the power available from the battery can be used to withstand fluctuations in the required power and/or torque from the ICE and let the ICE operate at a given set point. This allows for stable combustion boundary conditions and precise control of fueling, intake temperature, and intake pressure.”)
select, based on the emissions target, a consumption rate of zero for the first energy source; (Donnelly, see at [0025] “In another embodiment of the present invention, a hybrid locomotive operates in a plurality of operating modes which include one or more of: zero emissions; specified low emissions; maximum fuel economy; maximum energy recovery (optionally including with engines off); maximum power for acceleration; low noise levels; moderate noise levels;”) and
select, based on the emissions target, a non-zero consumption rate for the second energy source. (Donnelly, see at least claim 6 “The method of claim 1, further comprising: (g) determining a projected energy consumption as the selected locomotive traverses a plurality of upcoming spatial zones; and (h) based on the controlled parameter and the projected energy consumption over the plurality of upcoming spatial zones, selecting an operating mode, from among a plurality of operating modes, for the current zone.”)
Regarding claim 14, Donnelly teaches a controller for energy source selection, further configured to: receive an indication of a source of the first energy source; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0064] “This invention is preferably directed to dual-mode hybrid locomotives whose power for acceleration may be provided by both an energy storage unit such as for example a large battery pack and a power generating system such as for example one or more diesel engines.”)and
select the first consumption rate based on the source. (Donnelly, see at [0025] “In another embodiment of the present invention, a hybrid locomotive operates in a plurality of operating modes which include one or more of: zero emissions; specified low emissions; maximum fuel economy; maximum energy recovery (optionally including with engines off); maximum power for acceleration; low noise levels; moderate noise levels;”)
Regarding claim 15, Donnelly teaches a controller for energy source selection, further configured to: select the first emissions output for the first energy source based on the first energy source being a hydrocarbon fuel; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0064] “This invention is preferably directed to dual-mode hybrid locomotives whose power for acceleration may be provided by both an energy storage unit such as for example a large battery pack and a power generating system such as for example one or more diesel engines.”) and
select the second emissions output for the second energy source based on the second energy source being a battery. (Donnelly, see at least claim 6 “The method of claim 1, further comprising: (g) determining a projected energy consumption as the selected locomotive traverses a plurality of upcoming spatial zones; and (h) based on the controlled parameter and the projected energy consumption over the plurality of upcoming spatial zones, selecting an operating mode, from among a plurality of operating modes, for the current zone.”)
Regarding claim 16, Donnelly teaches a method for vehicle energy source selection, the method comprising:
determining a current state of fill of a fuel; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0015] “The hybrid locomotive is commonly comprised of at least a prime mover, an energy conversion device to convert the energy output by the prime mover into a form suitable for storage or propulsion, an energy storage unit, a supply of fuel for the prime energy source and appropriate controls, all mounted on a frame which includes two or more truck assemblies, each truck assembly being further comprised of AC or DC traction motors each of which may be controlled by its own inverters and/or chopper circuits.”)
receiving an indication of an emissions target for a vehicle, (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0071] “The locator device allows an on-board computer, which contains a detailed map of the commuter route and route emissions requirements, to determine when the locomotive is in a zone where any of a number of emissions and noise restrictions must be observed or where certain locomotive performance is required.”) the vehicle comprising one or more energy conversion devices configured to generate mechanical movement from a plurality of energy sources comprising the fuel; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0064] “This invention is preferably directed to dual-mode hybrid locomotives whose power for acceleration may be provided by both an energy storage unit such as for example a large battery pack and a power generating system such as for example one or more diesel engines.”)
receiving an indication of an emissions output for each of the plurality of energy sources; (Donnelly, see at least ¶ [0104] “In an emissions strategy, it is desired to make the best use of available energy-generating sources. These include: on-board engines which, when in operation, produce emissions, regenerative braking systems which recapture energy used previously to accelerate the train, external energy sources which include: third electrified rails (emissions generated elsewhere) overhead catenaries (emissions generated elsewhere) railside generators which, when in operation, produce emissions railside energy storage units which obtain their energy from various sources including regenerative braking energy delivered from prior locomotives that have exceeded their on-board energy storage capacity (no emissions produced) rail side connections into a power grid (emissions generated elsewhere)”) and
adjusting, based on the emissions target, the current state of fill, and the emissions output for each of the plurality of energy sources, a consumption rate of the fuel. (Donnelly, see at [0025] “In another embodiment of the present invention, a hybrid locomotive operates in a plurality of operating modes which include one or more of: zero emissions; specified low emissions; maximum fuel economy; maximum energy recovery (optionally including with engines off); maximum power for acceleration; low noise levels; moderate noise levels;”)
Regarding claim 19, Donnelly teaches a method for vehicle energy source selection, further comprising:
adjusting the consumption rate of the fuel based on a target life for the one or more energy conversion devices. (Donnelly, see at [0025] “In another embodiment of the present invention, a hybrid locomotive operates in a plurality of operating modes which include one or more of: zero emissions; specified low emissions; maximum fuel economy; maximum energy recovery (optionally including with engines off); maximum power for acceleration; low noise levels; moderate noise levels;”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-3, 10 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and being dependent upon a rejected base claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668