DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1, 12 and 13 have been amended. Claims 7 and 14 have been canceled. Now, claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15 are pending.
Claim Objections
The objection of Claim 12 is hereby withdrawn pursuant to the amendments filed on December 23, 2025.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are drawn to a system, claim 12 is drawn to an appartus and claims 13 and 15 are drawn to a method, which are one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claims 1 and 13 (language hereinbelow) recites a system and/or a method comprising the following:
obtaining first indication indicative of an adjustment to be performed to two or more operating parameters associated with the set of vehicles,
triggering the adjustment indicated by the first indication to be applied to the two or more operating parameters wherein the two or more operating parameters respectively controls and/or constrains one or more operations to be performed by the set of vehicles; and
optionally, wherein the method further comprises any one or more out of:
obtaining a second indication indicative of the two or more operating parameters associated with the set of vehicles, wherein obtaining the second indication of the two or more operating parameters comprises:
obtaining an indication of a first operating parameter, and based on the first operating parameter, identifying at least one secondary operating parameter; and/or
obtaining a third indication indicative of the set of vehicles.
These steps amount to obtaining operating parameters to manage a set of vehicles which are functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes with or without physical aid).
Independent claim 12 (language hereinbelow) recites a first vehicle, comprising:
configured to handle two or more operating parameters associated with a set of vehicles operating in a work site,
obtain a first indication indicative of an adjustment to be performed to two or more operating parameters associated with the set of vehicles,
trigger the adjustment indicated by the first indication to be applied to the two or more operating parameters, and
wherein the two or more operating parameters respectively controls and/or constrains one or more operations to be performed by the set of vehicles, wherein the first vehicle is at least partly autonomous.
These steps amount to obtaining operating parameters to manage a set of vehicles which are functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes with or without physical aid).
Dependent claim 2 recites, in part, obtain a second indication indicative of the two or more operating parameters associated with the set of vehicles.
Dependent claim 3 recites, in part, obtain the second indication of the two or more operating parameters by being configured to: obtain an indication of a first operating parameter, and based on the first operating parameter, identify at least one secondary operating parameter.
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, wherein the first operational parameter and the at least one secondary parameter is associated with at least one common operation of the set of vehicles.
Dependent claim 5 recites, in part, wherein the at least one secondary parameter is in a same category as the first operating parameter, or is a sub-parameter of the first operating parameter.
Dependent claim 6 recites, in part, wherein the first operating parameter is a parameter controlling a travel motion of the set of vehicles, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify the at least one secondary operating parameter as comprising at least one second parameter controlling a load handling parameter of the set of vehicles.
Dependent claim 8 recites, in part, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to trigger the adjustment by being configured to any one or both out of, transmit to the set of vehicles, an indication of the adjustment and an indication of the two or more operating parameters, wherein each vehicle out of the set of vehicles are respectively triggered to locally adjust the two or more operating parameters based on the adjustment for the respective vehicle, transmit to a central planning unit, an indication of the adjustment and an indication of the two or more operating parameters, wherein the central planning unit is triggered to control one or more operations to be performed by the set of vehicles based on the indicated adjustment and the indicated two or more operating parameters.
Dependent claim 9 recites, in part, wherein the set of vehicles comprises all vehicles operating in the work site, or a sub-set of vehicles operating in the work site.
Dependent claim 10 recites, in part, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain the first indication as input from a user interface.
Dependent claim 11 recites, in part, wherein the adjustment is represented as a relative adjustment to the two or more operating parameters.
Dependent claim 15 recites, in part, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 13.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 2-6, 8-11 and 15 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 12, and 13 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Independent Claims 1, 12, and 13 recite, in part, processing circuitry and a computer system. The specification defines processing circuitry as therein may be a processor and/or an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) (Example Embodiments in ¶ 88), and a computer system therein may be a processor and/or an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) (Example Embodiments in ¶ 88). The use of processing circuitry and a computer system are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 2 and 6 recite, in part, processing circuitry. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claim 8, recites in part, processing circuitry and a central planning unit. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claim 10, recites in part, processing circuitry and a user interface. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claim 15, recites in part, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Independent Claims 1, 12, and 13 recite, in part, processing circuitry and a computer system. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as use of the processing circuitry and a computer system to store and process data. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Dependent claims 2 and 6 recite, in part, processing circuitry. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claim 8, recites in part, processing circuitry and a central planning unit. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claim 10, recites in part, processing circuitry and a user interface. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claim 15, recites in part, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0175232, Verho, et al., hereinafter Verho.
Regarding claim 1, Verho discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to handle two or more operating parameters associated with a set of vehicles operating in a work site, the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain a first indication indicative of an adjustment to be performed to two or more operating parameters associated with the set of vehicles, (para. 56, The work machine 10 may determine, during the second action of the automatic adaptive loading procedure, if a change condition for changing the set of control parameters, a parameter in the defined set of control parameters, or automatic adaptive loading procedure action is met),
trigger the adjustment indicated by the first indication to be applied to the two or more operating parameters, (para. 56, need to adapt one or more parameters in the defined set is detected and may be dynamically adapted during application of the set. In response to the change condition being met, the set of control parameters, a parameter in the defined set, or the action (re)defined and changed.); and
wherein the two or more parameters respectively controls and/or constrains one or more operations to be performed by the set of vehicles, (para. 31, a server of the system 40 may be configured to manage at least some operations at the worksite, such as provide a UI for an operator to remotely monitor and, when needed, control automatic operation operations of the work machines and/or assign work tasks for a fleet of vehicles and update and/or monitor task performance and status. Thus, the work machine 10 may be unmanned, and para. 44, Temporal relationship between at least some of the plurality of control parameters in the set may be defined, and these parameters may be applied in block 220 according to the temporal relationship. Such temporal relationship information, such as timing information for parameters in the set, may be stored as part of the parameter set. The set of control parameters may be a sequence of control parameters. Timing of at least some of parameters may be defined in the set. The timing may be defined in relation to one or more other parameters of the set or another reference, such as start of block 220.).
Regarding claim 2, Verho discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Verho further discloses further wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: obtain a second indication indicative of the two or more operating parameters associated with the set of vehicles, (para. 56, need to adapt one or more parameters in the defined set is detected and may be dynamically adapted during application of the set. In response to the change condition being met, the set of control parameters, a parameter in the defined set, or the action (re)defined and changed.).
Regarding claim 3, Verho discloses the system of claims 1 and 2 as described above. Verho further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain the second indication of the two or more operating parameters by being configured to:
obtain an indication of a first operating parameter, (para. 56, need to adapt one or more parameters in the defined set is detected and may be dynamically adapted during application of the set. In response to the change condition being met, the set of control parameters, a parameter in the defined set, or the action (re)defined and changed), and
based on the first operating parameter, identify at least one secondary operating parameter, (para. 43, The first action and the second action may be considered as consecutive stages of the adaptive bucket loading procedure. An action and associated control parameter set may be selected and entered to react to detected trigger condition based on the driveline information.).
Regarding claim 4, Verho discloses the system of claims 1-3 as described above. Verho further discloses wherein the first operational parameter and the at least one secondary parameter is associated with at least one common operation of the set of vehicles, (para. 56, during the second action of the automatic adaptive loading procedure, if a change condition for changing the set of control parameters).
Regarding claim 5, Verho discloses the system of claims 1-3 as described above. Verho further discloses wherein the at least one secondary parameter is in a same category as the first operating parameter, or is a sub-parameter of the first operating parameter, (para. 82, Such control system may be an intelligent on-board control system controlling operation of various sub-systems of the work machine, such as a hydraulic system, a motor, etc,).
Regarding claim 6, Verho discloses the system of claims 1-3 as described above. Verho further discloses wherein the first operating parameter is a parameter controlling a travel motion of the set of vehicles, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to identify the at least one secondary operating parameter as comprising at least one second parameter controlling a load handling parameter of the set of vehicles, (para. 8, defining a set of control parameters on the basis of the received driveline information, and controlling position of the boom, position of the bucket, and speed of the work machine on the basis of the defined set of control parameters during a second action of the automatic adaptive loading procedure.).
Regarding claim 8, Verho discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Verho further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to trigger the adjustment by being configured to any one or both out of, transmit to the set of vehicles, an indication of the adjustment and an indication of the two or more operating parameters, wherein each vehicle out of the set of vehicles are respectively triggered to locally adjust the two or more operating parameters based on the adjustment for the respective vehicle, (para. 38, adaptive automatic bucket loading system based on adaptive control parameter set adjustment based on driveline information, enabling to further improve bucket filling efficiency in varying conditions and para. 55, if redefinition or change of applied set of control parameters and/or automatic loading action is to be triggered. This may be an additional block continued during or after block 220 and repeated during the adaptive loading procedure),
transmit to a central planning unit, an indication of the adjustment and an indication of the two or more operating parameters, wherein the central planning unit is triggered to control one or more operations to be performed by the set of vehicles based on the indicated adjustment and the indicated two or more operating parameters, (para. 55, if redefinition or change of applied set of control parameters and/or automatic loading action is to be triggered. This may be an additional block continued during or after block 220 and repeated during the adaptive loading procedure).
Regarding claim 9, Verho discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Verho further discloses wherein the set of vehicles comprises all vehicles operating in the work site, or a sub-set of vehicles operating in the work site, (para. 82, Such control system may be an intelligent on-board control system controlling operation of various sub-systems of the work machine, such as a hydraulic system, a motor, etc,).
Regarding claim 10, Verho discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Verho further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain the first indication as input from a user interface, (para. 31, the work machine 10 may be unmanned, the user interface may be remote from the work machine, and the work machine may be remotely monitored or controlled by an operator in proximity to the work machine).
Regarding claim 11, Verho discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Verho further discloses wherein the adjustment is represented as a relative adjustment to the two or more operating parameters, (para. 56, need to adapt one or more parameters in the defined set is detected and may be dynamically adapted during application of the set. In response to the change condition being met, the set of control parameters, a parameter in the defined set, or the action (re)defined and changed).
Regarding claim 12, Verho discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Verho further discloses a first vehicle, comprising:
a computer system including processing circuitry configured to handle two or more operating parameters associated with a set of vehicles operating in a work site, (para. 31, a server of the system 40 may be configured to manage at least some operations at the worksite, such as provide a UI for an operator to remotely monitor and, when needed, control automatic operation operations of the work machines and/or assign work tasks for a fleet of vehicles and update and/or monitor task performance and status. Thus, the work machine 10 may be unmanned and para. 56, The work machine 10 may determine, during the second action of the automatic adaptive loading procedure, if a change condition for changing the set of control parameters, a parameter in the defined set of control parameters, or automatic adaptive loading procedure action is met), the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain a first indication indicative of an adjustment to be performed to two or more operating parameters associated with the set of vehicles , (para. 56, The work machine 10 may determine, during the second action of the automatic adaptive loading procedure, if a change condition for changing the set of control parameters, a parameter in the defined set of control parameters, or automatic adaptive loading procedure action is met),
trigger the adjustment indicated by the first indication to be applied to the two or more operating parameters , (para. 56, need to adapt one or more parameters in the defined set is detected and may be dynamically adapted during application of the set. In response to the change condition being met, the set of control parameters, a parameter in the defined set, or the action (re)defined and changed.), and
wherein the two or more operating parameters respectively controls and/or constrains one or more operations to be performed by the set of vehicles, wherein the first vehicle is at least partly autonomous, (para. 31, a server of the system 40 may be configured to manage at least some operations at the worksite, such as provide a UI for an operator to remotely monitor and, when needed, control automatic operation operations of the work machines and/or assign work tasks for a fleet of vehicles and update and/or monitor task performance and status. Thus, the work machine 10 may be unmanned, and para. 44, Temporal relationship between at least some of the plurality of control parameters in the set may be defined, and these parameters may be applied in block 220 according to the temporal relationship. Such temporal relationship information, such as timing information for parameters in the set, may be stored as part of the parameter set. The set of control parameters may be a sequence of control parameters. Timing of at least some of parameters may be defined in the set. The timing may be defined in relation to one or more other parameters of the set or another reference, such as start of block 220.).
Regarding claims 13, this claim is are rejected for the same reasons and rationale as set for the above with regard to claims 1-3. Verho further teaches by the processing circuitry, obtaining a third indication indicative of the set of vehicles, (para. 56, need to adapt one or more parameters in the defined set is detected and may be dynamically adapted during application of the set. In response to the change condition being met, the set of control parameters, a parameter in the defined set, or the action (re)defined and changed).
Regarding claim 15, Verho discloses the method of claim 13 as described above. Verho further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, (para. 10, a computer program product or (a non-tangible) computer-readable medium comprising computer program code for, when executed in a data processing apparatus, to cause the apparatus to perform the method or an embodiment thereof.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims cannot be performed mentally, that the claims integrate the exception into a practical application, and that the claims improve the functioning of the computer or another technology.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. These steps amount to obtaining operating parameters to manage a set of vehicles which are functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes with or without physical aid).
These claims recite limitations that do not amount to significantly more. The structural elements of the present application as written in the independent claims (i.e. a processing circuitry and a computer system) are used as tools to perform an existing business process and do not improve upon a technology, technological field or computer-related technology which is considered a concept performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion). A concept performed in the human mind falls within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Mental Processes). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. The structural elements as claimed are for mere convenience, but this data that is being acquired, obtaining operating parameters to manage a set of vehicles, could be performed manually or observed with a human eye. As written in the Specification, at least para. [144], “An operator may select 302 the two or more operating parameters and input them into the user interface”. As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated in the 2014 IEG as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and "those that integrate the building blocks into something more…the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible". This framework found that the claims do tie up the exception.
Thus, the claims do not recite additional limitations that integrate the exception into a Practical Application and the claims do not improve the functioning of the computer or another technology.
Applicant argues that the Verho reference does not disclose or suggest a computer system in which two or more operating parameters respectively control and/or constrain one or more operations to be performed by a set of vehicles at a work site.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Verho discloses a computer system in which two or more operating parameters respectively control and/or constrain one or more operations to be performed by a set of vehicles at a work site, (see at least para. 31, a server of the system 40 may be configured to manage at least some operations at the worksite, such as provide a UI for an operator to remotely monitor and, when needed, control automatic operation operations of the work machines and/or assign work tasks for a fleet of vehicles and update and/or monitor task performance and status. Thus, the work machine 10 may be unmanned, and para. 44, Temporal relationship between at least some of the plurality of control parameters in the set may be defined, and these parameters may be applied in block 220 according to the temporal relationship. Such temporal relationship information, such as timing information for parameters in the set, may be stored as part of the parameter set. The set of control parameters may be a sequence of control parameters. Timing of at least some of parameters may be defined in the set. The timing may be defined in relation to one or more other parameters of the set or another reference, such as start of block 220.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coordinated autonomous vehicle automatic area scanning (US 11625802 B1) teaches autonomous and semi-autonomous vehicle control, routing, and automatic feature adjustment are disclosed. Sensors associated with autonomous operation features may be utilized to search an area for missing persons, stolen vehicles, or similar persons or items of interest. Sensor data associated with the features may be automatically collected and analyzed to passively search for missing persons or vehicles without vehicle operator involvement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30, First Friday 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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682