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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended, and claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (US 20160258770 A1) in view of Bennington et al. (US 20240103181 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mason teaches a system comprising
a memory having instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations ([0124]) including:
determining a route from an origin to a destination ([0047]) such that movement of a vehicle along the route can be remotely controlled in real time from a teleoperation center remote from the vehicle by generating and transmitting control signals from the teleoperation center to the vehicle for controlling movement of the vehicle along the route when the vehicle travels from the origin to the destination ([0119-0120], the routing module is a remote routing module, i.e. teleoperation center, as seen in Figs 1-2, and “can generate control instructions and transmit those control instructions directly to a vehicle's engine, steering, braking, and other components to control these components and to maintain the vehicle on the desired path”); and
controlling the vehicle to travel along the route with the control signals ([0052] and [0119-0120], vehicle is controlled by routing module to drive along the preferred route).
It is noted that the claimed “teleoperation center” is not redefined in applicant’s disclosure nor in the presently filed claims, and thus has been broadly interpreted as an apparatus or system that remotely controls a machine from a distance. Therefore, the remote routing module of Mason is considered one such teleoperation center as it remotely controls the vehicle’s operations, including its “engine, steering, braking, and other components to control these components and to maintain the vehicle on the desired path” ([0120]).
Mason teaches that the signal communication for the invention is implemented using a Wide Area Network (WAN) ([0031]). However, it is not privy to various details of implementing this WAN, such as data and signal transmission, and does not teach the use of a non-terrestrial network node that will relay control signals from the teleoperation center to the vehicle.
Non-terrestrial networks (NTN) are well known in the art as in the same field of endeavor, Bennington teaches the use of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) non-terrestrial network nodes as a data service for a network so as to perform the transmitting of data and signals ([0019-0020] and [0050]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement the WAN of Mason with such a non-terrestrial network, thereby using the NTN to relay control signals from the teleoperation center to the vehicle. It would have been obvious to do so at the effective date of filing based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the well-known advantages of using LEO non-terrestrial nodes to implement the data and signal transmission protocols for a network, including "complete regional or global coverage when compared to terrestrial networks" as taught by Bennington ([0020]).
Mason discloses a route determining and following system, but this system does not consider aspects of the non-terrestrial network node when determining this route. Mason does not teach that the determined route is within a defined drivable area based on a future trajectory of a non-terrestrial network node, and obstacle information of obstacles that could inhibit the vehicle from receiving control signals from the non-terrestrial network node.
Bennington further teaches that routes are determined:
within a defined drivable area based on a future trajectory of a non-terrestrial network node ([0074-0075] and [0235], defined drivable areas, i.e. cuboids, are analyzed with a Forecast Engine Service (FES) based on the satellite orbits, i.e. future trajectory of a non-terrestrial network), and
obstacle information of obstacles that could inhibit the vehicle from receiving the control signals from the non-terrestrial network node ([0078] and [0235], the forecast for these cuboids is also calculated based on “determin[ing] if each satellite is blocked/obscured by objects in the 3D map that is based on the real world”).
Bennington further teaches that system uses the LEO forecast to adjust various aspects of operation of the vehicle ([0151-0154]), including by adjusting known routes ([0168]) and by having routes planned “to ensure that [the vehicle] has the best LEO signals available” while operating ([0155-0156]). Therefore, since the invention of the prior combination uses LEO-NTN satellites to perform the communication of signals from the remote routing module to the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to have the routes of the vehicle be generated based on trajectory information of the LEO-NTN and obstacle information that would obstruct the LEO-NTN based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation, as taught by Bennington, of improving the route planning for vehicles, ensuring that routes are traveled with improved information and reliability provided by the satellite ([0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Mason teaches
determining the route further based on at least one of a recommended speed and a speed range of one or more segments of the route ([0050] and [0055], route determined based on speed range as limited by the speed limit so as to travel using speed recommendations).
Regarding claim 3, Mason teaches
determining the route further based on arrival times for one or more waypoints along the route ([0038] and [0054], routes are determined based on estimated transit time so that certain waypoints are arrived at before any strict requirements for arrival time at said waypoints).
Regarding claim 4, Mason teaches
determining the route further based on at least one of a travel time threshold and a distance threshold ([0052-0053], the routes are identified based off shortest distance threshold and/or shortest estimated transit time threshold, with the shortest thresholds being recognized as preferrable).
Regarding claim 5, Mason teaches
the distance threshold indicates a maximum distance for the vehicle to travel from the origin to the destination ([0052-0053], route with the lowest energy cost savings is determined as selected “as long as the distances of the feasible routes are within a predetermined or user-defined threshold”).
Regarding claim 8, Mason teaches:
determining the route further based on a trip cost threshold, indicating a financial cost of controlling the vehicle using the non-terrestrial network node ([0050], the route is determined based on the lowest energy cost, i.e. a trip cost threshold, which “can be an actual monetary cost”).
Regarding claim 9, the non-terrestrial network node of Mason is a GPS system ([0036]). Mason does not teach that the non-terrestrial network node is the non-terrestrial network node is a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite.
Bennington teaches that the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites are preferable to Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), like GPS ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Mason with the use of a LEO satellite based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Bennington, of having the signals be more resilient to jamming and spoofing ([0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Mason teaches a method comprising:
determining a route from an origin to a destination ([0047]) such that movement of a vehicle along the route can be remotely controlled in real time from a teleoperation center remote from the vehicle by generating and transmitting control signals from the teleoperation center to the vehicle for controlling movement of the vehicle along the route when the vehicle travels from the origin to the destination ([0119-0120], the routing module is a remote routing module, i.e. teleoperation center, as seen in Figs 1-2, and “can generate control instructions and transmit those control instructions directly to a vehicle's engine, steering, braking, and other components to control these components and to maintain the vehicle on the desired path”); and
controlling the vehicle to travel along the route with the control signals ([0052] and [0119-0120], vehicle is controlled by routing module to drive along the preferred route).
It is noted that the claimed “teleoperation center” is not redefined in applicant’s disclosure nor in the presently filed claims, and thus has been broadly interpreted as an apparatus or system that remotely controls a machine from a distance. Therefore, the remote routing module of Mason is considered one such teleoperation center as it remotely controls the vehicle’s operations, including its “engine, steering, braking, and other components to control these components and to maintain the vehicle on the desired path” ([0120]).
Mason teaches that the signal communication for the invention is implemented using a Wide Area Network (WAN) ([0031]). However, it is not privy to various details of implementing this WAN, such as data and signal transmission, and does not teach the use of a non-terrestrial network node that will relay control signals from the teleoperation center to the vehicle.
Non-terrestrial networks (NTN) are well known in the art as in the same field of endeavor, Bennington teaches the use of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) non-terrestrial network nodes as a data service for a network so as to perform the transmitting of data and signals ([0019-0020] and [0050]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement the WAN of Mason with such a non-terrestrial network, thereby using the NTN to relay control signals from the teleoperation center to the vehicle. It would have been obvious to do so at the effective date of filing based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the well-known advantages of using LEO non-terrestrial nodes to implement the data and signal transmission protocols for a network, including "complete regional or global coverage when compared to terrestrial networks" as taught by Bennington ([0020]).
Mason discloses a route determining and following system, but this system does not consider aspects of the non-terrestrial network node when determining this route. Mason does not teach that the determined route is within a defined drivable area based on a future trajectory of a non-terrestrial network node, and obstacle information of obstacles that could inhibit the vehicle from receiving control signals from the non-terrestrial network node.
Bennington further teaches that routes are determined:
within a defined drivable area based on a future trajectory of a non-terrestrial network node ([0074-0075] and [0235], defined drivable areas, i.e. cuboids, are analyzed with a Forecast Engine Service (FES) based on the satellite orbits, i.e. future trajectory of a non-terrestrial network), and
obstacle information of obstacles that could inhibit the vehicle from receiving the control signals from the non-terrestrial network node ([0078] and [0235], the forecast for these cuboids is also calculated based on “determin[ing] if each satellite is blocked/obscured by objects in the 3D map that is based on the real world”).
Bennington further teaches that system uses the LEO forecast to adjust various aspects of operation of the vehicle ([0151-0154]), including by adjusting known routes ([0168]) and by having routes planned “to ensure that [the vehicle] has the best LEO signals available” while operating ([0155-0156]). Therefore, since the invention of the prior combination uses LEO-NTN satellites to perform the communication of signals from the remote routing module to the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to have the routes of the vehicle be generated based on trajectory information of the LEO-NTN and obstacle information that would obstruct the LEO-NTN based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation, as taught by Bennington, of improving the route planning for vehicles, ensuring that routes are traveled with improved information and reliability provided by the satellite ([0032]).
Regarding claim 11, Mason teaches
determining the route further based on at least one of a recommended speed and a speed range of one or more segments of the route ([0050] and [0055], route determined based on speed range as limited by the speed limit so as to travel using speed recommendations).
Regarding claim 12, Mason teaches
determining the route further based on arrival times for one or more waypoints along the route ([0038] and [0054], routes are determined based on estimated transit time so that certain waypoints are arrived at before any strict requirements for arrival time at said waypoints).
Regarding claim 13, Mason teaches
determining the route further based on at least one of a travel time threshold and a distance threshold ([0052-0053], the routes are identified based off shortest distance threshold and/or shortest estimated transit time threshold, with the shortest thresholds being recognized as preferrable).
Regarding claim 14, Mason teaches
the distance threshold indicates a maximum distance for the vehicle to travel from the origin to the destination ([0052-0053], route with the lowest energy cost savings is determined as selected “as long as the distances of the feasible routes are within a predetermined or user-defined threshold”).
While Mason does not explicitly teach that the travel time threshold indicates a maximum amount of time for the vehicle to travel from the origin to the destination, it does teach that routes are determined as feasible based on strict time requirements for arrival at waypoints ([0054]). These waypoints also include the “destination waypoint” ([0038]). Therefore, when the destination waypoint has one such strict time requirement that requires the vehicle to arrive at the destination waypoint in under a certain amount of time, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Mason so that the travel time threshold indicates a maximum amount of time for the vehicle to travel from the origin to the destination based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to ensure that only routes which arrive at the destination waypoint before the maximum transit time threshold are considered feasible routes. This allows the system of Mason to exclude routes that have a travel time over a predetermined or user-defined threshold, in the same manner in which it does for routes with distances over a predetermined or user-defined threshold ([0053]).
Regarding claim 17, Mason teaches:
determining the route further based on a trip cost threshold, indicating a financial cost of controlling the vehicle using the non-terrestrial network node ([0050], the route is determined based on the lowest energy cost, i.e. a trip cost threshold, which “can be an actual monetary cost”).
Regarding claim 18, the non-terrestrial network node of Mason is a GPS system ([0036]). Mason does not teach that the non-terrestrial network node is the non-terrestrial network node is a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite.
Bennington teaches that the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites are preferable to Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), like GPS ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify Mason with the use of a LEO satellite based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation, as taught by Bennington, of having the signals be more resilient to jamming and spoofing ([0021]).
Regarding claim 19, Mason teaches
non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions ([0124]) that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations including:
determining a route from an origin to a destination ([0047]) such that movement of a vehicle along the route can be remotely controlled in real time from a teleoperation center remote from the vehicle by generating and transmitting control signals from the teleoperation center to the vehicle for controlling movement of the vehicle along the route when the vehicle travels from the origin to the destination ([0119-0120], the routing module is a remote routing module, i.e. teleoperation center, as seen in Figs 1-2, and “can generate control instructions and transmit those control instructions directly to a vehicle's engine, steering, braking, and other components to control these components and to maintain the vehicle on the desired path”); and
controlling the vehicle to travel along the route with the control signals ([0052] and [0119-0120], vehicle is controlled by routing module to drive along the preferred route).
It is noted that the claimed “teleoperation center” is not redefined in applicant’s disclosure nor in the presently filed claims, and thus has been broadly interpreted as an apparatus or system that remotely controls a machine from a distance. Therefore, the remote routing module of Mason is considered one such teleoperation center as it remotely controls the vehicle’s operations, including its “engine, steering, braking, and other components to control these components and to maintain the vehicle on the desired path” ([0120]).
Mason teaches that the signal communication for the invention is implemented using a Wide Area Network (WAN) ([0031]). However, it is not privy to various details of implementing this WAN, such as data and signal transmission, and does not teach the use of a non-terrestrial network node that will relay control signals from the teleoperation center to the vehicle.
Non-terrestrial networks (NTN) are well known in the art as in the same field of endeavor, Bennington teaches the use of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) non-terrestrial network nodes as a data service for a network so as to perform the transmitting of data and signals ([0019-0020] and [0050]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement the WAN of Mason with such a non-terrestrial network, thereby using the NTN to relay control signals from the teleoperation center to the vehicle. It would have been obvious to do so at the effective date of filing based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the well-known advantages of using LEO non-terrestrial nodes to implement the data and signal transmission protocols for a network, including "complete regional or global coverage when compared to terrestrial networks" as taught by Bennington ([0020]).
Mason discloses a route determining and following system, but this system does not consider aspects of the non-terrestrial network node when determining this route. Mason does not teach that the determined route is within a defined drivable area based on a future trajectory of a non-terrestrial network node, and obstacle information of obstacles that could inhibit the vehicle from receiving control signals from the non-terrestrial network node.
Bennington further teaches that routes are determined:
within a defined drivable area based on a future trajectory of a non-terrestrial network node ([0074-0075] and [0235], defined drivable areas, i.e. cuboids, are analyzed with a Forecast Engine Service (FES) based on the satellite orbits, i.e. future trajectory of a non-terrestrial network), and
obstacle information of obstacles that could inhibit the vehicle from receiving the control signals from the non-terrestrial network node ([0078] and [0235], the forecast for these cuboids is also calculated based on “determin[ing] if each satellite is blocked/obscured by objects in the 3D map that is based on the real world”).
Bennington further teaches that system uses the LEO forecast to adjust various aspects of operation of the vehicle ([0151-0154]), including by adjusting known routes ([0168]) and by having routes planned “to ensure that [the vehicle] has the best LEO signals available” while operating ([0155-0156]). Therefore, since the invention of the prior combination uses LEO-NTN satellites to perform the communication of signals from the remote routing module to the vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to have the routes of the vehicle be generated based on trajectory information of the LEO-NTN and obstacle information that would obstruct the LEO-NTN based on a reasonable expectation of success and for the motivation, as taught by Bennington, of improving the route planning for vehicles, ensuring that routes are traveled with improved information and reliability provided by the satellite ([0032]).
Regarding claim 20, Mason teaches
determining the route further based on at least one of: a recommended speed and a speed range of one or more segments of the route; arrival times for one or more waypoints along the route; a travel time threshold; a distance threshold; a received signal strength threshold; a minimum signal strength between the vehicle and the non-terrestrial network node; and a trip cost threshold, indicating a financial cost of controlling the vehicle using the non- terrestrial network node ([0052-0053], route is determined based on energy costs and distance thresholds).
Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Bennington as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Radko et al. (US 20200008122 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Bennington teaches
determining the route further based on a satellite signal component threshold ([0075] and [0235], forecasts for satellite bandwidth and dilution of precision (DOP) are used so that vehicles route away from cuboid areas with lower than a threshold bandwidth or DOP).
It is recognized that neither signal bandwidth nor DOP are equivalent to signal strength, and thus the prior combination does not teach that the route is determined based on signal strength. Note that Bennington does teach that the signal strength of LEO satellite systems fluctuates and is dependent on whether the satellites have line of sight over an area, but analyzes signal bandwidth and DOP to “predict lower signal strength” as opposed to analyzing signal strength directly while the vehicle is currently traveling ([0056] and [0075]).
In the same field of endeavor, Radko teaches that vehicle routes are controlled so that the vehicles do not travel along routes with a weak signal or no connection with a satellite ([0058]). It additionally teaches that a determination of whether a vehicle can find and adequately connect with a satellite is based on whether the signal strength – as measured and represented by a metric such as SNR or C/N -– is greater than a predetermined threshold ([0098]). SNR and C/N are well known metrics in the art of analyzing signal strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination so that the routes are also determined based on signal strength based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that vehicles only travel on routes where a strong, stable connection. Performing this determination allows for the updating of the vehicle route as the vehicle is currently traveling based on the current signal strength of the signals that it is actively receiving, in addition to the predictive analysis performed by the prior combination.
Regarding claim 7, Radko teaches
wherein the received signal strength threshold is a minimum signal strength between the vehicle and the non-terrestrial network node ([0098], signal strength above a threshold means that the vehicle has actively found the signal).
Regarding claim 15, Bennington teaches
determining the route further based on a satellite signal component threshold ([0075] and [0235], forecasts for satellite bandwidth and dilution of precision (DOP) are used so that vehicles route away from cuboid areas with lower than a threshold bandwidth or DOP).
It is recognized that neither signal bandwidth nor DOP are equivalent to signal strength, and thus the prior combination does not teach that the route is determined based on signal strength. Note that Bennington does teach that the signal strength of LEO satellite systems fluctuates and is dependent on whether the satellites have line of sight over an area, but analyzes signal bandwidth and DOP to “predict lower signal strength” as opposed to analyzing signal strength directly while the vehicle is currently traveling ([0056] and [0075]).
In the same field of endeavor, Radko teaches that vehicle routes are controlled so that the vehicles do not travel along routes with a weak signal or no connection with a satellite ([0058]). It additionally teaches that a determination of whether a vehicle can find and adequately connect with a satellite is based on whether the signal strength – as measured and represented by a metric such as SNR or C/N -– is greater than a predetermined threshold ([0098]). SNR and C/N are well known metrics in the art of analyzing signal strength.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to modify the prior combination so that the routes are also determined based on signal strength based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation of ensuring that vehicles only travel on routes where a strong, stable connection. Performing this determination allows for the updating of the vehicle route as the vehicle is currently traveling based on the current signal strength of the signals that it is actively receiving, in addition to the predictive analysis performed by the prior combination.
Regarding claim 16, Radko teaches
wherein the received signal strength threshold is a minimum signal strength between the vehicle and the non-terrestrial network node ([0098], signal strength above a threshold means that the vehicle has actively found the signal).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Mason nor Bennington teach the amended limitations, specifically contending that “Mason does not disclose a teleoperation center, does not disclose real-time remote control of vehicle operation from a teleoperation center”. The examiner disagrees. As noted above, Mason discloses a routing module that is remote from the vehicle (see Figs. 1 and 2, where the routing module is remotely located in a vehicle management system and not the vehicle itself) and controls the operations and movement of the vehicle along the route ([0120]). Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “teleoperation center” as stated in the rejection, it is recognized that the remote routing module of Mason satisfies the metes and bounds of the claimed teleoperation center.
Applicant further contends that Mason “does not disclose a non-terrestrial network node relaying vehicle-operating control signals from a remote operator to the vehicle.” This is persuasive as Mason discloses that communication is performed by a Wide Area Network (WAN) ([0031]), but is not privy to the specifics of signal and data transmission this network employs. However, as stated in the rejection above, Bennington discloses the use of non-terrestrial node networks to implement signal and data transmission services, including to and from vehicles ([0019-0020]), and it would have been obvious to use one such NTN for the data and signal transmission network of Mason for the advantages that non-terrestrial networks have, including "complete regional or global coverage when compared to terrestrial networks" as taught by Bennington ([0020]).
Applicant further contends that the combination does not reach the claimed invention as “the amended independent claims require route determination specifically so that remote teleoperation of the vehicle can be maintained in real time from the teleoperation center through relayed control signals used to operate the vehicle.” This argument is unpersuasive. Given that the combination of Mason and Bennington controls the vehicle via the remote routing module transmitting signals using a LEO-NTN, routing the vehicle so that the LEO-NTN maintains a satisfactory LEO performance is functionally equivalent to routing the vehicle “so that remote teleoperation of the vehicle can be maintained in real time from the teleoperation center through relayed control signals used to operate the vehicle” as a satisfactory LEO performance ensures that the operation of the vehicle is maintained.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Bennington teaches the use of well-known LEO-NTNs such as Starlink™ for network signal and data transmission in vehicles, and suggests how vehicles can be controlled in various aspects, including routing, based on the LEO performance predicted, which is based on the trajectory of, and obstacles obstructing, the LEO-NTN. Therefore, routing a vehicle so that LEO performance is maintained does not rely on knowledge gleaned from applicant’s disclosure.
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 JACK R. BREWER whose telephone number is (571)272-4455. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6PM.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/JACK R BREWER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights