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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 06/30/2026. Claims 1—20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 03/03/2025 has been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 06/30/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 11—20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The Response at page 6 states “Applicant has amended claim 11 to clarify that the method determines the location of the vehicle with a location determining device, and the environmental conditions are sensed with a plurality of sensors, and that a likelihood of moisture on the windshield is assessed with a controller which also determines a weighted proportion of the likelihood of moisture and performs the conditioning strategy. Applicant submits that these are not generic computing elements but rather specific vehicle components that work together to achieve a tangible result.” Examiner notes that the “location determining device” and the “plurality of sensors” are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., no specific sensor type is recited; no special sensor configuration recited) and are merely invoked as tools used to gather the data used to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, these elements are merely indicative of a field of use (e.g., generically recited sensors used in a vehicle which collect data to perform an abstract idea). The controller constitutes a generically recited computer component which is invoked in order to perform the abstract idea. These claim elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, do not provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions.
The Response at page 6 further states “Applicant submits that the claims integrate the recited steps into a practical application… The claims require performing a condition strategy to physical defog or defrost the windshield based on the weighted proportion of sensor data and location information,” to which the Examiner does not agree. As stated in the Non-Final Office Action, the limitation directed to the action performed in response to the abstract idea is recited at a level which is too broad to provide for a practical application. Examples of limitations which do properly integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application include the limitations of Diehr. For example, the MPEP states “[i]n contrast, the additional elements in Diamond v. Diehr as a whole provided eligibility and did not merely recite calculating a cure time using the Arrhenius equation ‘in a rubber molding process’. Instead, the claim in Diehr recited specific limitations such as monitoring the elapsed time since the mold was closed, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold cavity, repetitively calculating a cure time by inputting the measured temperature into the Arrhenius equation, and opening the press automatically when the calculated cure time and the elapsed time are equivalent. 450 U.S. at 179, 209 USPQ at 5, n. 5. These specific limitations act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber into cured molded rubber. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the limitations of Diehr which integrated the abstract idea (e.g., calculations using the Arrhenius equation) into a practical application (e.g., opening the press automatically once the calculated cure time and elapsed time are equivalent) provided a more specific application which was directly tied to the outcome of the judicial exception than that of the instant claims. In comparison to the instant claims, Diehr did not merely state “operating the mold based on the calculated cure time.” Accordingly, the arguments set forth with respect to the eligibility of claims 11—20 are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained as modified below in view of the provided amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1—8 and 11—18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The Response at page 8 states “Applicant submits that Chen does not disclose… using a weight proportion of the likelihood of moisture …The weighting in Chen is used to determine the external environment information from multiple remote sources and does not weight or combine on-board vehicle sensor data pertaining to the likelihood of moisture against external/remote environmental data,” to which the Examiner does not agree. As provided in the Non-Final Office Action, Chen at para. [0022]—[0025] states “[b]ased on the external environment information, the interior environment information before engine shutdown, the temperature change curve, and the humidity change curve, the current interior environment information of the vehicle to be defrosted is determined. The current frost level is determined based on the external environment information, the current in-vehicle environment information, and the frost level lookup table in the frost level model. The frost level is determined based on the current frost amount and the correspondence between frost amount and frost level in the frost level model. Furthermore, the frosting levels include no frosting, light frosting, moderate frosting, and heavy frosting.” Accordingly, Chen teaches that the external environment information (e.g., which is based the location of the vehicle) and the internal environment information are used in combination to determine both the frost level (e.g., likelihood of moisture) and whether the vehicle is to be defrosted (operation associated with likelihood of moisture). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a solution generated from a combination of variables, where each variable is equally weighted, still constitutes a generic weighted proportion as recited in the claim. Moreover, claims 1 and 11 do not require either of the following:
a specific weighted proportion which differs from a generic weighting of components in generating a combined value, determination, or assessment; and/or
using the vehicle location to determine whether the vehicle is located indoors or outdoors (e.g., claims 1 and 11 merely require that the external data is gathered based on vehicle location which is one manner in which Chen gathers external weather data).
Accordingly, the arguments set forth with respect to the distinguishing features of claims 1 and 11 in view of the Chen reference are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained as modified below in view of the provided amendments.
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 11—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more .
Step 1 of the USPTO’s eligibility analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim 11 is an independent claim directed to a method (process). As such, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent SUBJECT Matter Eligibility Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception
Claim 11 recites the following limitations directed an abstract idea:
“assessing… a likelihood of moisture on the windshield…” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept); and
“determining a weighted proportion of the likelihood of moisture…” (e.g., a mental process and/or mathematical concept).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the foregoing limitations constitute abstract ideas insofar as actions such as “determining a weighted proportion…” and “assessing a likelihood of moisture…” are capable of being performed by a human mind and therefore constitute mental processes. For example, a human mind is capable of making assessments using data gathered by sensors. A human mind is further capable of performing determinations related to mathematical concepts. In some situations, the foregoing mental processes may be performed in conjunction with a mathematical concept; however, mathematical concepts also constitute abstract ideas. Moreover, nothing in the identified limitations precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The MPEP states the following regarding mental processes:
“[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’… Accordingly, the ‘mental processes’ abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A discussion of concepts performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not ‘mental processes’, is provided below with respect to point A.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section III).
The MPEP states the following regarding mathematical calculations:
“[a] claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word ‘calculating’ in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Section I, Subsection C).
The mere recitation of generic computing elements and/or sensors does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements:
“determining a location of the vehicle with a location determining device” (e.g., extra-solution activity directed to mere data gathering);
“sensing environmental conditions within and proximate to the vehicle” (e.g., extra-solution activity directed to mere data gathering);
“a plurality of vehicle sensors” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use);
“location determining device” (e.g., merely indicative of a field of use);
“a controller” (e.g., limitations which generically recite computer components are equivalent to a mere directive to apply the identified judicial exceptions; equivalent to reciting “apply it”);
"receiving environmental information for ambient environmental conditions proximate to the vehicle with a remote assessment device” (e.g., extra-solution activity directed to mere data gathering); and
“performing a conditioning strategy with the controller to defog or defrost the windshield based on the weighted proportion” (e.g., generically recited application equivalent to a mere directive to apply the identified judicial exceptions; equivalent to reciting “apply it”).
The above identified limitations of claim 11 constitute additional elements. However, for the reasons identified above, and discussed further below, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the above identified additional elements do not integrate the identified judicial exceptions into a practical application.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Claim 11 recites the limitations “determining a location of the vehicle with a location determining device”; “sensing environmental conditions within and proximate to the vehicle”; and “receiving environmental information for ambient environmental conditions proximate to the vehicle with a remote assessment device,” which constitute additional elements. However additional elements directed to mere data gathering cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitations are directed to court-identified insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, the MPEP states “[b]elow are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: ii. Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); iv. Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754.” (MPEP 106.05(f)). Accordingly, limitations directed to mere data gathering, as identified above pertaining to claim 11, do not provide for a practical application of the abstract ideas identified in claim 11 because the limitations are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of “a plurality of vehicle sensors” and “location determining device” constitute additional elements directed to a field of use in which the exception is applied (e.g., vehicles with generically recited sensors). Limitations directed to a field of use cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions. For example, the MPEP states “[a]s explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the “plurality of vehicle sensors” cannot provide for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions because the limitations are merely indicative of the field of use in which the identified abstract ideas are applied.
Claim 11 recites the additional element of “a controller” which is a generically recited computer component and cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception. For example, the MPEP states “[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following… (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” (MPEP 2106.05(f), Section 2). Accordingly, the recited controller of claim 11 cannot provide for a practical application of the judicial exception where mere recitation of a controller is equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “performing a conditioning strategy with the controller to defog or defrost the windshield based on the weighted proportion,” which, at best, constitutes a mere directive to apply the judicial exception in a manner which does not provide for a practical application. For example, the limitation, which is recited at a high level of generality, functions to merely link the idea of a general solution or outcome (e.g., performing a conditioning strategy) to one of the identified abstract ideas (e.g., the weighted proportion). With respect to limitations which constitutes mere directives to apply the exception (e.g., equivalent to “apply it”) the MPEP states:
“[w]hen determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.” (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the limitation of claim 11 is merely directed to the idea of a solution or outcome and does not properly integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examples of limitations which do properly integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application include the limitations of Diehr. For example, the MPEP states “[i]n contrast, the additional elements in Diamond v. Diehr as a whole provided eligibility and did not merely recite calculating a cure time using the Arrhenius equation ‘in a rubber molding process’. Instead, the claim in Diehr recited specific limitations such as monitoring the elapsed time since the mold was closed, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold cavity, repetitively calculating a cure time by inputting the measured temperature into the Arrhenius equation, and opening the press automatically when the calculated cure time and the elapsed time are equivalent. 450 U.S. at 179, 209 USPQ at 5, n. 5. These specific limitations act in concert to transform raw, uncured rubber into cured molded rubber. 450 U.S. at 177-78, 209 USPQ at 4.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the limitations of Diehr which integrated the abstract idea (e.g., calculations using the Arrhenius equation) into a practical application (e.g., opening the press automatically once the calculated cure time and elapsed time are equivalent) provided a more specific application which was directly tied to the outcome of the judicial exception than that of the instant claims. For example, Diehr did not merely state “controlling the mold based on a calculated temperature.” Accordingly, the above identified limitation of claim 11 does not provide for a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitation is equivalent to a mere directive to apply the exception.
Claims 12 and 13 recite data sources which may be used in performing the abstract idea. To this end, the MPEP states “[l]imitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:… Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” (MPEP 2106.50, Section I, Subsection A). As such, the limitations of claims 12 and 13 do not function to integrate the abstract ideas (e.g., identified in claims 11) into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 14, 15, and 16 are directed to various remote start devices which constitute pre-solution activity (e.g., extra-solution activity) and are recited at a high level of generality where they are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. As such, the remote start devices do not function to provide a practical application of the above identified judicial exceptions. Moreover, utilizing remote start devices is well-known in the field of autonomous vehicle control. For example, Robertson et al. (US 20240067125 A1), which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to methods and systems for controlling a vehicle, states the following: “Remote Access systems for consumer vehicles have become a popular, if not essential, feature of most vehicles sold today. Increasingly, remote access systems are in the form of a key fob (some of which include an emergency key blade for manual lock entry) or an integrated key having a blade and key head or base. In either of these formats the key fob or key head typically includes a set of buttons dedicated to perform a set of operations, e.g., lock/unlock doors, open trunk, sound alarm, and remote start.” (Robertson, para. [0018]). Robertson further states “[t]he ubiquitous nature of smart phones and the readily available development tools and integrated communications technology supported by them provide an appealing alternative or replacement to the smart key for controlling operations associated with a vehicle. More recently, remote access systems have been enhanced with cellular connections to enable ECVAS. Smart phones natively include many attributes needed by a smart key and many additional attributes not provided on a smart key but offer enhanced properties. Accordingly, smart phones offer an attractive platform for aftermarket vehicle accessory systems.” (Robertson, para. [0018]). As such, the remote start devices of claims 14—16 constitute well-known, routine, or conventional activity and therefore amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide for a practical application/integration of the identified abstract ideas of claim 11.
Claims 17 and 18 function to further limit the windshield conditioning system identified in claim 11 as being directed to a field of use. The limitations of claims 17 and 18 recite the additional elements of “defogger and defrost devices” and “an airflow defogger and a heating element,” respectively. The foregoing limitation constitute extra solution activity insofar as they recite conventional systems used to control a portion of a climate of a vehicle. For example, Issued Patent to Willenborg et al. (US 12600305 B1) teaches “[s]ome common non-limiting examples of ancillary devices for vehicles include radios, entertainment systems, lighting systems, and HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems.” (Willenborg, Col. 22, Lines 3—6). As such, the windshield conditioning system components of claims 17 and 18 constitute well-known, routine, or conventional activity and therefore amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide for a practical application/integration of the identified abstract ideas of claim 11.
The limitations of claim 19 constitute additional elements which further constitute extra-solution activity. For example, an electric battery which supplies power to the vehicle constitutes an additional element; however, it does not function to provide for a practical application of the above identified judicial exception because it constitutes well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. For example, Published US Patent Application to Terai (US 20220314748 A1) states “in an air conditioning system mounted on an electric vehicle, using an automobile battery, which is a power source of an electric motor, as a power source of an electric heater is also common.” (Terai, para. [0007]). As such, configuration where the vehicle battery is used to power the air conditioning system/electric heater of claim 19 constitutes well-known, routine, or conventional activity and therefore amount to insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, limitations identified as insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide for a practical application/integration of the identified abstract ideas of claim 11.
The limitations of claim 20 are directed to an abstract idea insofar as the claim is directed to a determination regarding whether the vehicle is located indoors or outdoors. As discussed above, limitations directed to determinations constitute actions which may be performed in a human mind and therefore constitute mental processes which amount to abstract ideas. The limitations of claim 20 do not succeed in providing for a practical application of the identified judicial exceptions insofar as claim 20 itself further recites a judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1—8 and 11—18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Issued Chinese Patent to Chen et al., hereinafter “Chen” (CN 110803130 B), a translation of which is provided herewith.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses [a] vehicle (vehicle 12) comprising: a body defining a cabin interior (para. [0022], “[b]ased on the external environment information… the current interior environment information of the vehicle to be defrosted is determined.”; Examiner notes that the vehicle has an interior environment defined by a body structure of the vehicle. Furthermore vehicles including cars are generally understood to have a body which separates the interior of the vehicle from the exterior of the vehicle); a windshield (para. [0004], “[w]hen a vehicle is left outdoors for an extended period of time in winter, ice can form on the windshield, obstructing the driver's view.” Examiner notes that while Chen does not expressly recite that the vehicle includes a windshield; however the whole disclosure of Chen is directed to defrosting a windshield of a vehicle, and therefore the vehicle is understood to have a windshield);
a windshield conditioning system (para. [0088], “the vehicle defrosting device can send a vehicle start command and a defrosting command to the vehicle to be defrosted at the defrosting start time, so that the vehicle to be defrosted can perform defrosting. This embodiment does not limit the specific defrosting method. For example, windshield defrosting can be done by air conditioning windshield blowing or windshield resistance wire heating, etc.”);
a location determining device for determining a location of the vehicle (para. [0033], “[t]he information acquisition module is used to acquire parameter information of the vehicle to be defrosted, including location information, start-up status information, preset travel time, and the interior environment information of the vehicle before the engine is turned off.”; para. [0056], “[o]ptionally, the communication module 121 may have a positioning function, enabling it to obtain the location information of the vehicle 12.” Examiner notes the location information is used to determine local weather from a cloud weather application and/or from the sensors of surrounding vehicles which may be in communication with the ego vehicle);
a plurality of vehicle sensors for sensing environmental conditions within and proximate to the vehicle (“[t]he vehicle 12 may include… an in-vehicle temperature sensor 124, an in-vehicle humidity sensor 125, an outside-vehicle temperature sensor 126, and an outside-vehicle humidity sensor 127.” Para. [0064], “[v]ehicle defrosting devices can acquire ambient temperature and humidity data from temperature and humidity sensors installed on the vehicle that continue to operate even when the engine is off, or from temperature and humidity sensors installed on road infrastructure.”; para. [0005], “[i]n existing technology… the defrosting or defogging function is automatically activated when it is determined that there is a possibility of frost or fogging, based on the temperature and humidity inside and outside the vehicle.”);
a remote assessment device (platform from which external location-based weather information is pulled, as described below) for receiving environmental information for ambient environmental conditions (“external environment information” constituting weather information based on location of the vehicle) proximate to the vehicle (para. [0031], “[t]he external environmental information of the vehicle to be defrosted is determined based on the environmental information in the weather information, the weather information weight, the environmental information of each of the surrounding vehicles, and the weight of each of the surrounding vehicles.”; para. [0099], “the vehicle defrosting device can obtain… location information of surrounding vehicles within a preset distance of the vehicle to be defrosted from the data collected by the cloud platform at preset intervals, and at the same time obtain the ambient temperature and ambient humidity from the weather information… Surrounding vehicles refer to vehicles within a preset distance of the vehicle to be defrosted, which can upload information such as the ambient temperature, humidity, and location of the vehicle to the cloud platform.” Examiner notes the external environmental information may be a weighted value determined from weather information and surrounding vehicle information, both of which may be received from the cloud based on the location of the ego vehicle; para. [0058], “[c]loud platform 11 refers to an online service platform that can be matched with vehicle 12, realize information interaction, and provide intelligent defrosting analysis services for vehicle 12. Cloud platform 11 can… obtain real-time weather information at different locations, and perform data calculations based on this.”); and
a controller (communication module 121; air conditioning control module 123; power control module 122 of Example 1; para. [0056], “[t]he communication module 121 refers to a functional module that can interact with the cloud platform 11. This module can send parameter information of the vehicle 12 to the cloud platform 11 and receive information sent to the vehicle 12 by the cloud platform 11. The communication module 121 can exchange information with the air conditioning control module 123 and the power control module 122 via the CAN bus.”; para. [0054], “[t]he air conditioning control module 123 is also connected to the communication module 121 via a controller area network (CAN) bus to receive information sent by the aforementioned sensors, and can also receive defrost commands sent by the communication module 121 and perform windshield defrosting operations in response to the defrost commands.”; para. [0055], “The power control module 122 and the communication module 121 are also connected via the CAN bus. They can send vehicle start status information and receive remote start commands to provide a power source for the vehicle (engine ignition for fuel vehicles and high-voltage power supply for electric vehicles).”) configured to assess a likelihood of moisture on the windshield based on the sensed environmental conditions and the received environmental information and to perform a preconditioning strategy to defog or defrost the windshield with the windshield conditioning system (para. [0022]—[0025], “[b]ased on the external environment information, the interior environment information before engine shutdown, the temperature change curve, and the humidity change curve, the current interior environment information of the vehicle to be defrosted is determined. The current frost level is determined based on the external environment information, the current in-vehicle environment information, and the frost level lookup table in the frost level model. The frost level is determined based on the current frost amount and the correspondence between frost amount and frost level in the frost level model. Furthermore, the frosting levels include no frosting, light frosting, moderate frosting, and heavy frosting.”), wherein the controller controls the preconditioning strategy based on a weighted proportion of the sensed environmental condition sensed with the one or more vehicle sensors and the ambient environmental conditions received with the remote assessment device (as taught by Chen in the above citation, the external environment information and the internal environment information are used in combination to determine both the frost level (e.g., likelihood of moisture) and whether the vehicle is to be defrosted (operation associated with likelihood of moisture). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a solution generated from a combination of variables, where each variable is equally weighted, still constitutes a generic weighted proportion as recited in the claim. Moreover, the claims do not require a specific weighted proportion which differs from a generic weighting of components in generating a combined value, determination, or assessment.) and wherein the weighted proportion is determined based on the determined location of the vehicle (the external environment information gathered from the cloud data, which is used to determine the defrosting action, is based on the location of the vehicle as described above in para. [0031], [0099], and [0058]).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses wherein the plurality of vehicle sensors includes at least two of an ambient temperature sensor (an in-vehicle temperature sensor 124; an outside-vehicle temperature sensor 126), a solar load sensor, an evaporator temperature sensor, a windshield temperature sensor, a relative humidity sensor (an in-vehicle humidity sensor 125; an outside-vehicle humidity sensor 127), and a dewpoint temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses wherein the remote assessment device comprises one or more of a cloud based service and a weather application (para. [0099], “the vehicle defrosting device can obtain… location information of surrounding vehicles within a preset distance of the vehicle to be defrosted from the data collected by the cloud platform at preset intervals, and at the same time obtain the ambient temperature and ambient humidity from the weather information… Surrounding vehicles refer to vehicles within a preset distance of the vehicle to be defrosted, which can upload information such as the ambient temperature, humidity, and location of the vehicle to the cloud platform.” Examiner notes the external environmental information may be a weighted value determined from weather information and surrounding vehicle information, both of which may be received from the cloud based on the location of the ego vehicle; para. [0058], “[c]loud platform 11 refers to an online service platform that can be matched with vehicle 12, realize information interaction, and provide intelligent defrosting analysis services for vehicle 12. Cloud platform 11 can… obtain real-time weather information at different locations, and perform data calculations based on this.”).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses a remote start device (user terminal 13; para. [0059], “[t]he specific device of terminal 13 is not limited in this embodiment; for example, it can be a mobile phone, computer, or tablet computer. Terminal 13 provides users with functions such as querying, controlling the vehicle, and personalizing settings through an application set therein. This application can be linked to the brand of vehicle 12.”), wherein the remote start device initiates the preconditioning strategy (para. [0087], “the vehicle start command is a command used to remotely start the vehicle. Remote vehicle start is not done by operating the ignition switch in the car in the conventional way, but by sending the command to the vehicle in the form of a signal command through a safe certified platform via remote communication. After receiving the remote start command, the vehicle will automatically start without a driver in the car.”).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses wherein the remote start device comprises a key fob (user terminal 13; para. [0059], “[t]he specific device of terminal 13 is not limited in this embodiment; for example, it can be a mobile phone, computer, or tablet computer. Terminal 13 provides users with functions such as querying, controlling the vehicle, and personalizing settings through an application set therein. This application can be linked to the brand of vehicle 12.”).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses wherein the remote start device comprises a mobile device (user terminal 13; para. [0059], “[t]he specific device of terminal 13 is not limited in this embodiment; for example, it can be a mobile phone, computer, or tablet computer. Terminal 13 provides users with functions such as querying, controlling the vehicle, and personalizing settings through an application set therein. This application can be linked to the brand of vehicle 12.”) having a software application (para. [0058], “[c]loud platform 11 refers to an online service platform that can be matched with vehicle 12, realize information interaction, and provide intelligent defrosting analysis services for vehicle 12. Cloud platform 11 can realize information interaction with vehicle 12, obtain instructions from user terminal 13, obtain parameter information of vehicle 12 matched with cloud platform 11, obtain real-time weather information at different locations, and perform data calculations based on this.”).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses wherein the windshield conditioning system comprises one or more defogger or defrost devices para. [0088], “the vehicle defrosting device can send a vehicle start command and a defrosting command to the vehicle to be defrosted at the defrosting start time, so that the vehicle to be defrosted can perform defrosting. This embodiment does not limit the specific defrosting method. For example, windshield defrosting can be done by air conditioning windshield blowing or windshield resistance wire heating, etc.”).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses wherein the one or more defogger or defrost devices comprises (para. [0088], “the vehicle defrosting device can send a vehicle start command and a defrosting command to the vehicle to be defrosted at the defrosting start time, so that the vehicle to be defrosted can perform defrosting. This embodiment does not limit the specific defrosting method. For example, windshield defrosting can be done by air conditioning windshield blowing or windshield resistance wire heating, etc.”) one or more of an airflow defogger (“air conditioning windshield blowing”) and a heating element (“windshield resistance wire heating”).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses [a] method of preconditioning a vehicle to provide window defogging on a windshield (para. [0039], “[t]his invention determines the external environment information of the vehicle to be defrosted in the off state, determines the defrosting time based on the external environment information and the interior environment information of the vehicle before it was turned off, and then determines the defrosting start time of the vehicle to be defrosted based on the preset travel time and the defrosting time. At the defrosting start time, a vehicle start command and a defrosting command are sent to the vehicle to be defrosted so that the vehicle to be defrosted can perform defrosting.”), the method comprising the steps of:
determining a location of the vehicle with a location determining device (para. [0033], “[t]he information acquisition module is used to acquire parameter information of the vehicle to be defrosted, including location information, start-up status information, preset travel time, and the interior environment information of the vehicle before the engine is turned off.”; para. [0056], “[o]ptionally, the communication module 121 may have a positioning function, enabling it to obtain the location information of the vehicle 12.” Examiner notes the location information is used to determine local weather from a cloud weather application and/or from the sensors of surrounding vehicles which may be in communication through the cloud);
sensing environmental conditions within and proximate to the vehicle with a plurality of vehicle sensors (“[t]he vehicle 12 may include… an in-vehicle temperature sensor 124, an in-vehicle humidity sensor 125, an outside-vehicle temperature sensor 126, and an outside-vehicle humidity sensor 127.” Para. [0064], “[v]ehicle defrosting devices can acquire ambient temperature and humidity data from temperature and humidity sensors installed on the vehicle that continue to operate even when the engine is off, or from temperature and humidity sensors installed on road infrastructure.”; para. [0005], “[i]n existing technology… the defrosting or defogging function is automatically activated when it is determined that there is a possibility of frost or fogging, based on the temperature and humidity inside and outside the vehicle.”);
receiving environmental information for ambient environmental conditions proximate to the vehicle with a remote assessment device (para. [0031], “[t]he external environmental information of the vehicle to be defrosted is determined based on the environmental information in the weather information, the weather information weight, the environmental information of each of the surrounding vehicles, and the weight of each of the surrounding vehicles.”; para. [0099], “the vehicle defrosting device can obtain… location information of surrounding vehicles within a preset distance of the vehicle to be defrosted from the data collected by the cloud platform at preset intervals, and at the same time obtain the ambient temperature and ambient humidity from the weather information… Surrounding vehicles refer to vehicles within a preset distance of the vehicle to be defrosted, which can upload information such as the ambient temperature, humidity, and location of the vehicle to the cloud platform.” Examiner notes the external environmental information may be a weighted value determined from weather information and surrounding vehicle information, both of which may be received from the cloud based on the location of the ego vehicle; para. [0058], “[c]loud platform 11 refers to an online service platform that can be matched with vehicle 12, realize information interaction, and provide intelligent defrosting analysis services for vehicle 12. Cloud platform 11 can… obtain real-time weather information at different locations, and perform data calculations based on this.”);
assessing with a controller a likelihood of moisture on the windshield based on the sensed environmental conditions and the received environmental information (para. [0022]—[0025], “[b]ased on the external environment information, the interior environment information before engine shutdown, the temperature change curve, and the humidity change curve, the current interior environment information of the vehicle to be defrosted is determined. The current frost level is determined based on the external environment information, the current in-vehicle environment information, and the frost level lookup table in the frost level model. The frost level is determined based on the current frost amount and the correspondence between frost amount and frost level in the frost level model. Furthermore, the frosting levels include no frosting, light frosting, moderate frosting, and heavy frosting.”);
determining a weighted proportion of the likelihood of moisture assessed with the controller based on the sensed environmental conditions and the received environmental information (as taught by Chen in the above citation, the external environment information and the internal environment information are used in combination to determine the frost level (e.g., likelihood of moisture). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a solution generated from a combination of variables, where each variable is equally weighted, still constitutes a generic weighted proportion as recited in the claim. Moreover, the claims do not require a specific weighted proportion which differs from a generic weighting of components in generating a combined value, determination, or assessment.) wherein the weighted proportion is determined based on the determined location of the vehicle (the external environment information gathered from the cloud data, which is used to determine the defrosting action, is based on the location of the vehicle as described above in para. [0031], [0099], and [0058]); and
performing a conditioning strategy with the controller to defog or defrost the windshield based on the weighted proportion (para. [0039], “[t]his invention determines the external environment information of the vehicle to be defrosted in the off state, determines the defrosting time based on the external environment information and the interior environment information of the vehicle before it was turned off, and then determines the defrosting start time of the vehicle to be defrosted based on the preset travel time and the defrosting time. At the defrosting start time, a vehicle start command and a defrosting command are sent to the vehicle to be defrosted so that the vehicle to be defrosted can perform defrosting.”; para. [0054], “[t]he air conditioning control module 123 is also connected to the communication module 121 via a controller area network (CAN) bus to receive information sent by the aforementioned sensors, and can also receive defrost commands sent by the communication module 121 and perform windshield defrosting operations in response to the defrost commands.”; para. [0088], “the vehicle defrosting device can send a vehicle start command and a defrosting command to the vehicle to be defrosted at the defrosting start time, so that the vehicle to be defrosted can perform defrosting. This embodiment does not limit the specific defrosting method. For example, windshield defrosting can be done by air conditioning windshield blowing or windshield resistance wire heating, etc.”).
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses wherein the step of sensing moisture on the windshield comprises sensing moisture on the windshield with the plurality of sensors that includes two or more of an ambient temperature sensor (an in-vehicle temperature sensor 124; an outside-vehicle temperature sensor 126), a solar load sensor, an evaporator temperature sensor, a windshield temperature sensor, a relative humidity sensor (an in-vehicle humidity sensor 125; an outside-vehicle humidity sensor 127), and a dewpoint temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses wherein the remote assessment device comprises one or more of a cloud based service and a weather application (para. [0099], “the vehicle defrosting device can obtain… location information of surrounding vehicles within a preset distance of the vehicle to be defrosted from the data collected by the cloud platform at preset intervals, and at the same time obtain the ambient temperature and ambient humidity from the weather information… Surrounding vehicles refer to vehicles within a preset distance of the vehicle to be defrosted, which can upload information such as the ambient temperature, humidity, and location of the vehicle to the cloud platform.” Examiner notes the external environmental information may be a weighted value determined from weather information and surrounding vehicle information, both of which may be received from the cloud based on the location of the ego vehicle; para. [0058], “[c]loud platform 11 refers to an online service platform that can be matched with vehicle 12, realize information interaction, and provide intelligent defrosting analysis services for vehicle 12. Cloud platform 11 can… obtain real-time weather information at different locations, and perform data calculations based on this.”).
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses a remote start device (user terminal 13; para. [0059], “[t]he specific device of terminal 13 is not limited in this embodiment; for example, it can be a mobile phone, computer, or tablet computer. Terminal 13 provides users with functions such as querying, controlling the vehicle, and personalizing settings through an application set therein. This application can be linked to the brand of vehicle 12.”), wherein the remote start device initiates the preconditioning strategy (para. [0087], “the vehicle start command is a command used to remotely start the vehicle. Remote vehicle start is not done by operating the ignition switch in the car in the conventional way, but by sending the command to the vehicle in the form of a signal command through a safe certified platform via remote communication. After receiving the remote start command, the vehicle will automatically start without a driver in the car.”).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses wherein the remote start device comprises a key fob (user terminal 13; para. [0059], “[t]he specific device of terminal 13 is not limited in this embodiment; for example, it can be a mobile phone, computer, or tablet computer. Terminal 13 provides users with functions such as querying, controlling the vehicle, and personalizing settings through an application set therein. This application can be linked to the brand of vehicle 12.”).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses wherein the remote start device comprises a mobile device (user terminal 13; para. [0059], “[t]he specific device of terminal 13 is not limited in this embodiment; for example, it can be a mobile phone, computer, or tablet computer. Terminal 13 provides users with functions such as querying, controlling the vehicle, and personalizing settings through an application set therein. This application can be linked to the brand of vehicle 12.”) having a software application (para. [0058], “[c]loud platform 11 refers to an online service platform that can be matched with vehicle 12, realize information interaction, and provide intelligent defrosting analysis services for vehicle 12. Cloud platform 11 can realize information interaction with vehicle 12, obtain instructions from user terminal 13, obtain parameter information of vehicle 12 matched with cloud platform 11, obtain real-time weather information at different locations, and perform data calculations based on this.”).
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses wherein the windshield conditioning system comprises one or more defogger or defrost devices para. [0088], “the vehicle defrosting device can send a vehicle start command and a defrosting command to the vehicle to be defrosted at the defrosting start time, so that the vehicle to be defrosted can perform defrosting. This embodiment does not limit the specific defrosting method. For example, windshield defrosting can be done by air conditioning windshield blowing or windshield resistance wire heating, etc.”).
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses wherein the one or more defogger or defrost devices comprises (para. [0088], “the vehicle defrosting device can send a vehicle start command and a defrosting command to the vehicle to be defrosted at the defrosting start time, so that the vehicle to be defrosted can perform defrosting. This embodiment does not limit the specific defrosting method. For example, windshield defrosting can be done by air conditioning windshield blowing or windshield resistance wire heating, etc.”) one or more of an airflow defogger (“air conditioning windshield blowing”) and a heating element (“windshield resistance wire heating”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Issued Chinese Patent to Chen et al., hereinafter “Chen” (CN 110803130 B) as applied above to claim 1 and in further view of Published US Patent Application to Patel (US 20230373268 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses “[t]he power control module 122 and the communication module 121 are also connected via the CAN bus. They can send vehicle start status information and receive remote start commands to provide a power source for the vehicle (engine ignition for fuel vehicles and high-voltage power supply for electric vehicles).” (Chen, para. [0055]). However, Chen may not explicitly disclose that the defog and/or defrost devices receive electrical power from the battery. Patel, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to defrosting vehicle windows, teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Patel at para. [0022] teaches “the defroster 28 requires electrical power to operate, which is drawn from an electrical source such as the vehicle's battery (not shown).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the specific power supply (e.g., the car battery) of Patel for the generically referenced power supply of Chen. The functions of the power supply of Chen and the car battery of Patel were known (e.g., as provided above) such that the combination would generate the predictable result of utilizing the car battery to supply power to the windshield conditioning system (e.g., para. [0088] of Chen, “windshield defrosting can be done by air conditioning windshield blowing or windshield resistance wire heating”) of Chen.
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses “[t]he power control module 122 and the communication module 121 are also connected via the CAN bus. They can send vehicle start status information and receive remote start commands to provide a power source for the vehicle (engine ignition for fuel vehicles and high-voltage power supply for electric vehicles).” (Chen, para. [0055]). However, Chen may not explicitly disclose that the defog and/or defrost devices receive electrical power from the battery. Patel, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to defrosting vehicle windows, teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Patel at para. [0022] teaches “the defroster 28 requires electrical power to operate, which is drawn from an electrical source such as the vehicle's battery (not shown).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the specific power supply (e.g., the car battery) of Patel for the generically referenced power supply of Chen. The functions of the power supply of Chen and the car battery of Patel were known (e.g., as provided above) such that the combination would generate the predictable result of utilizing the car battery to supply power to the windshield conditioning system (e.g., para. [0088] of Chen, “windshield defrosting can be done by air conditioning windshield blowing or windshield resistance wire heating”) of Chen.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Issued Chinese Patent to Chen et al., hereinafter “Chen” (CN 110803130 B) as applied above to claims 1 and 11, and in further view of Published US Patent Application to Fang et al., hereinafter “Fang” (US 20260101268 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Chen may not explicitly disclose the limitation “the location determining device determines whether the vehicle is located in an indoor environment or an outside environment.” However, Fang, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to autonomous vehicle systems which utilize location services, teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Fang teaches the following:
“[t]he user device 102 may, in general, comprise forms of equipment and machines such as but, not limited to, Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices and smart appliances, autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles including cars, trucks…”. (Fang, para. [0028]).
“[i]n some embodiments, an estimation of whether the user device is indoors or outdoors is determined based, at least in part, on the location of the user device. The estimation may be performed using the location data and other types of data available (e.g., mapping data) to the core network selection engine via one or more data networks. The estimation of whether the user device is indoors or outdoors may also be determined using one or more machine learning models trained to predict whether the user device in indoors or outdoors based on correlations between indoor and outdoor status (e.g., based on mapping data) and historical location data, velocity data, and the like.” (Fang, para. 0057]).
As such, Fang discloses a location device utilized in a vehicle where the location device is capable of determining whether it is located indoors or outdoors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the location estimation feature (e.g., and associated data gathering) of Fang to the location service features of Chen. The location estimation feature of Fang would function the same combined with Chen as it would separately. The combination would generate the predictable result of a vehicle location device capable of determining whether it is located in and indoor environment or an outdoor environment.
Regarding claim 20, Chen may not explicitly disclose the limitation “the location determining device determines whether the vehicle is located in an indoor environment or an outside environment.” However, Fang, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to autonomous vehicle systems which utilize location services, teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Fang teaches the following:
“[t]he user device 102 may, in general, comprise forms of equipment and machines such as but, not limited to, Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices and smart appliances, autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles including cars, trucks…”. (Fang, para. [0028]).
“[i]n some embodiments, an estimation of whether the user device is indoors or outdoors is determined based, at least in part, on the location of the user device. The estimation may be performed using the location data and other types of data available (e.g., mapping data) to the core network selection engine via one or more data networks. The estimation of whether the user device is indoors or outdoors may also be determined using one or more machine learning models trained to predict whether the user device in indoors or outdoors based on correlations between indoor and outdoor status (e.g., based on mapping data) and historical location data, velocity data, and the like.” (Fang, para. 0057]).
As such, Fang discloses a location device utilized in a vehicle where the location device is capable of determining whether it is located indoors or outdoors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the location estimation feature (e.g., and associated data gathering) of Fang to the location service features of Chen. The location estimation feature of Fang would function the same combined with Chen as it would separately. The combination would generate the predictable result of a vehicle location device capable of determining whether it is located in and indoor environment or an outdoor environment.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 PM.
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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights