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 .
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 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner will now proceed through the two-prong test laid out in MPEP § 2106 on claim 17 (the present claim) to illustrate how the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims is directed toward the judicial exception. However, the other independent and dependent claims are also directed to a judicial exception unless otherwise specified.
Firstly, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the present claim is a device that reads an alignment field to generate an instruction that can be used to align the vehicle on a parking space.
Regarding Step 1, the present claim is directed to a device because it describes components and their functional relationships. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Regarding Step 2A, the present claim recites a judicial exception because it is (1) directed to an abstract idea; and (2) it does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The present claim is (1) directed to an abstract idea, particularly a mental process. A mental process is any concept that could be interpreted as being performed by the human mind or by a human mind with a physical aid. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). In the present claim, the abstract idea is captured by the following claim limitations:
“ . . . receive alignment fields generated by stationary induction charging devices of parking spaces of a parking lot and to detect the signal strength and alignment frequency of the alignment fields,
recognize based on a stronger alignment field and the alignment frequency of the stronger alignment field that the mobile induction charging device is to be aligned with the stationary induction charging device associated with the parking space as it approaches one of the parking spaces . . . ”
These limitations, when broadly interpreted, do not preclude a human from, in their mind or with a pen and piece of paper, receiving any kind of “field” that could be used for alignment (i.e., a flashing beacon or some other human-recognizable field) and making a simple determination about whether the vehicle is to be aligned with a specific charger. In other words, the claim is directed to a mental process because of the high level of generality with which the limitations are recited, and analysis proceeds to step (2).
The present claim also (2) fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In a computing environment, a mental process may be integrated into a practical application where the claim goes “beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment . . . .” MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Here, the applying the exception to the environment of “a motor vehicle, comprising a mobile induction charging device” does not appear to the Examiner as more than generally linking the mental process defined in step 2A to being generally performed by a vehicle. Therefore, the present claim does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The present claim reciting to a mental process generically applied on computer hardware, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additional elements of computer components to an abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when, considered as a whole, the claim appears to be “[s]imply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.” MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A). The additional elements of “output[ting] a navigation instruction for aligning the motor vehicle on the parking space via the alignment field associated with the approached parking space” can be broadly interpreted as a human outputting an instruction that could be used for aligning the motor vehicle without actually positively controlling the motor vehicle to achieve alignment. Thus, this limitation appears to be appending the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of performing processes on a computer, at a high level of generality, to the mental process of the present claim. Therefore, the present claim does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner notes that while the above analysis was applied to claim 1 in particular, further steps recited in the other independent and dependent claims all feature similar issues that bar them from being considered eligible subject matter unless specified below.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that one of the simplest and most common ways to overcome a § 101 rejection for an abstract idea is to amend the claim to recite positive control of the device. In this case, it appears that specifying that the navigation instruction is used by the vehicle to control the vehicle in some way appears to overcome the § 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20150042168 A1 to Widmer, Hanspeter (“Widmer 2015”).
Regarding claim 17, Widmer 2015 discloses a motor vehicle, comprising a mobile induction charging device (Widmer FIG. 1: Electric vehicle 112.), wherein the motor vehicle is configured to:
receive alignment fields generated by stationary induction charging devices of parking spaces of a parking lot and to detect the signal strength and alignment frequency of the alignment fields (Widmer 2015 FIG 7A, [0080]: “In this embodiment, the vehicle 708a may be positioned within a parking space in which charging station 701b is located may receive multiple magnetic field beacon signals 707a-d transmitted at different frequencies by different neighboring base pads 702a-d. . . . By using position or direction information, the electric vehicle 708 may automatically select and identify the closest BCU 704 or base pad 702 the electric vehicle 708 is approaching.” Widmer teaches at [0032] that signal strength decays with distance as a principle of operation in the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the distance to the charging pad would have been determined based on the signal strength.),
recognize based on a stronger alignment field and the alignment frequency of the stronger alignment field that the mobile induction charging device is to be aligned with the stationary induction charging device associated with the parking space as it approaches one of the parking spaces (Widmer [0080]: “By using position or direction information, the electric vehicle 708 may automatically select and identify the closest BCU 704 or base pad 702 the electric vehicle 708 is approaching. The automatic selection may eliminate the need for a driver to manually enter a parking place number/ID or make a manual selection of the BCU 704 or base pad 702 on the electric vehicle 708 user interface. An electric vehicle 708 may use position or direction information to discriminate between wanted and unwanted beacon signals 707 and identify the wanted BCU 704 and base pad 702.”), and
output a navigation instruction for aligning the motor vehicle on the parking space via the alignment field associated with the approached parking space (Widmer 2015 [0080]: “The beacon signals 707 may be transmitted within the entire range of a parking space 706 to allow the base pad 702 and the electric vehicle 708a to establish pairing and begin communication between guidance systems 362 and 364 and alignment systems 352 and 354 before the vehicle 708a is positioned over the base pad 702b.”).
Claim 20 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 17, applied to a method.
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.
Claims 18-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Widmer 2015 as discussed above, and further in view of US 20180290550 A1 to Yang, Ruicong (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 18, Widmer 2015 teaches the motor vehicle according to Claim 17.
Widmer 2015 does not appear to expressly teach wherein the motor vehicle is further configured to:
receive a positioning field generated by one of the stationary induction charging devices, and output via the positioning field a navigation instruction for positioning the mobile induction charging device in relation to the stationary induction charging device of the approached parking space.
However, Yang teaches wherein the motor vehicle is further configured to:
receive a positioning field generated by one of the stationary induction charging devices (Yang FIG. 2b; [0050]-[0051]: Yang teaches a wireless charging transmitter attached to the ground that comprises four solenoids, each generating a magnetic field for vehicle positioning. The magnetic fields generated by all four solenoids collectively taken as the positioning field.), and output via the positioning field a navigation instruction for positioning the mobile induction charging device in relation to the stationary induction charging device of the approached parking space (Yang FIG. 6: Yang teaches using the four fields to position the charger in relation to the vehicle. Such an instruction, by extension, may be understood as being done “for positioning the mobile induction charging device in relation to the stationary induction charging device.” In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that amending this claim to state that the navigation instruction specifically moves the motor vehicle carrying the mobile induction charging device would appear to overcome the art of record.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the charger alignment system that guides a vehicle to a selected charging base of Widmer 2015 with the charger alignment system that uses another magnetic field to move the charger such that the vehicle charging receiver is properly aligned of Yang. Doing so would have provided the system with “the advantage of automatic, rapid and accurate alignment” as taught by Yang in [0074].
Regarding claim 19, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the above combination of Widmer 2015 and Yang further teaches the motor vehicle according to Claim 18, wherein a near positioning of the mobile induction charging device in relation to the induction charging device associated with the approached parking space is carried out via the positioning field (Yang [0033]: Yang teaches that the vehicle must be in the parking space before the system is used. This broadly reads on near positioning.).
Claim 21 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 18, applied to a method.
Claim 22 is rejected over similar reasons to claim 19, applied to a method.
Claims 23-26, 32-33, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10150375 B2 to Lewis, Allan (“Lewis”) and further in view of US 20120262002 A1 to Widmer, Hanspeter et al. (“Widmer”).
Regarding claim 23, Lewis teaches a parking lot, comprising:
at least one first parking space and a second parking space (Lewis FIG. 2: Lewis teaches each parking space is provided with a charging coil for charging the vehicle, see also FIG. 1.), wherein:
the first parking space can be driven into in a first parking direction (Lewis FIG. 2: Each individual parking space requires a different direction to be parked there.), the first parking space is provided with a first stationary induction charging device (Lewis FIG. 1: Lewis depicts that each parking space has a wireless charger.) configured to cooperate with a mobile induction charging device of a motor vehicle for wireless energy transfer (Lewis [4:22-24]: “A vehicle 120 which is parked in the parking space may be wirelessly charged with electric energy by a charging coil 116 which is installed at the floor.”), and
the second parking space can be driven into in a second parking direction (Lewis FIG. 2: Each individual parking space requires a different direction to be parked there.), the second parking space is provided with a second stationary induction charging (Lewis FIG. 1: Lewis depicts that each parking space has a wireless charger.) configured to cooperate with the mobile induction charging device of the motor vehicle for wireless energy transfer (Lewis [4:22-24]: “A vehicle 120 which is parked in the parking space may be wirelessly charged with electric energy by a charging coil 116 which is installed at the floor.” Understood that each charging coil is for charging a vehicle.).
Lewis does not appear to expressly teach the first stationary induction charging device is configured to generate a first alignment field directed in the first parking direction with a first alignment frequency for aligning the mobile induction charging device with the first stationary induction charging device, and
the second stationary induction charging device is configured to generate a second alignment field directed in the second parking direction with a second alignment frequency for aligning the mobile induction charging device with the first second stationary induction charging device.
However, Widmer 2012 teaches the first stationary induction charging device is configured to generate a first alignment field directed in the first parking direction (Widmer 2012 FIG. 18C; [0119]: “This may assist sensing by the x-loop 1702 and y-loop 1704 which may be used to detect a direction of a charging base 104 (having a CB antenna 114) when a BEV 102 is approaching the charging base 104 . . .”; [0121]: “A direction of a horizontal field component 1804 (e.g. x-axis) of the magnetic field, which points toward charging base 104, may be determined based on sensing signals received by the sensor 1700.” The horizontal field component of the field is understood as directed in the first parking direction because it points at the charging base emitting the field. The entire field generated by the base is taken as the first alignment field.) with a first alignment frequency for aligning the mobile induction charging device with the first stationary induction charging device (Widmer 2012 FIG. 24; [0143]: Widmer 2012 teaches using a different frequency for the field generated by each charger at each parking space. Space 106A taken as the first parking space.), and
the second stationary induction charging device is configured to generate a second alignment field directed in the second parking direction with a second alignment frequency for aligning the mobile induction charging device with the first second stationary induction charging device (Widmer 2012 FIG. 24; [0143]: Widmer teaches that each charging device implements a beacon field to aid in direction finding for the vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that each space would have emitted a magnetic field with a frequency and strength. Space 106B taken as the second parking space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the parking lot comprising parking spaces with charging coils for wirelessly charging vehicles of Lewis with the parking space chargers in multiple parking spaces that use a magnetic field to help vehicles find the direction and position of the chargers during approach and final positioning taught by Widmer 2012. Doing so would have aided in positioning the vehicle properly over the charger, improving coupling alignment between the vehicle and charger and thereby the efficiency of the charging.
Regarding claim 24, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of Lewis and Widmer 2012 further teaches the parking lot according to Claim 23, wherein the first stationary induction charging device and/or the second stationary induction charging device is configured to generate a magnetic alignment field (Widmer 2012 [0121]: “The electromagnetic field generated by the charging base 104 and transmitted by the CB antenna 114 may comprise one or more very low frequency (VLF) (i.e., 3-30 KHz) or low frequency (LF) (i.e., 30-300 KHz) magnetic field patterns, which may be generated by a charging base 104 and received by one or more VLF or LF BEV antennas 118 within the BEV base 120.” Understood that each parking space has a charger, and thus each charger emits one such electromagnetic field.).
Regarding claim 25, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of Lewis and Widmer 2012 further teaches the parking lot according to Claim 23, wherein at least one of the alignment fields propagates along the associated parking direction starting from the associated stationary induction charging device (Widmer 2012 FIGS. 18A-18B: Widmer depicts the field’s vertical component propagating out from the charger. Because the charger generates the field, the field starts at the charger. The field emanates in all directions, meaning it must propagate along the associated parking direction.).
Regarding claim 26, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of Lewis and Widmer 2012 teaches the parking lot according to Claim 23, wherein the first alignment field and/or the second alignment field is used for far positioning the mobile induction charging device in relation to the stationary induction charging device associated with the approached parking space (Widmer [0135]: “FIGS. 20A, FIG. 22A and FIG. 22B illustrate processing during an `approach phase` of forward parking when the vehicle is crossing the edge of a parking lot and approaching a parking area 106. In this phase, the system mainly relies on direction finding.” Direction finding using the field generated by the charger taken as far positioning because the vehicle has not entered the parking space yet.).
Regarding claim 32, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of Lewis and Widmer 2012 further teaches the parking lot according to Claim 23.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the first alignment frequency is 134.0 kHz or 135.0 kHz or 145.560 kHz and the second alignment frequency is 135.5 kHz or 136.5 kHz or 137.0 kHz or 145.985 kHz.
However, Widmer 2012 teaches at [0121], “The electromagnetic field generated by the charging base 104 and transmitted by the CB antenna 114 may comprise one or more very low frequency (VLF) (i.e., 3-30KHz) or low frequency (LF) (i.e., 30-300KHz) magnetic field patterns . . . .” Widmer further teaches selecting four distinctive frequencies, each for a respective parking space comprising a charger at [0143].
Per MPEP 2144.05, "In the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) . . . ." In the present claim, all of the listed frequencies fall within the range disclosed by Widmer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected some combination of the frequencies disclosed in the present claim for the chargers at the first and second spaces because doing so would have given each charger a distinctive frequency to reduce noise received by the signals of multiple chargers when performing positioning as taught in [0143] of Widmer.
Regarding claim 33, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of Lewis and Widmer 2012 further teaches the parking lot according to Claim 23, further comprising a third parking space and a fourth parking space, wherein:
the third parking space can be driven into in a third parking direction (Lewis FIG. 2: A third parking space from the lot depicted is taken as the third parking space.), the third parking space is provided with a third stationary induction charging device (Lewis FIG. 1: Lewis teaches each space comprises a charger.) configured to cooperate with the mobile induction charging device of the motor vehicle for wireless energy transfer (Lewis [4:22-24]: “A vehicle 120 which is parked in the parking space may be wirelessly charged with electric energy by a charging coil 116 which is installed at the floor.” Understood that each charging coil is for charging a vehicle.) and to generate an alignment field with a third alignment frequency (Widmer 2012 FIG. 24; [0143]: Widmer 2012 teaches using a different frequency for the field generated by each charger at each parking space. Space 106C taken as the third parking space.) directed in the third parking direction for the alignment of the mobile induction charging device to the third stationary induction charging device (Widmer 2012 FIGS. 18C, 24; [0119], [0143]: Widmer teaches that each charging device implements a field to aid in direction finding for the vehicle. The horizontal component of this field, pointing at the charging base, is taken as the third alignment field in the third direction.), and
the fourth parking space can be driven into in a fourth parking direction (Lewis FIG. 2: A third parking space from the lot depicted is taken as the third parking space.), the fourth parking space is provided with a fourth stationary induction charging device (Lewis FIG. 1: Lewis teaches each space comprises a charger.) configured to cooperate with the mobile induction charging device of the motor vehicle for wireless energy transfer (Lewis [4:22-24]: “A vehicle 120 which is parked in the parking space may be wirelessly charged with electric energy by a charging coil 116 which is installed at the floor.” Understood that each charging coil is for charging a vehicle.) and to generate an alignment field with a fourth alignment frequency (Widmer 2012 FIG. 24; [0143]: Widmer 2012 teaches using a different frequency for the field generated by each charger at each parking space. Space 106D taken as the fourth parking space. Note that in [0143], Widmer discloses four separate frequencies, each for one of the four spaces.) directed in the fourth parking direction for the alignment of the mobile induction charging device to the fourth stationary induction charging device (Widmer 2012 FIGS. 18C, 24; [0119], [0143]: Widmer teaches that each charging device implements a field to aid in direction finding for the vehicle. The horizontal component of this field, pointing at the charging base, is taken as the fourth alignment field in the fourth direction.).
This combination does not appear to expressly teach wherein the third alignment frequency is 133.5 kHz or 146.843 kHz and the fourth alignment frequency is 137.0 kHz or 137.5 kHz or 147.275 kHz.
However, Widmer 2012 teaches at [0121], “The electromagnetic field generated by the charging base 104 and transmitted by the CB antenna 114 may comprise one or more very low frequency (VLF) (i.e., 3-30KHz) or low frequency (LF) (i.e., 30-300KHz) magnetic field patterns . . . .” Widmer further teaches selecting four distinctive frequencies, each for a respective parking space comprising a charger at [0143].
Per MPEP 2144.05, "In the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) . . . ." In the present claim, all of the listed frequencies fall within the range disclosed by Widmer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected some combination of the frequencies for chargers in the third and fourth parking spaces disclosed in the present claim because doing so would have given each charger a distinctive frequency to reduce noise received by the signals of multiple chargers when performing positioning as taught in [0143] of Widmer.
Regarding claim 36, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of Lewis and Widmer 2012 teaches a method for operating a parking lot according to Claim 23 (Widmer 2012 FIGS 20-24: Widmer teaches how all the components of the parking lot described in claim 23 operate to achieve vehicle positioning over the charger, while Lewis teaches the lot comprises spaces with chargers that can charge an automobile.)
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10150375 B2 to Lewis, Allan (“Lewis”) in view of US 20120262002 A1 to Widmer, Hanspeter et al. (“Widmer”), and further in view of US 20180290550 A1 to Yang, Ruicong et al. (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 27, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of Lewis and Widmer 2012 teaches the parking lot according to Claim 23.
This combination does not appear to expressly teach the first stationary induction charging device and/or the second stationary induction charging device is configured to generate a positioning field directed parallel in relation to a normal of the associated parking space.
However, Yang teaches the first stationary induction charging device and/or the second stationary induction charging device is configured to generate a positioning field directed parallel in relation to a normal of the associated parking space (Yang FIG. 2b; [0050]-[0051]: Yang teaches the charging system comprises four solenoids, each generating a magnetic field for vehicle positioning. The magnetic fields generated by all four solenoids collectively taken as the positioning field. Yang further depicts the solenoids arranged such that the current input induces a magnetic field normal to the surface of the pad.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have combined the parking lot comprising wireless chargers for vehicles in each parking space that aid in positioning the vehicle over the chargers taught by the above combination of Lewis and Widmer 2012 with the positioning system for positioning a vehicle over a charger in a parking space that comprises four solenoids generating four magnetic fields taught by Yang. Doing so would have aided in “automatic rapid and accurate alignment” as taught by Yang in [0074].
Regarding claim 28, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the above combination of Lewis, Widmer 2012, and Yang further teaches the parking lot according to Claim 27, wherein the first stationary induction charging device and/or the second stationary induction charging device is configured to generate the positioning field from four or five magnetic fields offset in relation to one another (Yang FIG. 2B: Yang teaches four solenoids offset spatially in relation to one another, each solenoid generating a magnetic field for positioning.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-31 and 34-35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 29-31, none of the prior art of record appears to teach, alone or in combination, the subject matter of claim 29.
The closest prior art, Yang, teaches a wireless charger comprising four solenoids that emit four magnetic fields to aid in positioning a vehicle over the charger. See FIG. 2b. However, Yang is silent as to whether the fields are alternating or static, let alone whether each field has a frequency. Another prior art used here as illustration but not relied upon in any rejection of record, US 20160025821 A1 to Widmer, Hans Peter et al. (“Widmer 2015”), teaches generating a positioning magnetic field composed of three magnetic fields with varying frequencies. See [0131]. However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend this concept to four magnetic fields of varying frequency. By merit of their dependency on claim 29, claims 30-31 are also allowable.
Regarding claims 34-35, none of the prior art of record appears to teach, alone or in combination, the subject matter of claim 34.
Widmer 2012 is the closest prior art. In FIG. 24, Widmer 2012 depicts four parking spaces, each with their own charger emitting alignment signals for parking in four respective directions. However, Widmer 2012 does not teach the specific arrangement of parking spaces disclosed by claim 34. Nor would it have been obvious to attempt to rearrange the parking spots in a row taught by Widmer 2012 to reflect an arrangement that reads on claim 33 using art like Lewis FIG. 2 because Widmer 2012 does not address a situation where parking spots are arranged lengthwise. On merit of its dependency on claim 34, claim 35 is also allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhao, Yi. US 10802586 B1. Magnetic Finger Tracking With Multi-Frequency Modulation.
Hausmans, Joost et al.. WO 2023031442 A1. MAGNETIC FIELD BASED GUIDING SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GUIDING.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY RICHARD HINTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/HENRY R HINTON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights