CTNF 19/191,334 CTNF 88367 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-11 have been examined. P = paragraph e.g. P[0010] = paragraph[0001] 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “video capturing module” and “image capturing module” in claims 3 and 8. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification does not clearly describe structure that specifically corresponds to any mention of “module”, however, P[0038] of the specification recites “The server 206 may also be configured to obtain a vehicle fault code related to the one or more vehicle faults and pre-determine a position of the video capturing module and a position of the image capturing module. For example, the server 206 may choose and configure the camera from ADAS depending on the vehicle configuration or type as well as the DTC”, therefore, it appears that the “camera” is equivalent to the “video capturing module” and “image capturing module”. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 recites “ pre-determining a position of the video capturing module and a position of the image capturing module ”, however, parent Claim 3 only requires one of a “video capturing module” and an “image capturing module”, as seen in the limitation “ a video capturing module and/or an image capturing module ”. Therefore, Claim 4 improperly narrows the invention of Claim 3 as it includes language that implies that both of the “video capturing module” and the “image capturing module” are required, when Claim 4 should recite “pre-determining a position of the video capturing module and /or a position of the image capturing module” in order to be consistent with parent Claim 3 . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 11 includes a single parenthesis “)” after “devices”, which is improper . Appropriate correction is required. 07-29-01 AIA Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “ wherein the server is further configured to pre-determine a position of the video capturing module and a position of the image capturing module ”, however, parent Claim 8 only requires one of a “video capturing module” and an “image capturing module”, as seen in the limitation “ a video capturing module and/or an image capturing module ”. Therefore, Claim 9 improperly narrows the invention of Claim 8 as it includes language that implies both of the “video capturing module” and the “image capturing module” are required, when Claim 9 should recite “pre-determine a position of the video capturing module and /or a position of the image capturing module” in order to be consistent with parent Claim 8 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Dai et al. (2019/0012852) . Regarding Claim 1, Dai et al. teaches the claimed method for providing vehicle diagnostics, comprising: determining a vehicle status associated with one or more vehicle faults (“The failure data 159 includes digital data that describe a match between the sensor data 155 and a fingerprint compound that corresponds to a failed vehicle component”, see P[0038] and “…the head unit 152 may include specific information about vehicle component failure, such as the identification of a particular vehicle component”, see P[0049]) ; obtaining data based on the vehicle status, the data comprising video data and/or image data of the one or more vehicle faults (“For example, the olfactory system 199 may determine that a particular vehicle component is experiencing or about to experience failure. The olfactory system 199 may instruct the camera 154 to capture an image of the particular vehicle component and use the image as part of a notification to the driver”, see P[0051]) ; and transmitting the data to a user device (“…generates a notification based on the failure data 159 and the corresponding vehicle component…the notification is displayed on a head unit or a 3D-HUD of the vehicle 123”, see P[0054] and P[0079] and “…the notification 355 may also include an image of the vehicle component failure (not illustrated) as captured by the camera 154 in the vehicle 123”, see P[0080] and P[0081]) , wherein transmitting the data comprises transmitting real-time video data and/or real-time image data to the user device prior to vehicle servicing (“The notification may include a description of the vehicle component failure and even an image of the vehicle component that failed”, see P[0023] and “The olfactory system 199 may instruct the camera 154 to capture an image of the particular vehicle component and use the image as part of a notification to the driver”, see P[0051] and “…generates a notification based on the failure data 159 and the corresponding vehicle component…the notification is displayed on a head unit or a 3D-HUD of the vehicle 123”, see P[0054]). Regarding Claim 3, Dai et al. teaches the claimed method according to claim 1, further comprising capturing video data and/or image data of the one or more vehicle faults by a video capturing module and/or an image capturing module (“For example, the olfactory system 199 may determine that a particular vehicle component is experiencing or about to experience failure. The olfactory system 199 may instruct the camera 154 to capture an image of the particular vehicle component and use the image as part of a notification to the driver”, see P[0051]). Examiner’s Note: Regarding the Claim 4 limitation “ pre-determining a position of the video capturing module and a position of the image capturing module ”, parent Claim 3 only requires one of a “video capturing module” and an “image capturing module”, as seen in the limitation “ a video capturing module and/or an image capturing module ”. Therefore, the limitation “ a position of the video capturing module and a position of the image capturing module ” of Claim 4 is contingent on which one of the “video capturing module” and the “image capturing module” is selected in Claim 3, and the prior art is then not required to teach a position of both the “video capturing module” and the “image capturing module”, but is required to only teach a position of whichever one of the “video capturing module” and the “image capturing module” is selected in Claim 3, as encompassed by the combination of Claims 3 and 4. Regarding Claim 4, Dai et al. teaches the claimed method according to claim 3, further comprising pre-determining a position of the video capturing module and a position of the image capturing module (“The camera 154 may be located within the engine and positioned in a way to capture images of vehicle components”, see P[0051]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (2019/0012852) in view of Beinborn et al. (2025/0050874) . Regarding Claim 2, Dai et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method according to claim 1, wherein determining the vehicle status comprises obtaining a vehicle fault code related to the one or more vehicle faults . However, Beinborn et al. (2025/0050874) teaches obtaining a vehicle fault code related to one or more vehicle faults (Beinborn et al.; “The controller 140 may generate and display an indication regarding the potential issue (e.g., a fault code, a dashboard indicator with a message, etc.)”, see P[0071] and “The predefined operating conditions may correspond with the controller 140 take one or more actions, such as adjusting an engine power output, adjusting a vehicle speed, implementing thermal management with the aftertreatment system (e.g., activating a heater), generate a fault code(s)…”, see P[0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dai et al. with the teachings of Beinborn et al., and wherein determining the vehicle status comprises obtaining a vehicle fault code related to the one or more vehicle faults, as rendered obvious by Beinborn et al., in order to “generate and display an indication regarding” a “potential issue” (Beinborn et al.; see P[0071]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (2019/0012852) in view of Nakahara et al. (JP2004058777A) further in view of Rudman et al. (10,679,420) . Regarding Claim 5, Dai et al. does not expressly recite the claimed method according to claim 1, further comprising: requesting data of the vehicle status; obtaining the data including live video data and/or live image data; and transmitting the data including live video data and/or live image data to the user device . However, Nakahara et al. (JP2004058777A) teaches requesting data of a vehicle status (Nakahara et al.; “…requesting a change of the camera angle in the camera-equipped cellular phone. For example, when a portion to be photographed is out of the photographing range of the camera 2120, the information center 4000 can instruct the driver 2000 to move the camera 2120 by an arrow 2132 on the display 2130”, see P[0043], also see “The center 4000 transmits a test mode switching signal 6300 to the equipment 1100 through the carrier 3000 in accordance with the contents 6200 of the abnormality and starts a test mode switching function in the ECU1200 by a test mode switching approval function”, see P[0011] and “…the information center 4000 processes the vehicle information 6100 into diagnostic data 6500 and sends it to the automobile repair shop 5000, and the automobile repair shop 5000 diagnoses the failure using the diagnostic data 6500”, see P[0012]). Furthermore, Rudman et al. (10,679,420) teaches obtaining data including live video data and/or live image data, and transmitting the data including live video data and/or live image data to a user device (Rudman et al.; see col.16, particularly lines 54-67, also see col.10, particularly lines 35-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dai et al. with the teachings of Nakahara et al. and Rudman et al., and the method according to claim 1, further comprising requesting data of the vehicle status, obtaining the data including live video data and/or live image data, and transmitting the data including live video data and/or live image data to the user device, as rendered obvious by Nakahara et al. and Rudman et al., in order to provide a “remote failure diagnosis system of the vehicle to carry out the failure diagnosis of the vehicle” (Nakahara et al.; see Abstract), and in order to provide “augmented reality (AR) remote assistance to a vehicle user of a vehicle” (Rudman et al.; see Abstract) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (2019/0012852) in view of Choi (KR20090055372A) . Regarding Claim 6, Dai et al. teaches the claimed system for providing vehicle diagnostics, comprising: one or more vehicle units (see FIG. 1) ; one or more user devices (…a head unit or a 3D-HUD of the vehicle 123”, see P[0054]) ; a server (“…server 107”, see P[0024] and FIG. 1) , wherein the server is configured to: determine a vehicle status associated with one or more vehicle faults (“The comparison system 150 may include code and routines that are operable, when executed by the processor 125 of the server 107, to receive the sensor data 155, filter the sensor data to generate filtered data 157, and identify a match between the filtered data 157 and the failure data 159”, see P[0060]) . Dai et al. does not expressly recite the claimed obtain data based on the vehicle status, the data comprising video data and/or image data of the one or more vehicle faults; transmit the data to the one or more user devices; and provide real-time video data and/or real-time image data to the one or more user devices) prior to vehicle servicing . However, Choi (KR20090055372A) teaches a server that obtains data based on a vehicle status, the data comprising video data and/or image data of the one or more vehicle faults (Choi; “The above repair shop (300, 400, 500) performs a process of diagnosing the cause of the malfunction of the vehicle to be repaired by referring to the above repair history information. At this time, visual information referenced for diagnosing the cause of the malfunction of the vehicle is recorded, and sound that can be referenced for diagnosis, such as the engine sound of the vehicle, is recorded and transmitted through the network (200). In this way, the video and audio recordings of the information referenced during maintenance at each repair shop (300, 400, 500) will be referred to as maintenance diagnostic information…The maintenance server (100) receives the maintenance diagnostic information and stores it in the storage unit of the maintenance server (100) (S30)”, see page 6), and transmits the data to the one or more user devices, and provide real-time video data and/or real-time image data to the one or more user devices) prior to vehicle servicing (Choi; “The above maintenance server (100) receives the above diagnostic result information from the above maintenance shop (300, 400, 500) through the above network (200) (S40). By having a vehicle maintenance expert verify the diagnostic result information received by the maintenance server (100), it is possible to verify whether the diagnostic result of the maintenance shop (300, 400, 500) is accurate. An inspector with many years of experience in vehicle maintenance and recognized expertise in diagnosis and maintenance verifies the above diagnostic result data using the above diagnostic information”, see pages 6-7 and “The inspector uses the inspection terminal (800) to receive the diagnostic information and diagnostic result information from the maintenance server (100)”, see page 7), where the maintenance data is “real-time” with respect to a maintenance event, as it is recorded during the maintenance event (Choi; “In this way, the video and audio recordings of the information referenced during maintenance at each repair shop (300, 400, 500) will be referred to as maintenance diagnostic information”, see page 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dai et al. with the teachings of Choi, and to obtain data based on the vehicle status, the data comprising video data and/or image data of the one or more vehicle faults, transmit the data to the one or more user devices, and provide real-time video data and/or real-time image data to the one or more user devices) prior to vehicle servicing, as rendered obvious by Choi, in order to “prevent misdiagnosis and improve the quality of maintenance services” (Choi; see page 2). Regarding Claim 8, Dai et al. teaches the claimed system according to claim 6, wherein the one or more vehicle units are further configured to capture video data and/or image data of the one or more vehicle faults by a video capturing module and/or an image capturing module (“For example, the olfactory system 199 may determine that a particular vehicle component is experiencing or about to experience failure. The olfactory system 199 may instruct the camera 154 to capture an image of the particular vehicle component and use the image as part of a notification to the driver”, see P[0051]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (2019/0012852) in view of Choi (KR20090055372A) further in view of Yazaki et al. (2024/0075947) . Regarding Claim 7, Dai et al. does not expressly recite the claimed system according to claim 6, wherein the server is further configured to obtain a vehicle fault code related to the one or more vehicle faults . However, Yazaki et al. (2024/0075947) teaches a server configured to obtain a vehicle fault code related to the one or more vehicle faults (Yazaki et al.; see P[0066]-P[0067] and FIG. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dai et al. with the teachings of Yazaki et al., and wherein the server is further configured to obtain a vehicle fault code related to the one or more vehicle faults, as rendered obvious by Yazaki et al., in order to “improve precision of failure diagnosis in a system remotely performing failure diagnosis of a vehicle” (Yazaki et al.; see P[0006]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (2019/0012852) in view of Choi (KR20090055372A) further in view of Knas et al. (11,557,156) . Examiner’s Note: Regarding the Claim 9 limitation “ wherein the server is further configured to pre-determine a position of the video capturing module and a position of the image capturing module ”, parent Claim 8 only requires one of a “video capturing module” and an “image capturing module”, as seen in the limitation “ a video capturing module and/or an image capturing module ”. Therefore, the limitation “ a position of the video capturing module and a position of the image capturing module ” of Claim 9 is contingent on which one of the “video capturing module” and the “image capturing module” is selected in Claim 8, and the prior art is then not required to teach a position of both the “video capturing module” and the “image capturing module”, but is required to only teach a position of whichever one of the “video capturing module” and the “image capturing module” is selected in Claim 8, as encompassed by the combination of Claims 8 and 9. Regarding Claim 9, Dai et al. does not expressly recite the claimed system according to claim 8, wherein the server is further configured to pre-determine a position of the video capturing module and a position of the image capturing module . However, Knas et al. (11,557,156) teaches a server that determines a camera position with respect to a vehicle (Knas et al.; see col.9, particularly lines 24-36). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dai et al. with the teachings of Knas et al., and wherein the server is further configured to pre-determine a position of the video capturing module and a position of the image capturing module, as rendered obvious by Knas et al., in order to provide a “visual inspection software application” that “may activate a camera” of an “electronic device to capture images of…a vehicle” (Knas et al.; see Abstract) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (2019/0012852) in view of Choi (KR20090055372A) further in view of Cancilla et al. (2006/0143173) . Regarding Claim 10, Dai et al. does not expressly recite the claimed system according to claim 6, wherein the one or more user devices are configured to request data of the vehicle status . However, Cancilla et al. (2006/0143173) teaches one or more user devices that are configured to request data of a vehicle status (Cancilla et al.; “…the technician may access these databases without the need to manually enter a set of vehicle attributes to "identify" the vehicle to the databases. Instead, the technician may indicate which of the vehicle-information databases (in other words, what type of vehicle information) they would like to access, and the computer may responsively send to a selected database a request that includes the created identifier”, see P[0022] and “…if a set or subset of vehicle-characteristic data received upon the vehicle's arrival matched vehicle-characteristic data received after a customer lodges a complaint, this could refute the complaint”, see P[0024] and “The characteristic data may be image data, video data, weight data, or any other type of data”, see P[0052] and “Step 402 may involve the computer 104 executing one or more of the program instructions 212 to send a command to one or more of the sensing devices 106 to cause the sensing devices 106 to take measurements and transmit data reflecting those measurements to the computer 104. This may occur in response to a repair technician entering a command into the computer 104”, see P[0053] and P[0054], and see “The characteristic data obtained in step 402 may also prove useful in verifying proof of the condition of the vehicle 108 at a certain point in time. For example, the characteristic data obtained at step 402 could be stored in the computer 104. Then, after the vehicle 108 has been at the service station for some amount of time, be it hours, days, or weeks, a situation may arise in which a customer, likely the owner of the vehicle 108, claims that certain damage then appearing on the vehicle 108 was not there when the vehicle 108 was brought to the service station”, see P[0069] and “At that point, the characteristic data obtained at step 402 could be referenced. For example, a technician and the customer could look at a picture of the part of the vehicle 108 that is the focus of this discussion”, see P[0070]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dai et al. with the teachings of Cancilla et al., and wherein the one or more user devices are configured to request data of the vehicle status, as rendered obvious by Cancilla et al., in order to allow a technician to “access one or more vehicle-information databases during the servicing of the vehicle” “without the need to manually enter a set of vehicle attributes to "identify" the vehicle to the databases” (Cancilla et al.; see P[0022]) and also to provide for “verifying proof of the condition of the vehicle 108 at a certain point in time” (Cancilla et al.; see P[0069]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dai et al. (2019/0012852) in view of Choi (KR20090055372A) further in view of Rudman et al. (10,679,420) . Regarding Claim 11, Dai et al. does not expressly recite the claimed system according to claim 6, wherein the server is further configured to: obtain data of the vehicle status including live video data and/or live image data; and transmit the data including live video data and/or live image data to the one or more user devices . However, Rudman et al. (10,679,420) teaches obtain data of the vehicle status including live video data and/or live image data, and transmit the data including live video data and/or live image data to the one or more user devices (Rudman et al.; see col.16, particularly lines 54-67, also see col.10, particularly lines 35-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dai et al. with the teachings of Nakahara et al. and Rudman et al., and wherein the server is further configured to obtain data of the vehicle status including live video data and/or live image data, and transmit the data including live video data and/or live image data to the one or more user devices, as rendered obvious by Nakahara et al. and Rudman et al., in order to provide a “remote failure diagnosis system of the vehicle to carry out the failure diagnosis of the vehicle” (Nakahara et al.; see Abstract), and in order to provide “augmented reality (AR) remote assistance to a vehicle user of a vehicle” (Rudman et al.; see Abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-5PM. 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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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. /ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 11 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 12 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 13 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 14 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 15 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 16 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 17 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/191,334 Page 18 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights