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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/13/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact, and appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
For example, “a condition in which a communication state between the first operation device and the work vehicle is a connection state where communication between the first operation device and the work vehicle is established“ (e.g. paragraph 0007) is confusingly worded, and does not follow proper English grammar.
“A problem of deterioration of convenience in automatic traveling thus arises” (e.g. paragraph 16) is confusingly worded;
“the communication state between the operation terminal 20 and the work vehicle 10 is the connection state” (e.g. paragraph 0042) is confusingly worded, etc.
In general, the frequent instances of confusing language/grammar hinder the interpretation and reproducibility of the invention, and should be corrected.
Claim Objections
The claims are generally grammatically confusing. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors, and thus make the interpretation of the scope of the claims difficult. For example [non-exhaustive];
Claim 1 recites; “a condition in which a communication state between the first operation device and the work vehicle is a connection state where communication between the first operation device and the work vehicle is established”. This is wordy and grammatically confusing.
Claim 2-6 recite “the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured”, which is grammatically confusing.
Claim 9 recites “start and continuation of automatic traveling are permitted when the operator having checked a captured camera image around the work vehicle is detected on the first operation device”, which is grammatically confusing.
All of the claims have similarly confusing wording and grammar; as such, the examiner highly recommends rewriting the claims in proper idiomatic English for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the case”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “case” is only referenced in parallel dependent claims (e.g. claims 2 and 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea accomplishable by mental processes without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of a method for determining whether to include a condition to allow autonomous travel, which is analogous to mental work. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, The claims are directed to a method.
Step 2A; is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, claims 1-10 are directed to the abstract idea of an abstract idea
In essence, the independent claims recite;
Prong One; Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, as understood in their broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims are directed to the abstract idea of determining whether to include a condition to allow automatic travel, and further defining how to decide whether automatic travel is allowed. In addition, the remaining claim limitations either work to develop the abstract idea further [such as establishing basic conditions that allow/disallow automatic travel]. This determination of whether to use a condition, and how to define conditions to allow/prevent automatic travel, don’t involve control or anything beyond what is accomplishable in the mind (e.g. a human thinking about whether to allow automatic travel or not, based on, for example, communication connectivity).
Prong Two; Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the elements are generically recited. In claims 1-10, no additional elements are presented, and no steps presented in the method amount to more than mental work. Being “capable of causing a work vehicle to automatically travel” does not actually control anything, and therefore does not go beyond anything accomplishable as mental activity.
Therefore, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1-10 are directed to an abstract idea.
In contrast, claims 11-12 actively recite a control step of causing a work vehicle to automatically travel, which sufficiently incorporates the idea into a practical application, and thus are considered eligible. The examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite a similar limitation to become eligible.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1-10 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As argued above, no additional elements are recited in claims 1-10.
Thus, claims 1-10 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanmar (JP6779164B2, see IDS) in view of Prest (US11807362B2).
Regarding claim 1, Yanmar teaches;
An automatic traveling method capable of causing a work vehicle to automatically travel (taught as an autonomous traveling system for a work vehicle, paragraph 0001) according to an instruction output from a first operation device (taught as an operation communication device, which communicates to remote control communication devices, paragraph 0006), the method comprising:
setting [[whether to include]], in an automatic traveling permission condition for permitting automatic traveling, a condition in which a communication state between the first operation device and the work vehicle is a connection state where communication between the first operation device and the work vehicle is established (taught as a condition, wherein only establishing permission to work autonomously when communication between a first remote control device and a work vehicle is established, paragraph 0012).
However, Yanmar does not explicitly teach; whether to include [interpreted to mean a toggleable condition].
Prest teaches; whether to include (taught as a variable called link-free mode enable, column 9 lines 6-8, wherein when it is not enabled, and communication reliability falls below a particular value, taking a regular mode link failure action, column 9 lines 36-44, and wherein if enabled, it and communication reliability falls below the particular value, taking a corresponding link-free mode link failure action, column 9 lines 45-52).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable a toggleable autonomous behavior as taught by Prest in the system taught by in order to improve flexibility. By providing a software configuration setting to selectively include or disable certain autonomous behavior requirements, one of ordinary skill in the art would predictably achieve the ability to adjust to more circumstances/situations. Such considerations additionally allow an autonomous vehicle to deal with circumstances that intentionally or unintentionally cause a ground station [communication] to become unreachable, as suggested by Prest (column 1 lines 31-36)
Regarding claim 2, Yanmar as modified by Prest teaches;
The automatic traveling method according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Yanmar further teaches; wherein:
in a case where a setting to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured, starting of and continuation of automatic traveling are prohibited when the communication state is a disconnection state (taught as a condition, wherein only establishing permission to work autonomously when communication between a first remote control device and a work vehicle is established, paragraph 0012). However, Yanmar does not explicitly teach;
in a case where a setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured, starting of and continuation of automatic traveling are permitted in each of a case where the communication state is the connection state and a case where the communication state is the disconnection state.
Prest teaches; in a case where a setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured, starting of and continuation of automatic traveling are permitted in each of a case where the communication state is the connection state and a case where the communication state is the disconnection state (taught as the link-free mode link failure action causing the vehicle to begin to operate autonomously, column 10 lines 35-37).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable a toggleable autonomous behavior as taught by Prest in the system taught by in order to improve flexibility. By providing a software configuration setting to selectively include or disable certain autonomous behavior requirements, one of ordinary skill in the art would predictably achieve the ability to adjust to more circumstances/situations. Such considerations additionally allow an autonomous vehicle to deal with circumstances that intentionally or unintentionally cause a ground station [communication] to become unreachable, as suggested by Prest (column 1 lines 31-36).
Regarding claim 3, Yanmar as modified by Prest teaches;
The automatic traveling method according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Yanmar further teaches; wherein:
in the case where the setting to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured, when the communication state changes from the connection state to the disconnection state while the work vehicle is automatically traveling, the automatic traveling is stopped (taught as a condition, wherein only establishing permission to work autonomously when communication between a first remote control device and a work vehicle is established, paragraph 0012). However, Yanmar does not explicitly teach;
in the case where the setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured, when the communication state changes from the connection state to the disconnection state while the work vehicle is automatically traveling, the automatic traveling is continued.
Prest teaches; in the case where the setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured, when the communication state changes from the connection state to the disconnection state while the work vehicle is automatically traveling, the automatic traveling is continued (taught as continuing the action/mission of the vehicle in the link-free mode link failure action, column 10 lines 37-40; essentially, the vehicle would continue its navigation/control even when a link failure [disconnected/broken communication] occurs).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable a toggleable autonomous behavior as taught by Prest in the system taught by in order to improve flexibility. By providing a software configuration setting to selectively include or disable certain autonomous behavior requirements, one of ordinary skill in the art would predictably achieve the ability to adjust to more circumstances/situations. Such considerations additionally allow an autonomous vehicle to deal with circumstances that intentionally or unintentionally cause a ground station [communication] to become unreachable, as suggested by Prest (column 1 lines 31-36).
Regarding claim 4, Yanmar as modified by Prest teaches;
The automatic traveling method according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). Yanmar further teaches; which is capable of causing the work vehicle to automatically travel according to an instruction output from a second operation device different from the first operation device (taught as a second remote control that sets a traveling route and controls the operation of the work vehicle, paragraph 0006), wherein:
when a communication state between the second operation device and the work vehicle is the connection state, the setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state between the first operation device and the work vehicle is the connection state is permitted (indicated in that it is possible to allow/prevent the registration of the remote controller to prevent spoofing, paragraph 0096; effectively indicating that remote devices can be selectively paired/permitted to allow/prevent control of the vehicle); and
when the communication state between the second operation device and the work vehicle is the disconnection state, the setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state between the first operation device and the work vehicle is the connection state is prohibited (indicated in that it is possible to prevent the registration of the remote controller to prevent spoofing, paragraph 0096; effectively indicating that remote devices can be selectively paired/permitted to allow/prevent control of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 8, Yanmar as modified by Prest teaches;
The automatic traveling method according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Yanmar does not explicitly teach; wherein setting whether to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is according to a setting operation by an operator.
Prest teaches; wherein setting whether to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is according to a setting operation by an operator (taught as the user interface on the control station having an option to set or clear a Link-free mode, column 9 lines 11-14).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable a toggleable autonomous behavior as taught by Prest in the system taught by in order to improve flexibility. By providing a software configuration setting to selectively include or disable certain autonomous behavior requirements, one of ordinary skill in the art would predictably achieve the ability to adjust to more circumstances/situations. Such considerations additionally allow an autonomous vehicle to deal with circumstances that intentionally or unintentionally cause a ground station [communication] to become unreachable, as suggested by Prest (column 1 lines 31-36)
Regarding claim 10, Yanmar as modified by Prest teaches;
The automatic traveling method according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Yanmar does not explicitly teach;, further comprising causing a display unit of the first operation device to display, in an identifiable manner, whether the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is included in the automatic traveling permission condition.
Prest teaches; further comprising causing a display unit of the first operation device to display, in an identifiable manner, whether the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is included in the automatic traveling permission condition (taught as the user interface on the control station having an option to set or clear a Link-free mode, column 9 lines 11-14).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable a toggleable autonomous behavior as taught by Prest in the system taught by in order to improve flexibility. By providing a software configuration setting to selectively include or disable certain autonomous behavior requirements, one of ordinary skill in the art would predictably achieve the ability to adjust to more circumstances/situations. Such considerations additionally allow an autonomous vehicle to deal with circumstances that intentionally or unintentionally cause a ground station [communication] to become unreachable, as suggested by Prest (column 1 lines 31-36).
Regarding claims 11-12, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claim 1. Therefore, claims 11-12 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanmar (JP6779164B2, see IDS) as modified by Prest (US11807362B2) and further in view of Ehlers (US7119694B2).
Regarding claim 5, Yanmar as modified by Prest teaches;
The automatic traveling method according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Yanmar does not explicitly teach; wherein setting whether to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state, is based on a position of the first operation device.
Ehlers teaches; wherein setting whether to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state, is based on a position of the first operation device (taught as a non-physical tether, column 7 lines 55-58, which interrupts a process if the control point does not detect the other end of the tether, column 8 lines 8-12).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a proximity trigger as taught by Ehlers in the system taught by Yanmar in order to improve control. A suggested by Ehlers, such a proximity ‘tether’ assists in providing a dead man switch to improve safety, such as protecting from theft, misuse etc. (column 8 lines 15-17). To reiterate, one would incorporate a proximity threshold as a trigger for further action, as suggested by Ehlers, in order to improve safety of the system. Such a combination would combine a known technique to improve a similar (autonomous function in a vehicle) device in a same way.
Regarding claim 6, Yanmar as modified by Prest and Ehlers;
The automatic traveling method according to claim 5 (see claim 5 rejection). However, Yanmar does not explicitly teach; wherein:
the setting to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured when the first operation device is located within a range less than a predetermined distance from the work vehicle; and
the setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured when the first operation device is located within a range at least the predetermined distance away from the work vehicle.
Prest teaches; the setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured when the first operation device is located within a range at least the predetermined distance away from the work vehicle (taught as extreme distances often causing natural link failure, column 8 lines 25-30, which indicates the need for link free link failure action, such that the onboard vehicle system automatically enables the link-free mode, column 9 lines 25-28).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable a toggleable autonomous behavior as taught by Prest in the system taught by in order to improve flexibility. By providing a software configuration setting to selectively include or disable certain autonomous behavior requirements, one of ordinary skill in the art would predictably achieve the ability to adjust to more circumstances/situations. Such considerations additionally allow an autonomous vehicle to deal with circumstances that intentionally or unintentionally cause a ground station [communication] to become unreachable, as suggested by Prest (column 1 lines 31-36)
However, Prest does not explicitly teach; the setting to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured when the first operation device is located within a range less than a predetermined distance.
Ehlers teaches; the setting to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured when the first operation device is located within a range less than a predetermined distance [interpreted to indicate a position condition, based from claim 5, such that when the distance of the vehicle from the operator is within a proximity, enabling a condition] from the work vehicle (taught as, if the node passes outside normal proximity limits, trigger an alarm condition, and potentially terminate actions defined in a configuration [start] procedure, column 5 lines 12-26).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a proximity trigger as taught by Ehlers in the system taught by Yanmar in order to improve control. A suggested by Ehlers, such a proximity ‘tether’ assists in providing a dead man switch to improve safety, such as protecting from theft, misuse etc. (column 8 lines 15-17). To reiterate, one would incorporate a proximity threshold as a trigger for further action, as suggested by Ehlers, in order to improve safety of the system. Such a combination would combine a known technique to improve a similar (autonomous function in a vehicle) device in a same way.
However, Ehlers does not explicitly teach; the setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured when the first operation device is located within a range at least the predetermined distance away interpreted to indicate a position condition, based from claim 5, such that when the distance of the vehicle from the operator is larger than a proximity, disabling a condition] from the work vehicle.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanmar (JP6779164B2, see IDS) as modified by Prest (US11807362B2) and Ehlers (US7119694B2), and further in view of the examiners official notice in view of California Code Regulations Title 13, Sections 227.32 and 227.38.
Regarding claim 7, Yanmar as modified by Prest and Ehlers teaches;
The automatic traveling method according to claim 5 (see claim 5 rejection). However, Yanmar does not explicitly teach; wherein:
the setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured when the first operation device is located within a range less than a predetermined distance from the work vehicle; and
the setting to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured when the first operation device is located within a range at least the predetermined distance away from the work vehicle.
However, the examiner takes official notice that such features would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to follow state laws/regulations. For example, California law in Title 13, Section 227.32 and 227.38 recite conditions for autonomous vehicles and communications revolving around proximity of an operator.
Title 13, Section 227.32 corresponds to; the setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured when the first operation device is located within a range less than a predetermined distance from the work vehicle (“autonomous vehicles with test [backup] drivers requiring; The autonomous vehicle test driver is either in immediate physical control of the vehicle or is actively monitoring the vehicle's operations and capable of taking over immediate physical control”. Page 2)
In essence, when the operator is withing a proximity within the vehicle, able to take control at any time, it is not required to have such a communication condition.
Title 13, Section 227.38 corresponds to; the setting to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured when the first operation device is located within a range at least the predetermined distance away from the work vehicle (“The manufacturer certifies that the autonomous test vehicle complies with the all of the following:
(1) There is a communication link between the vehicle and the remote operator to provide information on the vehicle's location and status and allow two-way communication between the remote operator and any passengers if the vehicle experiences any failures that would endanger the safety of the vehicle's passengers or other road users, or otherwise prevent the vehicle from functioning as intended, while operating without a driver. The certification shall include:
(A) That the manufacturer will continuously monitor the status of the vehicle and the two-way communication link while the autonomous test vehicle is being operated without a driver;).
In essence, when an autonomous vehicle is operating without a driver (e.g. a proximity distance corresponding to at least outside of the vehicle”, page 2), it is required to have a communication link, and thus the setting to include must be enabled.
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would think to incorporate such a condition based on the position/proximity of the operator in relation to the vehicle in order to comply with state law.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanmar (JP6779164B2, see IDS) as modified by Prest (US11807362B2) and Ehlers (US7119694B2), and further in view of Taguchi (US11868129B2).
Regarding claim 9, Yanmar as modified by Prest teaches;
The automatic traveling method according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection). However, Yanmar does not explicitly teach; wherein
in a case where the work vehicle automatically travels with an operator not on board, when the setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured:
start and continuation of automatic traveling are permitted when the operator having checked a captured camera image around the work vehicle is detected on the first operation device, and
start and continuation of automatic traveling are prohibited when the operator having checked the camera image is not detected on the first operation device.
Taguchi teaches; in a case where the work vehicle automatically travels with an operator not on board (taught as a remote monitoring center, being conducted on an unmanned vehicle, via a monitoring person, column 6 lines 41-44), when the setting not to include, in the automatic traveling permission condition, the condition in which the communication state is the connection state is configured:
start and continuation of automatic traveling are permitted when the operator having checked a captured camera image around the work vehicle is detected on the first operation device (taught as a remote operator confirming the safety with a camera image of the autonomous running vehicle, and if confirmed, allowing the autonomous running vehicle to restart/continue, column 2 lines 11-19), and
start and continuation of automatic traveling are prohibited when the operator having checked the camera image is not detected on the first operation device (taught as a remote operator confirming the safety with a camera image of the autonomous running vehicle, and if confirmed, allowing the autonomous running vehicle to restart/continue, column 2 lines 11-19; indicating that if it is not confirmed [i.e. by the operator not looking], not allowing the autonomous running vehicle to restart/continue).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a confirmation of the vehicle surroundings by a remote monitoring service [such as a general remote operator of the vehicle] as taught by Taguchi in the system taught by Yanmar in order to improve safety. Such a check helps ensure the safety of the autonomous running vehicle during autonomous running, as suggested by Taguchi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further agricultural work vehicles with conditions relating to communication, pertaining to claim 1, 11 and 12; US20170079195A1, e.g. paragraph 0070
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights