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 .
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 3 June 2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 10, 11-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Leamy et al. (US Publication 2018/0038334 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Leamy teaches a hybrid vehicle including: an engine; a motor directly connected to the engine and configured to rotate together with the engine (Leamy: Para. 66; the coupling between the EM and the ICE may be approximated as being rigid with negligible damping); and a controller configured to: (Leamy: Para. 17; controller) determine engine torque fluctuations in a transient state in which an operating point of the engine changes (Leamy: Para. 9; vibrations in the powertrain during mode transitions and torque fluctuations in the ICE; torque source to assist the ICE in providing the driver with a smooth start or a smooth restart after a period in a pure electric drive mode) based on an inertial torque generated by rotational inertia during an operation of the engine (Leamy: Para. 52; inertial torque due to the apparent forces arising from the ICE components in reciprocating motion) and a pressure torque caused by pressure generated during fuel combustion in the engine (Leamy: Para. 50; in-cylinder pressure may also be incorporated to develop an expression for the torque generated by the ICE); and apply a counter torque command to the motor to offset the engine torque fluctuations (Leamy: Para. 16; generation of an EM torque output such that the EM torque output counteracts vibrations caused by the non-linear dynamics of rotation of the crankshaft of the ICE during start or restart and counteract vibrations of mechanical components).
Regarding claim 2, Leamy teaches the hybrid vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the pressure torque based on a motoring pressure torque generated by pressure caused by inflow and outflow of air during the fuel combustion (Leamy: Para. 49-50; in-cylinder pressure of a single compression chamber may be governed from intake valve closing (IVC) to exhaust valve opening (EVO)) and a combustion pressure torque generated by pressure caused by the fuel combustion in the engine (Leamy: Para. 50; in-cylinder pressure may also be incorporated to develop an expression for the torque generated by the ICE).
Regarding claim 10, Leamy teaches the hybrid vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the engine torque fluctuations based on a value obtained by subtracting a required torque of the engine from a sum of the inertial torque and the pressure torque (Leamy: Para. 52; T.sub.E(θ.sub.E) = T.sub.Indicated(θ.sub.E) + T.sub.Inertrial(θ.sub.E) − T.sub.Friction(θ.sub.E) (Equation 5) where T.sub.Indicated denotes the indicated torque from the ICE that arises from the in-cylinder pressure, T.sub.Inertial denotes the inertial torque due to the apparent forces arising from the ICE components in reciprocating motion, and T.sub.Friction denotes the approximate torque due to frictional losses).
Regarding claim 11, Leamy teaches a method of controlling torque fluctuations of a hybrid vehicle including an engine and a motor directly connected to and rotating with the engine, the method comprising: determining engine torque fluctuations in a transient state in which an operating point of the engine changes (Leamy: Para. 9; vibrations in the powertrain during mode transitions and torque fluctuations in the ICE; torque source to assist the ICE in providing the driver with a smooth start or a smooth restart after a period in a pure electric drive mode) based on an inertial torque generated by rotational inertia during an operation of the engine (Leamy: Para. 52; inertial torque due to the apparent forces arising from the ICE components in reciprocating motion) and a pressure torque caused by pressure generated during fuel combustion in the engine (Leamy: Para. 50; in-cylinder pressure may also be incorporated to develop an expression for the torque generated by the ICE); and applying a counter torque command to the motor to offset the engine torque fluctuations (Leamy: Para. 16; generation of an EM torque output such that the EM torque output counteracts vibrations caused by the non-linear dynamics of rotation of the crankshaft of the ICE during start or restart and counteract vibrations of mechanical components).
Regarding claim 12, Leamy teaches the method of claim 11, wherein determining engine torque fluctuations comprises: determining the pressure torque based on a motoring pressure torque generated by pressure caused by inflow and outflow of air during the fuel combustion (Leamy: Para. 49-50; in-cylinder pressure of a single compression chamber may be governed from intake valve closing (IVC) to exhaust valve opening (EVO)) and a combustion pressure torque generated by pressure caused by the fuel combustion in the engine (Leamy: Para. 50; in-cylinder pressure may also be incorporated to develop an expression for the torque generated by the ICE).
Regarding claim 20, Leamy teaches the method of claim 11, wherein determining the engine torque fluctuations comprises determining the engine torque fluctuations based on a value obtained by subtracting a required torque of the engine from a sum of the inertial torque and the pressure torque (Leamy: Para. 52; T.sub.E(θ.sub.E)=T.sub.Indicated(θ.sub.E)+T.sub.Inertrial(θ.sub.E)−T.sub.Friction(θ.sub.E) (Equation 5) where T.sub.Indicated denotes the indicated torque from the ICE that arises from the in-cylinder pressure, T.sub.Inertial denotes the inertial torque due to the apparent forces arising from the ICE components in reciprocating motion, and T.sub.Friction denotes the approximate torque due to frictional losses).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4, 9, 13-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leamy et al. (US Publication 2018/0038334 A1) in view of Tsukada (US Publication 2014/0330476 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Leamy doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to determine the combustion pressure torque based on a required torque of the engine, a rotation speed of the engine, and a Wide Open Throttle(WOT) combustion pressure torque profile in which a combustion pressure torque at each crank angle of the engine in a state in which a throttle valve of the engine is fully open is preset.
However Tsukada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the combustion pressure torque based on a required torque of the engine, a rotation speed of the engine (Tsukada: Para. 2, 88; the variation of the crank angle when the engine stops is reduced by increasing the throttle opening degree in an intake stroke immediately before the stop of the internal combustion engine and by increasing compression pressure in a compression stroke; throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle when the number of revolutions of the internal combustion engine), and a Wide Open Throttle(WOT) combustion pressure torque profile in which a combustion pressure torque at each crank angle of the engine in a state in which a throttle valve of the engine is fully open is preset (Tsukada: Para. 20-21; setting of the predetermined opening degree of the throttle valve as described above can certainly reduce the adverse effect of the intake negative pressure in the stop control of the internal combustion engine; predetermined opening degree is fully open).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the EM torque output counteracts vibrations (Leamy: Para. 16) with the throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle (Tsukada: Para. 2) with a reasonable expectation of success because setting of the predetermined opening degree as fully open throttle valve as described above can certainly reduce the adverse effect of the intake negative pressure in the stop control of the internal combustion engine (Tsukada: Para. 20-21).
Regarding claim 4, Leamy doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to determine the combustion pressure torque based on the WOT combustion pressure torque profile, and a transient combustion pressure torque profile obtained by compensating a steady-state combustion pressure torque profile, determined based on the required torque and the rotation speed of the engine, based on a crank angle shift amount depending on ignition timing of the engine.
However Tsukada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the combustion pressure torque based on the WOT combustion pressure torque profile (Tsukada: Para. 20-21; setting of the predetermined opening degree of the throttle valve as described above can certainly reduce the adverse effect of the intake negative pressure in the stop control of the internal combustion engine; predetermined opening degree is fully open), and a transient combustion pressure torque profile obtained by compensating a steady-state combustion pressure torque profile, determined based on the required torque and the rotation speed of the engine, based on a crank angle shift amount depending on ignition timing of the engine (Tsukada: Para. 2, 88; the variation of the crank angle when the engine stops is reduced by increasing the throttle opening degree in an intake stroke immediately before the stop of the internal combustion engine and by increasing compression pressure in a compression stroke; throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle when the number of revolutions of the internal combustion engine).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the EM torque output counteracts vibrations (Leamy: Para. 16) with the throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle (Tsukada: Para. 2) with a reasonable expectation of success because setting of the predetermined opening degree as fully open throttle valve as described above can certainly reduce the adverse effect of the intake negative pressure in the stop control of the internal combustion engine (Tsukada: Para. 20-21).
Regarding claim 9, Leamy doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to determine the motoring pressure torque based on a rotation speed and a required torque of the engine.
However Tsukada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine the motoring pressure torque based on a rotation speed and a required torque of the engine (Tsukada: Para. 2, 88; the variation of the crank angle when the engine stops is reduced by increasing the throttle opening degree in an intake stroke immediately before the stop of the internal combustion engine and by increasing compression pressure in a compression stroke; throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle when the number of revolutions of the internal combustion engine).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the EM torque output counteracts vibrations (Leamy: Para. 16) with the throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle (Tsukada: Para. 2) with a reasonable expectation of success because setting of the predetermined opening degree as fully open throttle valve as described above can certainly reduce the adverse effect of the intake negative pressure in the stop control of the internal combustion engine (Tsukada: Para. 20-21).
Regarding claim 13, Leamy doesn’t explicitly teach determining the combustion pressure torque based on a required torque of the engine, a rotation speed of the engine, and a Wide Open Throttle (WOT) combustion pressure torque profile in which a combustion pressure torque at each crank angle of the engine in a state in which a throttle valve of the engine is fully open is preset.
However Tsukada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the combustion pressure torque based on a required torque of the engine, a rotation speed of the engine (Tsukada: Para. 2, 88; the variation of the crank angle when the engine stops is reduced by increasing the throttle opening degree in an intake stroke immediately before the stop of the internal combustion engine and by increasing compression pressure in a compression stroke; throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle when the number of revolutions of the internal combustion engine), and a Wide Open Throttle (WOT) combustion pressure torque profile in which a combustion pressure torque at each crank angle of the engine in a state in which a throttle valve of the engine is fully open is preset (Tsukada: Para. 20-21; setting of the predetermined opening degree of the throttle valve as described above can certainly reduce the adverse effect of the intake negative pressure in the stop control of the internal combustion engine; predetermined opening degree is fully open).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the EM torque output counteracts vibrations (Leamy: Para. 16) with the throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle (Tsukada: Para. 2) with a reasonable expectation of success because setting of the predetermined opening degree as fully open throttle valve as described above can certainly reduce the adverse effect of the intake negative pressure in the stop control of the internal combustion engine (Tsukada: Para. 20-21).
Regarding claim 14, Leamy doesn’t explicitly teach determining the combustion pressure torque based on the WOT combustion pressure torque profile, and a transient combustion pressure torque profile obtained by compensating a steady-state combustion pressure torque profile, determined based on the required torque and the rotation speed of the engine, based on a crank angle shift amount depending on ignition timing of the engine.
However Tsukada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the combustion pressure torque based on the WOT combustion pressure torque profile (Tsukada: Para. 20-21; setting of the predetermined opening degree of the throttle valve as described above can certainly reduce the adverse effect of the intake negative pressure in the stop control of the internal combustion engine; predetermined opening degree is fully open), and a transient combustion pressure torque profile obtained by compensating a steady-state combustion pressure torque profile, determined based on the required torque and the rotation speed of the engine, based on a crank angle shift amount depending on ignition timing of the engine (Tsukada: Para. 2, 88; the variation of the crank angle when the engine stops is reduced by increasing the throttle opening degree in an intake stroke immediately before the stop of the internal combustion engine and by increasing compression pressure in a compression stroke; throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle when the number of revolutions of the internal combustion engine).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the EM torque output counteracts vibrations (Leamy: Para. 16) with the throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle (Tsukada: Para. 2) with a reasonable expectation of success because setting of the predetermined opening degree as fully open throttle valve as described above can certainly reduce the adverse effect of the intake negative pressure in the stop control of the internal combustion engine (Tsukada: Para. 20-21).
Regarding claim 19, Leamy doesn’t explicitly teach wherein determining the pressure torque comprises determining the motoring pressure torque based on a rotation speed and a required torque of the engine.
However Tsukada, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the pressure torque comprises determining the motoring pressure torque based on a rotation speed and a required torque of the engine (Tsukada: Para. 2, 88; the variation of the crank angle when the engine stops is reduced by increasing the throttle opening degree in an intake stroke immediately before the stop of the internal combustion engine and by increasing compression pressure in a compression stroke; throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle when the number of revolutions of the internal combustion engine).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the EM torque output counteracts vibrations (Leamy: Para. 16) with the throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle (Tsukada: Para. 2) with a reasonable expectation of success because setting of the predetermined opening degree as fully open throttle valve as described above can certainly reduce the adverse effect of the intake negative pressure in the stop control of the internal combustion engine (Tsukada: Para. 20-21).
Claims 5-7, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leamy et al. (US Publication 2018/0038334 A1) in view of Tsukada (US Publication 2014/0330476 A1) and in further view of Hagari (US Publication 2019/0264624 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Leamy and Tsukada don’t explicitly teach wherein the crank angle shift amount is determined based on a first crank lag angle from the ignition timing of the engine to a maximum pressure generation point of the engine and a second crank lag angle from the maximum pressure generation point of the engine to a maximum torque generation point of the engine.
However Hagri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the crank angle shift amount is determined based on a first crank lag angle from the ignition timing of the engine to a maximum pressure generation point of the engine (Hagari: Para. 177; target angle interval may be set according to the magnitude of the combustion variation rate COV) and a second crank lag angle from the maximum pressure generation point of the engine to a maximum torque generation point of the engine (Hagari: Para. 176; actual angle interval coincides with the target angle interval, to the maximum torque EGR rate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the EM torque output counteracts vibrations (Leamy: Para. 16) with the throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle (Tsukada: Para. 2) and the target angle interval may be set according to the magnitude of the combustion variation rate (Hagari: Para. 177) with a reasonable expectation of success because moving from a target angle interval for a maximum combustion to a target angle interval for maximum torque (Hagari: Para. 176-177).
Regarding claim 6, Leamy teaches the hybrid vehicle of claim 5, wherein the first crank lag angle is determined based on the ignition timing, the rotation speed, and the required torque of the engine (Leamy: Para. 9, 49, 57; express the torque provided by the ICE as a function of crank angle; correct phase lag for each cylinder that represents the optimal crank rotation between firing events; providing the driver with constant power delivery during mode transitions).
Regarding claim 7, Leamy teaches the hybrid vehicle of claim 5, wherein the second crank lag angle is determined based on the rotation speed and the required torque of the engine (Leamy: Para. 52; T.sub.E(θ.sub.E) = T.sub.Indicated(θ.sub.E) + T.sub.Inertrial(θ.sub.E) − T.sub.Friction(θ.sub.E) (Equation 5) where T.sub.Indicated denotes the indicated torque from the ICE that arises from the in-cylinder pressure, T.sub.Inertial denotes the inertial torque due to the apparent forces arising from the ICE components in reciprocating motion, and T.sub.Friction denotes the approximate torque due to frictional losses).
Regarding claim 15, Leamy and Tsukada don’t explicitly teach wherein the crank angle shift amount is determined based on a first crank lag angle from the ignition timing of the engine to a maximum pressure generation point of the engine and a second crank lag angle from the maximum pressure generation point of the engine to a maximum torque generation point of the engine.
However Hagri, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the crank angle shift amount is determined based on a first crank lag angle from the ignition timing of the engine to a maximum pressure generation point of the engine (Hagari: Para. 177; target angle interval may be set according to the magnitude of the combustion variation rate COV) and a second crank lag angle from the maximum pressure generation point of the engine to a maximum torque generation point of the engine (Hagari: Para. 176; actual angle interval coincides with the target angle interval, to the maximum torque EGR rate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the EM torque output counteracts vibrations (Leamy: Para. 16) with the throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle (Tsukada: Para. 2) and the target angle interval may be set according to the magnitude of the combustion variation rate (Hagari: Para. 177) with a reasonable expectation of success because moving from a target angle interval for a maximum combustion to a target angle interval for maximum torque (Hagari: Para. 176-177).
Regarding claim 16, Leamy teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the first crank lag angle is determined based on the ignition timing, the rotation speed, and the required torque of the engine (Leamy: Para. 9, 49, 57; express the torque provided by the ICE as a function of crank angle; correct phase lag for each cylinder that represents the optimal crank rotation between firing events; providing the driver with constant power delivery during mode transitions).
Regarding claim 17, Leamy teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the second crank lag angle is determined based on the rotation speed and required torque of the engine (Leamy: Para. 52; T.sub.E(θ.sub.E) = T.sub.Indicated(θ.sub.E) + T.sub.Inertrial(θ.sub.E) − T.sub.Friction(θ.sub.E) (Equation 5) where T.sub.Indicated denotes the indicated torque from the ICE that arises from the in-cylinder pressure, T.sub.Inertial denotes the inertial torque due to the apparent forces arising from the ICE components in reciprocating motion, and T.sub.Friction denotes the approximate torque due to frictional losses).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leamy et al. (US Publication 2018/0038334 A1) in view of Tsukada (US Publication 2014/0330476 A1), Hagari (US Publication 2019/0264624 A1), and in further view of Yuuki et al. (US Publication 2020/0325835 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Leamy, Tsukada, and Hagri don’t explicitly teach wherein the crank angle shift amount is determined based on a value obtained by subtracting a value corresponding to the rotation speed of the engine among ignition timings in a preset Wide Open Throttle (WOT) state in which a throttle valve of the engine is fully open from a sum of the first crank lag angle and the second crank lag angle.
However Yuuki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the crank angle shift amount is determined based on a value obtained by subtracting a value corresponding to the rotation speed of the engine among ignition timings in a preset Wide Open Throttle (WOT) state in which a throttle valve of the engine is fully open from a sum of the first crank lag angle and the second crank lag angle (Yuuki: Para. 10, 82; the second time window and the first time window correspond to a time window corresponding to a knocking occurrence period and a time window corresponding to a period without knocking; each point of time on the tame scale corresponds to a specific value of the crank angle phase θ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the EM torque output counteracts vibrations (Leamy: Para. 16) with the throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle (Tsukada: Para. 2), the target angle interval may be set according to the magnitude of the combustion variation rate (Hagari: Para. 177), and the sum of the maximum pressure time and the maximum torque time (Yuuki: Para. 10, 82) with a reasonable expectation of success because the full cycle time is the sum of the two knocking time periods, maximum pressure and maximum torque, and the non-knocking time period that corresponds to specific values of crank angle phase (Yuuki: Para. 10, 82).
Regarding claim 18, Leamy, Tsukada, and Hagri don’t explicitly teach wherein the crank angle shift amount is determined based on a value obtained by subtracting a value corresponding to the rotation speed of the engine among ignition timings in a preset Wide Open Throttle (WOT) state in which a throttle valve of the engine is fully open from a sum of the first crank lag angle and the second crank lag angle.
However Yuuki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the crank angle shift amount is determined based on a value obtained by subtracting a value corresponding to the rotation speed of the engine among ignition timings in a preset Wide Open Throttle (WOT) state in which a throttle valve of the engine is fully open from a sum of the first crank lag angle and the second crank lag angle (Yuuki: Para. 10, 82; the second time window and the first time window correspond to a time window corresponding to a knocking occurrence period and a time window corresponding to a period without knocking; each point of time on the tame scale corresponds to a specific value of the crank angle phase θ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the EM torque output counteracts vibrations (Leamy: Para. 16) with the throttle opening degree in stop control is determined in accordance with the crank angle (Tsukada: Para. 2), the target angle interval may be set according to the magnitude of the combustion variation rate (Hagari: Para. 177), and the sum of the maximum pressure time and the maximum torque time (Yuuki: Para. 10, 82) with a reasonable expectation of success because the full cycle time is the sum of the two knocking time periods, maximum pressure and maximum torque, and the non-knocking time period that corresponds to specific values of crank angle phase (Yuuki: Para. 10, 82).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights