DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the application filed 08/20/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted by Applicant are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 10 and 17) are directed, in part, to a method and a system to generate target segments of users for digital content delivery via a content delivery platform. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-10, 17-20 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process; claims 10-16 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to coordinating a fleet of vehicles…; receiving a first preconditioning characteristic of a first battery from a first vehicle of the fleet of vehicles; receiving a second preconditioning characteristic of a second battery from a second vehicle of the fleet of vehicles; comparing the first preconditioning characteristic and the second preconditioning characteristic to determine a preconditioning ranking for the first vehicle and the second vehicle; determining a queue of the first and second vehicles for a charging station using the preconditioning ranking of the first and second vehicles. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: “a system”; “a non-transitory computer readable medium”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, including the use of “a plurality of vehicles having a battery” and “charging stations”. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1B, 14 and related text and [0119-0121] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “A computer system 1400 may be used to implement the fleet management system 200 (FIG. 2) or integrated into one or more components of the vehicles 110, 130, 150. More generally, the computer system 1400 is used to implement or execute one or more of the components or operations disclosed in FIGS. 1-13. In FIG. 14 the computer system 1400 may include one or more processing elements 1402, an input/output interface 1404, a display 1406, sensor(s) 1407, one or more memory components 1408, a network interface 1410, one or more external devices 1412, and a temperature control device 1414. Each of the various components may be in communication with one another through one or more buses, communication networks, such as wired or wireless networks. The processing element 1402 may be any type of electronic device capable of processing, receiving, and/or transmitting instructions. For example, the processing element 1402 may be a central processing unit, microprocessor, processor, or microcontroller. Additionally, it should be noted that some components of the computer system 1400 may be controlled by a first processor and other components may be controlled by a second processor, where the first and second processors may or may not be in communication with each other. The memory components 1408 are used by the computer system 1400 to store instructions for the processing element 1402, as well as store data, such as data from various vehicles regarding associated preconditioning characteristics (FIG. 5A) and the like. The memory components 1408 may be, for example, magneto-optical storage, read-only memory, random access memory, erasable programmable memory, flash memory, or a combination of one or more types of memory components.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16, 18-20 further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2018/0189683 (hereinafter; Newman).
Regarding claim 1, Newman discloses:
A method of coordinating a fleet of vehicles, the method comprising: receiving a first preconditioning characteristic of a first battery from a first vehicle of the fleet of vehicles; receiving a second preconditioning characteristic of a second battery from a second vehicle of the fleet of vehicles; (Newman [0109] discloses the charge priority system 800 evaluates one or more criteria to facilitate charging of the EV. In addition to one or more priority status indicators, the charge priority system 800 can also evaluate one or more of the charging status of the EV itself, and/or charge status (or status in general) of one or more other vehicles.)
comparing the first preconditioning characteristic and the second preconditioning characteristic to determine a preconditioning ranking for the first vehicle and the second vehicle; (Newman [0120] discloses the priority module running an algorithm can determine where the vehicle should charge; the algorithm can take into consideration the priority of the vehicle, the priority of one or more other vehicles, the occupancy of one or more charging stations, the type of charging stations, the amount of charge needed for the vehicle and/or the amount of charge needed by one or more other vehicles and determine which charging station(s) the vehicle can use; [0111]; [0113-0116] disclose ranking of vehicles.)
determining a queue of the first and second vehicles for a charging station using the preconditioning ranking of the first and second vehicles. (Newman [0114-0115] disclose ordering (i.e. queue) vehicles for charging; when the charge coordination module 804 of the charge priority system 800 is making a determination as to which vehicles to order where for charging, the system can optionally take into account this priority level information; not only can vehicles be ranked and ordered in terms of when they receive charge, but the type of charge can also be given a priority.)
Regarding claim 2, Newman discloses,
The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting a first command to the first vehicle to initiate preconditioning of the first battery at a first preconditioning start time based on the preconditioning ranking of the first vehicle. (Newman [0089-0090] disclose a charging connectivity manager that can manage connectivity for the exchange of power; The charging connectivity manager 534 can coordinate not only the physical connectivity between the vehicle 100 and a charging device/vehicle, but can also communicate with one or more of a power management controller; the vehicle 100 can establish communications with the charging device/vehicle to one or more of coordinate interconnectivity between the two (e.g., by spatially aligning the charging receptacle on the vehicle with the charger on the charging vehicle).)
Regarding claim 3, Newman discloses:
The method of claim 2, further comprising transmitting a second command to the second vehicle to initiate preconditioning of the second battery at a second preconditioning start time, the second preconditioning start time being subsequent to the first preconditioning start time of the first battery, based on the preconditioning ranking of the second vehicle relative to the first vehicle. (Newman [0119] discloses For example, EV1 will not be used for 2 hours, is 30% charged and is a high priority snowplow. EV1 navigates to a rapid charge station and which has been indicated by the cloud/network as being unoccupied/empty and capable of rapid charging. EV1 then commences charging. Soon an “urgent” or priority EV2 also needs to charge and scans the cloud/network for available charging stations. The cloud/network decides that EV2 should also charge at the same charging station as EV1 as it has rapid charge and communicates to EV3 at the charging station to disconnect in 3 minutes to provide room for EV2 when it arrives in 4 minutes. Once EV1 or EV2 is charged, EV3 can reconnect and finish charging assuming no other priority charges are required for other EVs.)
Regarding claim 4, Newman discloses:
The method of claim 3, further comprising modifying the second preconditioning start time to correspond to an availability of the charging station after the charging station completes a charging operation for the first battery. (Newman [0017] discloses In accordance with one exemplary embodiment, a vehicle communicates with one or more other vehicle(s) and/or the cloud to understand which vehicle is at what charger, how long until completion of the charge (or until the battery is charged enough for the EV that is charging to finish a scheduled trip), and what priority is associated with the EV and/or occupants; [0018] discloses an EV needing to charge scans the cloud/network for available charging stations.)
Regarding claim 5, Newman discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first preconditioning characteristic comprises a preconditioning time of the first battery, an estimated time of arrival of the first vehicle to the charging station, or an estimated charge time of the first battery. (Newman [0119] discloses The cloud/network decides that EV2 should also charge at the same charging station as EV1 as it has rapid charge and communicates to EV3 at the charging station to disconnect in 3 minutes to provide room for EV2 when it arrives in 4 minutes (i.e. estimated time of arrival.)
Regarding claim 7, Newman discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first or second preconditioning characteristic is indicative of a minimum amount of time required to recharge the respective first or second battery at the charging station after a preconditioning operation, and determining the preconditioning ranking further comprises in response to the first preconditioning characteristic being less than the second preconditioning characteristic, determining the preconditioning ranking of the first vehicle is prioritized over the preconditioning ranking of the second vehicle, and in response to the second preconditioning characteristic being less than the first preconditioning characteristic, determining the preconditioning ranking of the second vehicle is prioritized over the preconditioning ranking of the first vehicle. (Newman [0119] discloses as an example EV1 commences charging. Soon an “urgent” or priority EV2 also needs to charge and scans the cloud/network for available charging stations. The cloud/network decides that EV2 should also charge at the same charging station as EV1 as it has rapid charge and communicates to EV3 at the charging station to disconnect in 3 minutes to provide room for EV2 when it arrives in 4 minutes. Once EV1 or EV2 is charged, EV3 can reconnect and finish charging assuming no other priority charges are required for other EVs.)
Regarding claim 8, Newman discloses:
The method of claim 7, wherein determining the queue further comprises prioritizing usage of the charging station for one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle with the prioritized preconditioning ranking. (Newman [0112] discloses In a very high demand for charging stations scenario, a premium could be charged for being given charge priority.)
Regarding claim 9, Newman discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein the method further comprises determining an override priority of the first vehicle and second vehicle, and determining the queue further comprising prioritizing usage of the charging station for the one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle with a higher override priority, notwithstanding the respective preconditioning ranking of the first and second vehicles. (Newman [0119] discloses as an example EV1 commences charging. Soon an “urgent” or priority EV2 also needs to charge and scans the cloud/network for available charging stations. The cloud/network decides that EV2 should also charge at the same charging station as EV1 as it has rapid charge and communicates to EV3 at the charging station to disconnect in 3 minutes to provide room for EV2 when it arrives in 4 minutes. Once EV1 or EV2 is charged, EV3 can reconnect and finish charging assuming no other priority charges are required for other EVs.)
Regarding claim 10, Newman discloses:
A system comprising: a plurality of vehicles, one or more vehicles of the plurality of vehicles having a battery; a charging station configured to charge the battery of the one or more vehicles; (Newman [0017] discloses An exemplary embodiment details how autonomous EV's can communicate with each other as well as with the charging station(s).)
and a fleet management system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with instructions which, when executed by one or more processing elements of the fleet management system, cause the system to: determine a preconditioning characteristic of batteries of the one or more vehicles, and determine a queue for the one or more vehicles for the charging station using the preconditioning characteristic. (Newman [0109] discloses the charge priority system 800 evaluates one or more criteria to facilitate charging of the EV. In addition to one or more priority status indicators, the charge priority system 800 can also evaluate one or more of the charging status of the EV itself, and/or charge status (or status in general) of one or more other vehicles; [0114-0115] disclose ordering (i.e. queue) vehicles for charging; when the charge coordination module 804 of the charge priority system 800 is making a determination as to which vehicles to order where for charging, the system can optionally take into account this priority level information; not only can vehicles be ranked and ordered in terms of when they receive charge, but the type of charge can also be given a priority.)
Regarding claim 11, Newman discloses:
The system of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the system to determine the preconditioning characteristic by receiving information from the one or more vehicles indicative of a minimum amount of time required to recharge the respective batteries at the charging station after a preconditioning operation. (Newman [0119] discloses as an example EV1 commences charging. Soon an “urgent” or priority EV2 also needs to charge and scans the cloud/network for available charging stations. The cloud/network decides that EV2 should also charge at the same charging station as EV1 as it has rapid charge and communicates to EV3 at the charging station to disconnect in 3 minutes to provide room for EV2 when it arrives in 4 minutes. Once EV1 or EV2 is charged, EV3 can reconnect and finish charging assuming no other priority charges are required for other EVs.)
Regarding claim 12, Newman discloses:
The system of claim 11, wherein the information comprising a preconditioning time of a respective battery, an estimated time of arrival of a respective vehicle to the charging station, or an estimated charge time of the respective battery. (Newman [0119] discloses The cloud/network decides that EV2 should also charge at the same charging station as EV1 as it has rapid charge and communicates to EV3 at the charging station to disconnect in 3 minutes to provide room for EV2 when it arrives in 4 minutes (i.e. estimated time of arrival.)
Regarding claim 13, Newman discloses:
The system of claim 11, wherein the instructions further cause the system to compare a preconditioning characteristic of a first battery of a first vehicle of the one or more vehicles and a preconditioning characteristic of a second battery of a second vehicle of the one or more vehicles to determine a preconditioning ranking for the first vehicle and the second vehicle. (Newman [0120] discloses the priority module running an algorithm can determine where the vehicle should charge; the algorithm can take into consideration the priority of the vehicle, the priority of one or more other vehicles, the occupancy of one or more charging stations, the type of charging stations, the amount of charge needed for the vehicle and/or the amount of charge needed by one or more other vehicles and determine which charging station(s) the vehicle can use; [0111]; [0113-0116] disclose ranking of vehicles.)
Regarding claim 14, Newman discloses:
The system of claim 13, wherein the instructions further cause the system to: receive an input from an operator indicative of an override priority for the first vehicle and second vehicle, and determine the queue for the one or more vehicles by prioritizing usage of the charging station for the one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle with a higher override priority, notwithstanding the respective preconditioning ranking of the first and second vehicles. (Newman [0119] discloses as an example EV1 commences charging. Soon an “urgent” or priority EV2 also needs to charge and scans the cloud/network for available charging stations. The cloud/network decides that EV2 should also charge at the same charging station as EV1 as it has rapid charge and communicates to EV3 at the charging station to disconnect in 3 minutes to provide room for EV2 when it arrives in 4 minutes. Once EV1 or EV2 is charged, EV3 can reconnect and finish charging assuming no other priority charges are required for other EVs.)
Regarding claim 15, Newman discloses:
The system of claim 13, wherein the instructions further cause the system to initiate preconditioning of the first battery at a first preconditioning start time based on the preconditioning ranking of the first vehicle, and initiate preconditioning of the second battery at a second preconditioning start time, the second preconditioning start time being subsequent to the first preconditioning start time of the first battery, based on the preconditioning ranking of the second vehicle relative to the first vehicle. (Newman [0119] discloses For example, EV1 will not be used for 2 hours, is 30% charged and is a high priority snowplow. EV1 navigates to a rapid charge station and which has been indicated by the cloud/network as being unoccupied/empty and capable of rapid charging. EV1 then commences charging. Soon an “urgent” or priority EV2 also needs to charge and scans the cloud/network for available charging stations. The cloud/network decides that EV2 should also charge at the same charging station as EV1 as it has rapid charge and communicates to EV3 at the charging station to disconnect in 3 minutes to provide room for EV2 when it arrives in 4 minutes. Once EV1 or EV2 is charged, EV3 can reconnect and finish charging assuming no other priority charges are required for other EVs.)
Regarding claim 16, Newman discloses:
The system of claim 10, wherein the instructions further cause the system to share routing factors among the vehicles of the plurality of vehicles and the fleet management system, the routing factors comprising traffic information, battery consumption information, and temperature information of a vehicle of the plurality of the vehicles; and determine the preconditioning characteristics based, in part, on the routing factors. (Newman [0026-0027]; [0051] disclose traffic information; [0121] discloses amount of charge needed (i.e. consumption); [0044]; [0055-0057] disclose temperature information.)
Regarding claim 17, Newman discloses:
A method of coordinating a fleet of vehicles, the method comprising: determining a preconditioning ranking for a first vehicle and a second vehicle by comparing a first preconditioning characteristic of a first battery of the first vehicle and a second preconditioning characteristic of a second battery of the second vehicle; (Newman [0109] discloses the charge priority system 800 evaluates one or more criteria to facilitate charging of the EV. In addition to one or more priority status indicators, the charge priority system 800 can also evaluate one or more of the charging status of the EV itself, and/or charge status (or status in general) of one or more other vehicles.)
determining a queue of the first and second vehicles for a charging station using the preconditioning ranking of the first and second vehicles; (Newman [0114-0115] disclose ordering (i.e. queue) vehicles for charging; when the charge coordination module 804 of the charge priority system 800 is making a determination as to which vehicles to order where for charging, the system can optionally take into account this priority level information; not only can vehicles be ranked and ordered in terms of when they receive charge, but the type of charge can also be given a priority.)
determining an override priority of the first vehicle and second vehicle; and updating the queue based on the override priority. (Newman [0119] discloses as an example EV1 commences charging. Soon an “urgent” or priority EV2 also needs to charge and scans the cloud/network for available charging stations. The cloud/network decides that EV2 should also charge at the same charging station as EV1 as it has rapid charge and communicates to EV3 at the charging station to disconnect in 3 minutes to provide room for EV2 when it arrives in 4 minutes. Once EV1 or EV2 is charged, EV3 can reconnect and finish charging assuming no other priority charges are required for other EVs.)
Regarding claim 18, Newman discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein updating the queue comprising prioritizing usage of the charging station for the one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle with a higher override priority, notwithstanding the respective preconditioning ranking of the first and second vehicles. (Newman [0119] discloses as an example EV1 commences charging. Soon an “urgent” or priority EV2 also needs to charge and scans the cloud/network for available charging stations. The cloud/network decides that EV2 should also charge at the same charging station as EV1 as it has rapid charge and communicates to EV3 at the charging station to disconnect in 3 minutes to provide room for EV2 when it arrives in 4 minutes. Once EV1 or EV2 is charged, EV3 can reconnect and finish charging assuming no other priority charges are required for other EVs.)
Regarding claim 19, Newman discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein: the first or second preconditioning characteristic is indicative of a minimum amount of time required to recharge the respective first or second battery at the charging station after a preconditioning operation, and determining the queue for the first and second vehicles comprises prioritizing usage of the charging station for one of the first vehicle or the second vehicle with a lower minimum amount of time required to recharge. (Newman [0119] discloses as an example EV1 commences charging. Soon an “urgent” or priority EV2 also needs to charge and scans the cloud/network for available charging stations. The cloud/network decides that EV2 should also charge at the same charging station as EV1 as it has rapid charge and communicates to EV3 at the charging station to disconnect in 3 minutes to provide room for EV2 when it arrives in 4 minutes. Once EV1 or EV2 is charged, EV3 can reconnect and finish charging assuming no other priority charges are required for other EVs.)
Regarding claim 20, Newman discloses:
The method of claim 17, wherein determining the override priority further comprises applying a set of rules to the queue. (Newman [0109] discloses In operation, the charge priority system 800 evaluates one or more criteria to facilitate charging of the EV.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newman in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0241824 (hereinafter; Uesugi).
Regarding claim 6, Newman discloses:
The method of claim 5, wherein the first preconditioning characteristic comprises the preconditioning time of the first battery, the estimated time of arrival of the first vehicle to the charging station, (Newman [0069] discloses vehicle time of arrival; the location module 333 may use known locations of Wi-Fi hotspots, cell tower data, etc. to determine the position of the vehicle 100, such as by using time difference of arrival (TDOA) and/or frequency difference of arrival (FDOA) techniques.)
Although Newman discloses systems and methods for determining preconditioning characteristics of vehicles and ranking the vehicles in order of priority for a charging station, Newman does not specifically disclose summing estimated charge time and estimated time of arrival of the vehicle. However, Uesugi discloses the following limitations:
and the estimated charge time of the first battery, and the method further comprises determining the first preconditioning characteristic by summing the estimated charge time with the higher of: the preconditioning time, and the estimated time of arrival. (Uesugi discloses [0171] discloses Specifically, the charging station search unit 75 specifies a charging station 14 under the condition that the sum of an estimated time required until the electric vehicle reaches the charging station 14 concerned from the present place of the electric vehicle and an estimated waiting time occurring until the charge of the electric vehicle is started after the electric vehicle arrives at the charging station 14 concerned is minimum.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the Autonomous EV charging priority network of Newman with the battery charging system of Uesugi in order to allocate charger users (Uesugi abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US Pub. No. 2014/0028254 (Shane) discloses methods and systems for charging electric vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
