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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed November 21, 2025. Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended. Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 have been canceled. Claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-24 are pending and are examined below.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed November 21, 2025 with respect to the previous claim objections have been fully considered. Applicant has amended claim 1, however, the language “performing operations, by the computing device, to select another vehicle trajectory there fault condition does exist” remains grammatically incorrect.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed November 21, 2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered. Applicant has amended claim 10 rendering the previous rejections moot.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed November 21, 2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “or to select another already generated vehicle trajectory the fault condition does exist” appears to be grammatically incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20230025222 A1, in view of Barth et al., US 20240294192 A1, and in view of Agrawal et al., US 20240092350 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Barth, and Agrawal, respectively.
As to claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for selectively using vehicle trajectories, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a vehicle trajectory prior to being used to generate motion commands for a vehicle (Planning and control module generates planning information which may be a desired path – See at least ¶56; Various modules downstream from planning and control module, which receive the planning and control module data – See at least Fig. 2);
identifying, by the computing device, hardware components and software operating the hardware components of the vehicle that produced data used by a path generation controller to generate at least one vehicle trajectory, wherein the data includes a sensor data indicative of an on object detected by a sensor, and a location data indicative of a current location of the vehicle (Fault monitoring of software and hardware for sensor group – See at least ¶62; Sensing information may include obstacles, pedestrians, etc. – See at least ¶52; Location information of vehicle – See at least ¶53);
determining, by the computing device, whether or not a fault condition exists that is associated with the vehicle trajectory (Function assessment module monitors various information including planning and control module information, which is indicative of a fault condition – See at least ¶64-65);
performing operations, by the computing device, to select another generated vehicle trajectory the fault condition does exist (Modify vehicle planning control based on assessment – See at least ¶72; Examiner notes if the vehicle planning control is unmodified based on the assessment it is the originally planned trajectory.); and
causing the motion commands to be generated using another vehicle trajectory which was selected (Execution of control – See at least ¶77).
Zhang fails to explicitly disclose determining whether or not a fault condition exists that is associated with the vehicle trajectory based on a detection that the vehicle trajectory would or would not cause violation of at least one limit for an operational parameter of the vehicle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang and include the feature of determining whether or not a fault condition exists that is associated with the vehicle trajectory based on a detection that the vehicle trajectory would or would not cause violation of at least one limit for an operational parameter of the vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Barth teaches it is well-known and routine in the vehicle route planning arts to evaluate a trajectory in terms of whether the trajectory will violate constraints of operation (Determine whether trajectory violates constraint – See at least ¶23 of Barth).
The combination of Zhang and Barth fails to explicitly disclose selecting another vehicle trajectory based on a previously received vehicle trajectory retrieved from a datastore. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Barth and include the feature of selecting another vehicle trajectory based on a previously received vehicle trajectory retrieved from a datastore, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Agrawal teaches it is well-known and routine to switch back and forth between various trajectories which can be stored remotely (Switch between trajectories received from safety system components – See at least ¶17 of Agrawal; Remote computing device may correspond to any of the other components disclosed – See at least ¶139 of Agrawal).
As to claim 2, Zhang discloses using the motion commands to control operations of the vehicle (Execution of control – See at least ¶77).
As to claim 3, Zhang discloses the fault condition exists when a detection is made that at least one of the identified software operations and hardware components experienced a fault or operational condition of a type while producing the data used to generate the vehicle trajectory or a detection is made that the vehicle trajectory would cause violation of at least one limit for an operational parameter of the vehicle (Fault monitoring of software and hardware for sensor group – See at least ¶62).
As to claim 4, Zhang discloses the fault condition does not exist when a detection is made that at least one of the identified software operations and hardware components did not experience a fault or operational condition of a type while producing the data used to generate the vehicle trajectory or a detection is made that the vehicle trajectory would not cause violation of at least one limit for an operational parameter of the vehicle (Fault monitoring of software and hardware for sensor group – See at least ¶62).
As to claim 8, Zhang fails to explicitly disclose assigning a valid designation to the vehicle trajectory when the fault condition does not exist. However, Agrawal teaches assigning a valid designation to a vehicle trajectory when a fault condition does not exist (Valid trajectories in consideration of error data – See at least Abstract and ¶10).
Zhang discloses controlling an autonomous vehicle in part based on whether a fault condition exists with respect to a generated trajectory. Agrawal teaches it is well-known and routine in the autonomous vehicle arts to select safe and valid vehicle trajectories subsequent to receiving error data from vehicle safety systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang and include the feature of assigning a valid designation to the vehicle trajectory when the fault condition does not exist, as taught by Agrawal, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure safe operation of an autonomous vehicle by ensuring a vehicle uses valid trajectories.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20230025222 A1, in view of Barth et al., US 20240294192 A1, and in view of Agrawal et al., US 20240092350 A1, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Winter et al., US 20230192129 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Barth, Agrawal, and Winter, respectively.
As to claim 7, the combination of Zhang, Barth, and Agrawal fails to explicitly disclose discarding the vehicle trajectory when the fault condition does exist. However, Winter teaches discarding a vehicle trajectory when a fault condition does exist (Remove trajectory when proposed trajectory fails to meet confidence threshold – See at least ¶97).
Zhang discloses controlling an autonomous vehicle in part based on whether a fault condition exists with respect to a generated trajectory. Winter teaches it is well-known and routine in the autonomous vehicle arts to test potential trajectories, for an autonomous vehicle, and remove those trajectories that do not meet a given threshold of confidence that a potential trajectory can be performed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang, Barth, and Agrawal and include the feature of discarding the vehicle trajectory when the fault condition does exist, as taught by Winter, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure safe operation of an autonomous vehicle by confirming an autonomous vehicle can follow a proposed trajectory.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20230025222 A1, in view of Barth et al., US 20240294192 A1, and in view of Agrawal et al., US 20240092350 A1, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Linscott et al., US 20180251126 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Barth, Agrawal, and Linscott, respectively.
As to claim 9, the combination of Zhang, Barth, and Agrawal fails to explicitly disclose continuing to store the vehicle trajectory in a datastore until a next vehicle trajectory is also assigned a valid designation. However, Linscott teaches continuing to store the vehicle trajectory in a datastore until a next vehicle trajectory is also assigned a valid designation (Fallback trajectory stored until a new fallback trajectory is received – See at least ¶34; Examiner notes the fallback trajectory is “valid” by virtue of being determined and decided upon by the decision module in ¶19.).
Zhang discloses controlling an autonomous vehicle in part based on whether a fault condition exists with respect to a generated trajectory. Agrawal teaches it is well-known and routine in the autonomous vehicle arts to select safe and valid vehicle trajectories subsequent to receiving error data from vehicle safety systems. Linscott teaches storing a valid trajectory for an autonomous vehicle until receiving a new valid trajectory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang, Barth, and Agrawal and include the feature of continuing to store the vehicle trajectory in a datastore until a next vehicle trajectory is also assigned a valid designation, as taught by Linscott, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure safe operation of an autonomous vehicle by ensuring the autonomous vehicle is using a decided upon trajectory.
Claims 10-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20230025222 A1, in view of Caldwell et al., US 20230041975 A1, and in view of Agrawal et al., US 20240092350 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Caldwell, and Agrawal, respectively.
As to claim 10, Zhang discloses a system, comprising:
a processor;
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising programming instructions that are configured to cause the processor to implement a method for selectively using vehicle trajectories, wherein the programming instructions comprise instructions to:
receive a vehicle trajectory prior to being used to generate motion commands for a vehicle (Planning and control module generates planning information which may be a desired path – See at least ¶56; Various modules downstream from planning and control module, which receive the planning and control module data – See at least Fig. 2);
identify software operations and hardware components of the vehicle that produced data used to generate the vehicle trajectory, wherein the data does not indicate the vehicle trajectory, and includes at least one of a sensor data indicative of an object detected by a sensor, and a location data indicative of a current location of the vehicle (Fault monitoring of software and hardware for sensor group – See at least ¶62; Sensing information may include obstacles, pedestrians, etc. – See at least ¶52; Location information of vehicle – See at least ¶53);
determine whether or not a fault condition exists that is associated with the vehicle trajectory based on a detection that an operational condition of a type while producing the data used to generate the vehicle trajectory (Function assessment module monitors various information, i.e., “operational conditions,” including planning and control module information, which is indicative of a fault condition – See at least ¶64-65);
perform to select another vehicle trajectory when the fault condition does exist (Modify vehicle planning control based on assessment – See at least ¶72; Examiner notes if the vehicle planning control is unmodified based on the assessment it is the originally planned trajectory.); and
cause the motion commands to be generated using the vehicle trajectory or the another vehicle trajectory which was selected (Execution of control – See at least ¶77).
Zhang fails to explicitly disclose the operational condition includes an uncomfortable ride. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang and include the feature of the operational condition includes an uncomfortable ride, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Caldwell teaches a well-known and routine operational condition for trajectory planning is ride comfort (Comfort metrics for path/trajectory planning – See at least ¶56).
The combination of Zhang and Caldwell fails to explicitly disclose selecting another vehicle trajectory based on a previously received vehicle trajectory retrieved from a datastore. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination of Zhang and Caldwell and include the feature of selecting another vehicle trajectory based on a previously received vehicle trajectory retrieved from a datastore, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Agrawal teaches it is well-known and routine to switch back and forth between various trajectories which can be stored remotely (Switch between trajectories received from safety system components – See at least ¶17 of Agrawal; Remote computing device may correspond to any of the other components disclosed – See at least ¶139 of Agrawal).
As to claim 11, Zhang discloses using the motion commands to control operations of the vehicle (Execution of control – See at least ¶77).
As to claim 12, Zhang discloses the fault condition exists when a detection is made that at least one of the identified software operations and hardware components experienced a fault or operational condition of a type while producing the data used to generate the vehicle trajectory or a detection is made that the vehicle trajectory would cause violation of at least one limit for an operational parameter of the vehicle (Fault monitoring of software and hardware for sensor group – See at least ¶62).
As to claim 13, Zhang discloses the fault condition does not exist when a detection is made that at least one of the identified software operations and hardware components did not experience a fault or operational condition of a type while producing the data used to generate the vehicle trajectory or a detection is made that the vehicle trajectory would not cause violation of at least one limit for an operational parameter of the vehicle (Fault monitoring of software and hardware for sensor group – See at least ¶62).
As to claim 17, Zhang fails to explicitly disclose assigning a valid designation to the vehicle trajectory when the fault condition does not exist. However, Agrawal teaches assigning a valid designation to a vehicle trajectory when a fault condition does not exist (Valid trajectories in consideration of error data – See at least Abstract and ¶10).
Zhang discloses controlling an autonomous vehicle in part based on whether a fault condition exists with respect to a generated trajectory. Agrawal teaches it is well-known and routine in the autonomous vehicle arts to select safe and valid vehicle trajectories subsequent to receiving error data from vehicle safety systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang and include the feature of assigning a valid designation to the vehicle trajectory when the fault condition does not exist, as taught by Agrawal, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure safe operation of an autonomous vehicle by ensuring a vehicle uses valid trajectories.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20230025222 A1, in view of Caldwell et al., US 20230041975 A1, and in view of Agrawal et al., US 20240092350 A1, as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Winter et al., US 20230192129 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Caldwell, Agrawal, and Winter, respectively.
As to claim 16, the combination of Zhang, Caldwell, and Agrawal fails to explicitly disclose discarding the vehicle trajectory when the fault condition does exist. However, Winter teaches discarding a vehicle trajectory when a fault condition does exist (Remove trajectory when proposed trajectory fails to meet confidence threshold – See at least ¶97).
Zhang discloses controlling an autonomous vehicle in part based on whether a fault condition exists with respect to a generated trajectory. Winter teaches it is well-known and routine in the autonomous vehicle arts to test potential trajectories, for an autonomous vehicle, and remove those trajectories that do not meet a given threshold of confidence that a potential trajectory can be performed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang, Caldwell, and Agrawal and include the feature of discarding the vehicle trajectory when the fault condition does exist, as taught by Winter, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure safe operation of an autonomous vehicle by confirming an autonomous vehicle can follow a proposed trajectory.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20230025222 A1, in view of Caldwell et al., US 20240294192 A1, and in view of Agrawal et al., US 20240092350 A1, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Linscott et al., US 20180251126 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Caldwell, Agrawal, and Linscott, respectively.
As to claim 18, the combination of Zhang, Caldwell, and Agrawal fails to explicitly disclose continuing to store the vehicle trajectory in a datastore until a next vehicle trajectory is also assigned a valid designation. However, Linscott teaches continuing to store the vehicle trajectory in a datastore until a next vehicle trajectory is also assigned a valid designation (Fallback trajectory stored until a new fallback trajectory is received – See at least ¶34; Examiner notes the fallback trajectory is “valid” by virtue of being determined and decided upon by the decision module in ¶19.).
Zhang discloses controlling an autonomous vehicle in part based on whether a fault condition exists with respect to a generated trajectory. Agrawal teaches it is well-known and routine in the autonomous vehicle arts to select safe and valid vehicle trajectories subsequent to receiving error data from vehicle safety systems. Linscott teaches storing a valid trajectory for an autonomous vehicle until receiving a new valid trajectory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang, Caldwell, and Agrawal and include the feature of continuing to store the vehicle trajectory in a datastore until a next vehicle trajectory is also assigned a valid designation, as taught by Linscott, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure safe operation of an autonomous vehicle by ensuring the autonomous vehicle is using a decided upon trajectory.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20230025222 A1, in view of Yoshinaga et al., US 20220306110 A1, and in view of Agrawal et al., US 20240092350 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Yoshinaga, and Agrawal, respectively.
As to claim 19, Zhang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions that is configured to, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:
receiving a vehicle trajectory prior to being used to generate motion commands for a vehicle (Planning and control module generates planning information which may be a desired path – See at least ¶56; Various modules downstream from planning and control module, which receive the planning and control module data – See at least Fig. 2);
identifying software operations and hardware components of the vehicle that produced data used to generate the vehicle trajectory, wherein the data does not indicate the vehicle trajectory, and includes at least one of a sensor data indicative of an object detected by a sensor, and a location data indicative of a current location of the vehicle (Fault monitoring of software and hardware for sensor group – See at least ¶62; Sensing information may include obstacles, pedestrians, etc. – See at least ¶52; Location information of vehicle – See at least ¶53);
determining whether or not a fault condition exists that is associated with the vehicle trajectory based on a detection that an operational condition of a type while producing the data used to generate the vehicle trajectory (Function assessment module monitors various information, i.e., “operational conditions,” including planning and control module information, which is indicative of a fault condition – See at least ¶64-65);
performing operations to select another vehicle trajectory when the fault condition does exist (Modify vehicle planning control based on assessment – See at least ¶72; Examiner notes if the vehicle planning control is unmodified based on the assessment it is the originally planned trajectory.); and
causing the motion commands to be generated using the vehicle trajectory or the another vehicle trajectory which was selected (Execution of control – See at least ¶77).
Zhang fails to explicitly disclose the operational condition includes a transmission failure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zhang and include the feature of the operational condition includes a transmission failure, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Yoshinaga teaches a transmission failure is a well-known and routine example of a fault operational condition of a vehicle (Communication failure – See at least ¶15 of Yoshinaga).
The combination of Zhang and Yoshinaga fails to explicitly disclose selecting another vehicle trajectory based on a previously received vehicle trajectory retrieved from a datastore. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Yoshinaga and include the feature of selecting another vehicle trajectory based on a previously received vehicle trajectory retrieved from a datastore, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Agrawal teaches it is well-known and routine to switch back and forth between various trajectories which can be stored remotely (Switch between trajectories received from safety system components – See at least ¶17 of Agrawal; Remote computing device may correspond to any of the other components disclosed – See at least ¶139 of Agrawal).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20230025222 A1, in view of Barth et al., US 20240294192 A1, and in view of Agrawal et al., US 20240092350 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Caldwell et al., US 20230041975 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Barth, Agrawal, and Caldwell, respectively.
As to claim 21, the combination of Zhang, Barth, and Agrawal fails to explicitly disclose the at least one limit for an operational parameter includes a maximum steering angle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination of Zhang, Barth, and Agrawal and include the feature of the at least one limit for an operational parameter includes a maximum steering angle, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Caldwell teaches a well-known and routine constraint for trajectory planning is a maximum steering angle (Constraint such as maximum steering angle – See at least ¶119 of Caldwell).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20230025222 A1, in view of Barth et al., US 20240294192 A1, and in view of Agrawal et al., US 20240092350 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raffone et al., US 20220371594 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Barth, Agrawal, and Raffone, respectively.
As to claim 22, the combination of Zhang, Barth, and Agrawal fails to explicitly disclose the at least one limit for an operational parameter includes a maximum longitudinal jerk. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination of Zhang, Barth, and Agrawal and include the feature of the at least one limit for an operational parameter includes a maximum longitudinal jerk, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Raffone teaches a well-known and routine constraint for trajectory planning is a jerk (Jerk constraint – See at least ¶63 of Raffone).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20230025222 A1, in view of Caldwell et al., US 20230041975 A1, and in view of Agrawal et al., US 20240092350 A1, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Agarwal et al., US 11853068 B1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Barth, Agrawal, and Agarwal, respectively.
As to claim 23, the combination of Zhang, Caldwell, and Agrawal fails to explicitly disclose the operational condition further includes a flat tire. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify combination of Zhang, Caldwell, and Agrawal and include the feature of the operational condition further includes a flat tire, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Agarwal teaches a flat tire is a well-known failure condition (Flat tire – See at least Col. 7 Lines 26-28 of Agarwal).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., US 20230025222 A1, in view of Yoshinaga, US 20220306110 A1, and in view of Agrawal et al., US 20240092350 A1, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Lopez et al., US 12409842 B1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, Barth, Agrawal, and Lopez, respectively.
As to claim 24, the combination of Zhang, Yoshinaga, and Agrawal fails to explicitly disclose the operational condition further includes a collision. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang, Yoshinaga, and Agrawal and include the feature of the operational condition further includes a collision, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Lopez teaches it is well-known and routine to monitor the possibility of a collision as an operational condition when performing fault monitoring (Collision possibility – See at least Col. 3 Lines 24-32 of Lopez).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lail Kleinman whose telephone number is (571)272-6286. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/LAIL A KLEINMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668