DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/30/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 11 and 14 - 23 have been presented for examination. Claims 5 – 6, 12 – 13 and 24 are cancelled. Claims 1, 7, 9, 16 and 20 are currently amended.
Examiner notes that Applicant did not provide any arguments related to the 101 rejection in the most recent reply dated 07/30/2026. However, Applicant acknowledged the existence of the 101 rejection (see section Allowable Subject Matter “subject to overcoming the 101 rejection”).
Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant has rolled up an amended version of claim 24 into claim 1 (and similarly into claim 9 and 16 and 20). Therefore, the 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments overcome the claim objection. Therefore, it is withdrawn.
Response to Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant has rolled up the limitations indicated in the allowable subject matter of claim 24 into claim 1 (and similarly into claim 9 and 16 and 20) without the intervening claims 7 - 8, and while also adding the missing words in order to overcome the 112(b) rejection (see Response to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). The amended limitations rolled up do not meaningfully change the interpretation relied upon in the previous Office Action for claim 24. Therefore, the prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, subject to overcoming the 101 rejection.
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 1 (and similarly claim 9 and 16 and 20, and claims 5 – 6, 12 – 13 and 24 by incorporation) method for simulating an autonomous vehicle, comprising: “shortening a simulation period in response to a result of the warning simulation indicating that the driving state of the autonomous vehicle may be abnormal; and extending the simulation period in to response the result of the warning simulation indicating a normal state”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claim. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 11 and 14 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for simulating an autonomous vehicle, comprising: performing simulation based on the current information to acquire prediction information of the autonomous vehicle; and wherein performing simulation based on the current information to acquire prediction information of the autonomous vehicle comprises: determining whether the simulation is a parameter optimization simulation or a warning simulation according to the simulation type parameter; in response to the simulation being the parameter optimization simulation, predicting an optimization parameter of the autonomous vehicle in a predetermined period of time in future; and in response to the simulation being the warning simulation, predicting a driving state of the autonomous vehicle in a predetermined period of time in the future, wherein the driving state comprises at least one of normal, controllable abnormality or uncontrollable abnormality; wherein the method further comprises: shortening a simulation period in response to a result of the warning simulation indicating that the driving state of the autonomous vehicle may be abnormal; and extending the simulation period in response to the result of the warning simulation indicating a normal state. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “predicting” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality, and the “performing simulation” to acquire prediction information requires no more than mental process steps “predicting”. The “shortening the simulation” and “extending the simulation period” further limits the “predicting a driving state” by generically achieving a desired effect and without reciting further details, and without precluding performance in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: acquiring current information associated with the autonomous vehicle; sending current information associated with the autonomous vehicle to a simulation system; receiving a simulation request comprising a simulation type parameter. The “acquiring” and “sending” and “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited “acquiring” and “sending” and “receiving” cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since they all comprise data gathering. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 – 4 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s). Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims:
Claim 2 wherein the current information comprises at least one of: vehicle state information, environmental information surrounding the autonomous vehicle, and module operating state information of the autonomous vehicle.
Claim 3 wherein performing simulation based on the current information comprises: in response to receiving a simulation request from the autonomous vehicle, performing the simulation in a simulation environment mapped with at least the current information to predict an optimization parameter of the autonomous vehicle or a driving state of the autonomous vehicle in a predetermined period of time in the future
Claim 4 wherein receiving the simulation request comprises at least one of: receiving the simulation request periodically from the autonomous vehicle; or receiving the simulation request from the autonomous vehicle when the autonomous vehicle is in a specific driving state.
For example, the “current information comprises” further modifies a parent claim data gathering steps with specific information gathered. Therefore, it amounts to insignificant data gathering since it does not further limit how the data is gathered. The ”performing the simulation in a simulation environment” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it broadly covers all manners of performing the simulation. The “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the parent claim “generating control information” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited “current information comprises” and “receiving” cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The ”performing the simulation in a simulation environment” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since they require no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 7 – 8 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s):
Claim 7 determining the optimization parameter based on a simulation result obtained by each simulation environment.
Claim 8 wherein the optimization parameter comprises at least one of: a parameter for a perception module of the autonomous vehicle, a parameter for a planning module of the autonomous vehicle, or a parameter for a control module of the autonomous vehicle.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “optimization parameter comprises” amount(s) to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 7 wherein the simulation request comprises a simulation type parameter indicating that the simulation is the parameter optimization simulation, and performing simulation comprises: running multiple simulation environments in parallel mapped with at least the current information, wherein each simulation environment uses a different simulation parameter. The ”simulation request comprises” further limits the parent claim “receiving”, therefore, it amounts to insignificant data gathering. The “running multiple simulation environments” amounts to reciting the words “apply it”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The ”simulation request comprises” further limits the parent claim “receiving” to cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). The “running multiple simulation environments” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity. Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since they require no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 21 – 23 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s):
Claim 22 wherein the optimization parameter for the control module of the autonomous vehicle comprises optimizing parameters of friction coefficient and engine moment.
Claim 23 wherein the optimization parameter for the perception module of the autonomous vehicle comprises optimizing parameters of a vehicle's maximum recognition distance and minimum recognition precision.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “optimization parameter for” further limits the parent claim “determining”, therefore, it amount(s) to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims:
Claim 21 wherein the current information comprises module operating state information, the module operating state information comprises at least one of: information indicating that a running result of each module is normal; information indicating that the running result of each module is abnormal; a running frame rate of each module; or a warning log of each module.
The ”current information comprises” and “module operating state information comprises” further limits the parent claim “acquiring”, therefore, it amounts to insignificant data gathering (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The ”current information comprises” and “module operating state information comprises” to cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since they require no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) method for controlling an autonomous vehicle, comprising: generating control information for the autonomous vehicle based on the prediction information; wherein the simulation system performing the simulation comprises: determining whether the simulation is a parameter optimization simulation or a warning simulation according to the simulation type parameter; in response to the simulation being the parameter optimization simulation, predicting an optimization parameter of the autonomous vehicle in a predetermined period of time in future; and in response to the simulation being the warning simulation, predicting a driving state of the autonomous vehicle in a predetermined period of time in the future, wherein the driving state comprises at least one of normal, controllable abnormality or uncontrollable abnormality; wherein the method further comprises: shortening a simulation period in response to a result of the warning simulation indicating that the driving state of the autonomous vehicle may be abnormal; and extending the simulation period in response to the result of the warning simulation indicating a normal state. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “generating control information” and “determining” and “predicting” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. The “shortening the simulation” and “extending the simulation period” further limits the “predicting a driving state” by generically achieving a desired effect and without reciting further details, and without precluding performance in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: receiving a simulation request comprising a simulation type parameter; sending current information associated with the autonomous vehicle to a simulation system; acquiring prediction information obtained by the simulation system by performing simulation based on the current information The “receiving” and “sending” and “acquiring” amounts to insignificant data gathering and outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). Although the “acquiring” is based on simulation, the limitation recites the acquisition of the information after the simulation is performed. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited “receiving” and “sending” and “acquiring” cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since they all comprise data gathering and outputting. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 10 – 11 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s). Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims:
Claim 10 wherein the current information comprises vehicle state information, environmental information surrounding the autonomous vehicle, and module operating state information of the autonomous vehicle;
Claim 11 wherein acquiring prediction information obtained by the simulation system by performing a simulation based on the current information comprises: sending a simulation request to the simulation system periodically or based on the current information; and receiving prediction information obtained by the simulation system in response to the simulation request performing simulation in a simulation environment mapped with at least the current information;
For example, the “current information comprises” further modifies a parent claim data gathering steps with specific information gathered. Therefore, it amounts to insignificant data gathering since it does not further limit how the data is gathered. The “sending” and “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality, and since the parent claim “generating control information” step relies on the received elements in a generic manner (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The recited “current information comprises” and “sending” and “receiving” over well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since they all comprise data gathering. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 14 – 15 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s):
Claim 14 wherein generating control information for the autonomous vehicle based on the prediction information comprises: in responding to the prediction information comprising the predicted driving state of the autonomous vehicle for the predetermined period of time in the future: in response to the predicted driving state comprising a controllable abnormality, generating control information indicating to record the controllable abnormality; and in response to the predicted driving state comprising an uncontrollable abnormality, generating the control information for terminating the autonomous driving state of the autonomous vehicle.
Claim 15 wherein generating control information for the autonomous vehicle based on the prediction information comprises: in response to the prediction information comprising an optimization parameter for the autonomous vehicle, generating the control information for updating a current parameter of the autonomous vehicle with the optimization parameter.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “generating control information” and “generating the control information” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 16 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) electronic apparatus to execute a method comprising: performing simulation based on the current information to acquire prediction information of the autonomous vehicle; and wherein performing simulation based on the current information to acquire prediction information of the autonomous vehicle comprises: determining whether the simulation is a parameter optimization simulation or a warning simulation according to the simulation type parameter; in response to the simulation being the parameter optimization simulation, predicting an optimization parameter of the autonomous vehicle in a predetermined period of time in future; and in response to the simulation being the warning simulation, predicting a driving state of the autonomous vehicle in a predetermined period of time in the future, wherein the driving state comprises at least one of normal, controllable abnormality or uncontrollable abnormality; wherein the method further comprises: shortening a simulation period in response to a result of the warning simulation indicating that the driving state of the autonomous vehicle may be abnormal; and extending the simulation period in response to the result of the warning simulation indicating a normal state. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “predicting” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality, and the “performing simulation” to acquire prediction information requires no more than mental process steps “predicting”. The “shortening the simulation” and “extending the simulation period” further limits the “predicting a driving state” by generically achieving a desired effect and without reciting further details, and without precluding performance in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: at least one processor; and at least one memory, the memory storing an instruction that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to execute a method comprising; acquiring current information associated with the autonomous vehicle; sending current information associated with the autonomous vehicle to a simulation system; receiving a simulation request comprising a simulation type parameter. The ”processor” and “memory” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “acquiring” and “sending” and “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processor” and “memory” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The recited “acquiring” and “sending” and “receiving” cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since they all comprise data gathering and require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 17 -19 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s):
Claim 19 wherein the method further comprises: generating control information for the autonomous vehicle based on the prediction information. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “generating” amount(s) to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims:
Claim 17 wherein performing simulation based on the current information comprises: in response to receiving a simulation request from the autonomous vehicle, performing the simulation in a simulation environment mapped with at least the current information to predict an optimization parameter of the autonomous vehicle or a driving state of the autonomous vehicle in a predetermined period of time in the future
Claim 18 wherein the simulation request comprises a simulation type parameter indicating that the simulation is the parameter optimization simulation
Claim 19 wherein the method further comprises: sending current information associated with the autonomous vehicle to a simulation system; acquiring prediction information obtained by a simulation system by performing simulation based on the current information.
For example, the ”performing the simulation in a simulation environment” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it broadly covers all manners of performing the simulation. The ”simulation request comprises” further limits the parent claim “receiving”, therefore, it amounts to insignificant data gathering. The “sending” and “acquiring” amount to amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The ”performing the simulation in a simulation environment” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it requires no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity. The recited “simulation request comprises” and “acquiring” and “sending” cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since they require no more than ordinary equipment operating in its ordinary capacity. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 20 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a manufacture) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to execute a method comprising: performing simulation based on the current information to acquire prediction information of the autonomous vehicle; and wherein performing simulation based on the current information to acquire prediction information of the autonomous vehicle comprising: determining whether the simulation is a parameter optimization simulation or a warning simulation according to the simulation type parameter; in response to the simulation being the parameter optimization simulation, predicting an optimization parameter of the autonomous vehicle in a predetermined period of time in future; and in response to the simulation being the warning simulation, predicting a driving state of the autonomous vehicle in a predetermined period of time in the future, wherein the driving state comprises at least one of normal, controllable abnormality or uncontrollable abnormality; wherein the method further comprises: shortening a simulation period in response to a result of the warning simulation indicating that the driving state of the autonomous vehicle may be abnormal; and extending the simulation period in response to the result of the warning simulation indicating a normal state. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determining” and “predicting” amounts to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality, and the “performing simulation” to acquire prediction information requires no more than mental process steps “predicting”. The “shortening the simulation” and “extending the simulation period” further limits the “predicting a driving state” by generically achieving a desired effect and without reciting further details, and without precluding performance in the mind. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer instruction, wherein the computer instruction is used to cause the computer to; acquiring current information associated with an autonomous vehicle; sending current information associated with the autonomous vehicle to a simulation system; receiving a simulation request comprising a simulation type parameter. The ”storing a computer instruction” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “acquiring” and “sending” and “receiving” amounts to insignificant data gathering since it is recited at a high-level of generality (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “storing a computer instruction” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The recited “acquiring” and “sending” and “receiving” cover well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it is generic and covers receiving and outputting data by any electronics means (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since they all comprise data gathering and require no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights