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 action is in response to Applicant’s amendment of 06 July 2026. Claims 1-7, 10-17, 19 and 21-24 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the Claim Objections and rejection of claims 2, 6 and 22 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 06 April 2026 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections and rejection of claims 2, 6 and 22 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 06 April 2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 11-17 and 19 under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the office action of 06 April 2026 have been considered and are NOT persuasive. Applicant has not amended claims 11 and 19 accordingly. See 35 USC 112(b) rejection below.
Applicant’s amendment and/or arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 as set forth in the office action of 06 April 2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) 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
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 and 14 should be amended to recite “... a basic safety message (BSM) ...” for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-17, 19 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 recite “the maximum acceleration capability”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claims.
Claim 3 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “a maximum acceleration capability”. It is unclear, to the Examiner, whether Applicant is referring back to the same maximum acceleration capability previously recited in claim 1 or not.
Claim 11 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “perform, based on the input, a safety-related operation on the first terminal device ...”. It is unclear, how/why the input for planning control is being used to perform the safety-related operation. In view of Applicant’s specification claims 1, 10 and 19, Examiner suggests amending claim 11 to recite “set the capability information as an input for planning control; plan, based on the input capability information, a safety-related operation on the first terminal device ...”.
Claim 19 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “set the capability information as an input for safety threat analysis; and perform, based on the input, the safety-related operation”. Due to the indefinite situation with claim 11 mentioned above, it is unclear, to the Examiner, which input Applicant is referring back to by “the input” in claim 19. Examiner suggests amending claim 19 to recite “set the capability information as an input for safety threat analysis; and perform, based on the input for safety threat analysis, the safety-related operation”.
Claims 2, 4-7, 12-17 and 21-24 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (WO2017084601A1) in view of Pek (DE102018204101A1 – translation attached) in further view of Song (CN106004655A – translation attached), in yet further view of Shalev (US20190291726A1) and in yet further view of Virgen (US20190071087A1).
Regarding claim 1, Luo discloses a communication method implemented by a first terminal device (see at least lines 10-12 on page 1, lines 39-51 on page 2 and line 513 on page12-line 540 on page 13), wherein the communication method comprises:
determining, based on detection of a surrounding environment, a second terminal device whose capability information is required for a security threat analysis process (see at least line 341 on page 8 to line 346 on page 9);
obtaining, based on a result of the detection, the capability information of the second terminal device, wherein obtaining the capability information of the second terminal device may comprise obtaining the capability information of the second terminal device from an intermediate device (see at least Figure 3, lines 151-156 on page 4 and line 341 on page 8 to line 346 on page 9);
receiving, from the intermediate device, the capability information (see at least lines 116-119 on page 3, lines 131-156 on page 4, line 341 on page 8-line 346 on page 9, and lines 403&405-406 on page 10; “obtaining ... maximum braking capacity a1 of the first vehicle”, “each vehicle sends its ... maximum braking capacity to a predetermined range, for example, 10 meters in front and behind; each vehicle extracts v1 and a1 sent by its preceding vehicle from the received data”, “receiving submodule, used to receive”), wherein the capability information comprises a maximum braking capability of the second terminal device (see at least lines 95-97&116-119 on page 3, lines 131-156 on page 4, line 341 on page 8-line 346 on page 9; “obtain ... maximum braking capabilities of the first vehicle”, “obtaining ... maximum braking capacity a1 of the first vehicle”); and
performing, based on the capability information, a safety-related operation on the first terminal device (see at least lines 120-123 on page 3, lines 199-213 on page 5, lines 241-242 on page 6 and lines 293-295 of page 7; “current minimum safety distance S安全 between the front vehicle and the rear vehicle can be determined according to v1, a1, and a2”, “the second vehicle may be controlled according to the relationship between the current distance and the minimum safety distance”),
wherein the safety-related operation comprises braking the first terminal device, adjusting a speed of the first terminal device, adjusting an acceleration of the first terminal device, or adjusting a position of the first terminal device (see at least Luo lines 299-301 on page 7, lines 302-310&318-322 on page 8 and lines 344-346 on page 9; brake, decelerate, accelerate, increase distance, reduce distance, etc.).
Lou fails to disclose sending, to a roadside unit (RSU) based on a result of the detection, a request for the capability information of the second terminal device; receiving, from the RSU in response to the request, the capability information, wherein the capability information comprises an acceleration response delay time of the second terminal device, an acceleration stabilization time of the second terminal device, a braking pressure precision of the second terminal device, a braking pressure cycle of the second terminal device, or a braking pressure resolution of the second terminal device, setting the capability information as an input for planning control; planning, based on the input, a driving path for the first terminal device and wherein when the first terminal device and the second terminal device are travelling on different lanes, calculating a safe lane changing zone of the first terminal device based on the maximum acceleration capability of the second terminal device; and performing a lane change within the safe lane changing zone to enter a lane on which the second terminal device is traveling.
Pek teaches wherein when the first terminal device and the second terminal device are travelling on different lanes, calculating a safe lane changing zone of the first terminal device based on the maximum acceleration capability of the second terminal device (see at least Figure 4a, [0025], [0055], [0062]-[0065], [0067] and [0075]-[0078]; sub-areas (411),(412),(413) calculated taking into account at least safety distance (403) which is computed using the maximum acceleration of the other vehicle (103)); and performing a lane change within the safe lane changing zone to enter a lane on which the second terminal device is traveling (see at least Figure 4a, [0002], [0016], [0074]-[0078] and [0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Luo to incorporate the teachings of Pek which teaches wherein when the first terminal device and the second terminal device are travelling on different lanes, calculating a safe lane changing zone of the first terminal device based on the maximum acceleration capability of the second terminal device; and performing a lane change within the safe lane changing zone to enter a lane on which the second terminal device is traveling since they are both directed to vehicle control based on capability information of another vehicle and incorporating the teachings of Pek would increase safety and reliability of the overall system as Luo discloses considering/using capability information of another vehicle to plan a path and perform an operation (e.g. related to safe/safety distance between vehicles) but mainly focuses on the maximum braking capability of the other vehicle as the capability information and Pek teaches that one kind of capability information of another vehicle that should be considered/used to plan the path and perform the operation (e.g. related to safe/safety distance between vehicles) is the maximum acceleration capability of the other vehicle and another operation of vehicle control which is commonly performed and needs to consider the capability information of the other vehicle is lane change; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Pek by considering/using the maximum acceleration capability of the other vehicle in addition to the maximum braking capability of the other vehicle as the capability information in order to increase safety and reliability of the overall system by maintaining a more appropriate safe/safety distance between vehicles and being capable of performing vehicle operations such as lane change as safely as possible since more necessary factors that affect such safe/safety distance are being used to increase the appropriateness of the safe/safety distance and operations being planned and performed.
Song teaches that obtaining information of the second terminal device from an intermediate device such as an RSU can comprise sending, to a roadside unit (RSU) based on a result of the detection, a request for the information of the second terminal device (see at least [0010], [0013]-[0018], [0066], [0068]-[0070]) and receiving, from the RSU in response to the request, the information (see at least [0013]-[0018], [0069] and [0070]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Luo as modified by Pek to incorporate the teachings of Song which teaches sending, to a roadside unit (RSU) based on a result of the detection, a request for the information of the second terminal device and receiving, from the RSU in response to the request, the information since they are all directed to vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to intermediate device communications and incorporation of the teachings of Song would increase utility and reliability of the overall system. Song teaches that when it is determined some information of the second terminal device is needed by the first terminal device (result of the detection), then the first terminal device can send a request to the RSU for such information of the second terminal device; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Lou, already disclosing that sometimes instead of obtaining the capability information of the second terminal device directly from the second terminal device, such capability information may be received from an intermediate device in at least lines 151-156 on page 4, incorporating the teachings of Song which teaches when obtaining information of the second terminal device from an intermediate device such as an RSU, sending, to a roadside unit (RSU) based on a result of the detection, a request for the information of the second terminal device in at least [0010], [0013]-[0018], [0066], [0068]-[0070] would result in Lou as modified by Pek and Song disclosing sending, to a roadside unit (RSU) based on a result of the detection, a request for the capability information of the second terminal device to maximize the utility and reliability of the overall system when dealing with information exchanges between vehicles and intermediate device/RSU.
Shalev teaches setting the capability information as an input for planning control; and planning, based on the input, a driving path for the first terminal device (see at least Figure 57B and [0799]; “path 5704 is generated based on the conditions at initial time t(0). For example, path 5704 may be based on the speed, acceleration, maximum braking capability, and position of target vehicle 5706”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Luo as modified by Pek and Song to incorporate the teachings of Shalev which teaches setting the capability information as an input for planning control; and planning, based on the input, a driving path for the first terminal device since they are all directed to vehicle control based on capability information of another vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Shalev would increase utility and safety of the overall system.
Virgen teaches wherein the capability information comprises an acceleration response delay time of the second terminal device, an acceleration stabilization time of the second terminal device, a braking pressure precision of the second terminal device, a braking pressure cycle of the second terminal device, or a braking pressure resolution of the second terminal device (see at least [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Luo as modified by Pek, Song and Shalev to incorporate the teachings of Virgen which teaches wherein the capability information comprises an acceleration response delay time of the second terminal device, an acceleration stabilization time of the second terminal device, a braking pressure precision of the second terminal device, a braking pressure cycle of the second terminal device, or a braking pressure resolution of the second terminal device since they are all directed to vehicle control based on capability information of another vehicle and incorporation of the teachings of Virgen would increase utility, safety and reliability of the overall system by considering another possible kind of capability information of other vehicle(s) on the road that would be beneficial for the host/first vehicle to be aware of.
Regarding claim 3, Luo does not explicitly disclose wherein the [capability information]/[information of the second terminal device] is pre-stored in the RSU, and wherein the capability information further comprises a maximum acceleration capability of the second terminal device, an acceleration range of the second terminal device, an acceleration change rate range of the second terminal device, a steady- state acceleration deviation of the second terminal device, a dynamic acceleration deviation of the second terminal device, a steady-state acceleration change rate range of the second terminal device, or a maximum braking delay of the second terminal device.
Pek teaches wherein the capability information further comprises a maximum acceleration capability of the second terminal device, an acceleration range of the second terminal device, an acceleration change rate range of the second terminal device, a steady- state acceleration deviation of the second terminal device, a dynamic acceleration deviation of the second terminal device, a steady-state acceleration change rate range of the second terminal device, or a maximum braking delay of the second terminal device (see at least [0025], [0062] and [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Luo to incorporate the teachings of Pek which teaches wherein the capability information further comprises a maximum acceleration capability of the second terminal device, an acceleration range of the second terminal device, an acceleration change rate range of the second terminal device, a steady- state acceleration deviation of the second terminal device, a dynamic acceleration deviation of the second terminal device, a steady-state acceleration change rate range of the second terminal device, or a maximum braking delay of the second terminal device since they are both directed to vehicle control based on capability information of another vehicle and incorporating the teachings of Pek would increase safety and reliability of the overall system as Luo discloses considering/using capability information of another vehicle to plan a path and perform an operation (e.g. related to safe/safety distance between vehicles) but mainly focuses on the maximum braking capability of the other vehicle as the capability information and Pek teaches that one kind of capability information of another vehicle that should be considered/used to plan the path and perform the operation (e.g. related to safe/safety distance between vehicles) is the maximum acceleration capability of the other vehicle; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Pek by considering/using the maximum acceleration capability of the other vehicle in addition to the maximum braking capability of the other vehicle as the capability information in order to increase safety and reliability of the overall system by maintaining a more appropriate safe/safety distance between vehicles.
Song teaches wherein the information of the second terminal device is pre-stored in the RSU (see at least [0013]-[0018], [0069] and [0070]; “The roadside unit ... can collect the driving information by receiving the driving information sent by the second vehicle ... After receiving the driving acquisition request, the roadside unit will retrieve the collected driving information of the second vehicle, and then send the driving information of the second vehicle to the first vehicle”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Luo as modified by Pek to incorporate the teachings of Song which teaches wherein the information of the second terminal device is pre-stored in the RSU since they are all directed to vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to intermediate device communications and incorporation of the teachings of Song would increase utility and reliability of the overall system. Luo as modified by Pek discloses that instead of merely receiving the capability information as the information of the second terminal device, a request requesting the capability information as the information of the second terminal device can be sent so that the capability information as the information of the second terminal device can be received in response to the request (see at least Luo lines 131-134 on page 4), Luo as modified by Pek also discloses the capability information as information of the second terminal device can be directly received from the second terminal device or can be first sent to an intermediate device by the second terminal device and then be forwarded/sent to and received by the first terminal device (see at least Luo Figure 3 and lines 151-156 on page 4) and Song teaches that the intermediate device for communication between vehicles may be a roadside unit and the information of the second terminal device is received/collected and then when needed/requested, such collected information is retrieved by the RSU (see at least [0013]-[0018], [0069] and [0070]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Luo as modified by Pek to incorporate the teachings of Song to increase utility and reliability of the overall system by having the capability information (as the information of the second terminal device) be pre-stored in the RSU.
Regarding claim 5, Lou as modified by Pek discloses wherein the intermediate device has access to capability-related information for a plurality of vehicles as information for the plurality of vehicles (see at least Figure 3 and lines 151-156 on page 4).
Lou as modified by Pek does not explicitly disclose wherein the RSU maintains a database storing the [capability-related information]/[information] for a plurality of vehicles. First to clarify the record, Examiner would like to point out that Applicant’s support for this limitation only includes the RSU storing the capability information of a plurality of vehicles. Song teaches wherein the RSU maintains a database storing the information for a plurality of vehicles (see at least [0013]-[0018], [0069] and [0070]; “The roadside unit ... can collect the driving information by receiving the driving information sent by the second vehicle ... After receiving the driving acquisition request, the roadside unit will retrieve the collected driving information of the second vehicle, and then send the driving information of the second vehicle to the first vehicle”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Luo as modified by Pek to incorporate the teachings of Song which teaches wherein the RSU maintains a database storing the information for a plurality of vehicles since they are all directed to vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to intermediate device communications and incorporation of the teachings of Song would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 6, Luo as modified by Pek discloses wherein the capability information as the information of the second terminal device is carried for transmission between vehicles and the intermediate device (see at least Luo lines 131-156 on page 4 and line 341 on page 8-line 346 on page 9).
Luo as modified by Pek does not explicitly disclose wherein the capability information as the information of the second terminal device is carried in a roadside signaling indication (RSI) message from the RSU for transmission. Song teaches wherein the information of the second terminal device is carried in a roadside signaling indication (RSI) message from the RSU for transmission (see at least [0013]-[0018], [0069] and [0070]; “The roadside unit ... can collect the driving information by receiving the driving information sent by the second vehicle ... After receiving the driving acquisition request, the roadside unit will retrieve the collected driving information of the second vehicle, and then send the driving information of the second vehicle to the first vehicle”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Luo as modified by Pek to incorporate the teachings of Song which teaches wherein the information of the second terminal device is carried in a roadside signaling indication (RSI) message from the RSU for transmission since they are all directed to vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to intermediate device communications and incorporation of the teachings of Song would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 7, Luo as modified by Pek, Song, Shalev and Virgen discloses wherein the capability information further comprises: a maximum braking capability of the second terminal device (see at least Luo lines 96-98&116-119 on page 3, lines 131-167 on page 4, lines 177-186 on page 5 and line 341 on page 8-line 346 on page 9; maximum braking capacity/capabilities).
Regarding claim 10, Luo discloses a computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and that, when executed by a processor, cause a first terminal device to perform operation comprising (see at least lines 10-12 on page 1, lines 39-51 on page 2 and line 513 on page12-line 540 on page 13). The rest of claim 10 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Luo discloses a first terminal device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory, wherein when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the first terminal device to (see at least lines 10-12 on page 1, lines 39-51 on page 2 and line 513 on page12-line 540 on page 13). The rest of claim 11 is commensurate in scope with claim 1. See above for rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 13/21, 15/23, 16/24 and 17, claims 13/21, 15/23, 16/24 and 17 are commensurate in scope with claims 3, 5, 6 and 7, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 3, 5, 6 and 7.
Regarding claim 19, Luo as modified by Pek, Song, Shalev and Virgen discloses wherein when executed by the processor, the instructions further cause the first terminal device to: set the capability information as an input for safety threat analysis; and perform, based on the input, the safety-related operation on the first terminal device (see at least Luo lines 120-123 on page 3, lines 199-213 on page 5, lines 241-242 on page 6, lines 293-301 of page 7, lines 302-310&318-322 on page 8 and lines 344-346 on page 9; “current minimum safety distance S安全 between the front vehicle and the rear vehicle can be determined according to v1, a1, and a2”, “the second vehicle may be controlled according to the relationship between the current distance and the minimum safety distance”, brake, decelerate, accelerate, increase distance, reduce distance, etc.).
Claims 2, 4, 12, 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo (WO2017084601A1) in view of Pek (DE102018204101A1 – translation attached) in further view of Song (CN106004655A – translation attached), in yet further view of Shalev (US20190291726A1) in yet further view of Virgen (US20190071087A1) and in yet further view of Dan (US20200342760A1).
Regarding claim 2, Luo as modified by Pek, Song, Shalev and Virgen does not explicitly disclose wherein the capability information is carried in a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) message or basic safety message (BSM) for transmission. However, Dan teaches wherein the vehicle information is carried in a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) or basic safety message (BSM) message for transmission (see at least [0063], [0112] and [0114]; “braking capability, ... stopping distance capability”, “V2X”, “BSM”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Luo as modified by Pek, Song, Shalev and Virgen to incorporate the teachings of Dan which teaches wherein the vehicle information is carried in a vehicle-to-everything (V2X) message or basic safety message (BSM) for transmission since they are all directed to vehicle to vehicle communications and incorporation of the teachings of Dan would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 4, Luo as modified by Pek, Song, Shalev and Virgen discloses wherein vehicle information is broadcasted between vehicles (see at least Luo lines 131-156 on page 4, line 341 on page 8-line 346 on page 9).
Luo as modified by Pek, Song, Shalev and Virgen does not explicitly disclose periodically broadcasting basic safety message (BSM) to notify status information of the first terminal device to the second terminal device. However, Dan teaches periodically broadcasting basic safety message (BSM) to notify status information of the first terminal device to the second terminal device (see at least [0037], [0063], [0111] and [0151]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Luo as modified by Pek, Song, Shalev and Virgen to incorporate the teachings of Dan which teaches periodically broadcasting basic safety message (BSM) to notify status information of the first terminal device to the second terminal device since they are all directed to vehicle to vehicle communications and incorporation of the teachings of Dan would increase utility and reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claims 12/22 and 14, claims 12/22 and 14 are commensurate in scope with claims 2 and 4, respectively. See above for rejection of claims 2 and 4.
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 SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10a.m. - 6p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights