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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on February 11, 2026. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 1, 10, and 21-22 have been amended. Claim 23 was added. No claims were cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11333503) in view of Kazemi, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 20180292830).
Regarding claim 1, Dean, et al. teaches: A method of controlling an autonomous vehicle, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, dispatching instructions including a destination location and a trip plan identifying aspects of a selected route, (Step (402), Fig. 4, Col. 25, lines 19-29: "…process (400) includes receiving map data associated with a map of a geographic location including a global route in one or more roadways between a current location of an AV and a destination location of the AV [instructions including destination location and trip plan by processor].")
using, by the one or more processors, the trip plan to plan a route locally at the autonomous vehicle; (Step (404), Fig. 4, Col. 28, lines 31-36: "…determining, based on the map data, one or more local routes in the one or more roadways between a starting location and one or more exit locations [planning a route locally], […] starting location of the AV and the destination location of the AV [autonomous vehicle].")
and controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to the destination location based on the planned route (Step (408), Fig. 4, Col. 32, lines 41-47: "…a processing time and/or a resource usage of an AV (e.g., one or more systems or devices of an AV, etc.) [using processors] […] control travel [controlling] of an autonomous vehicle (104) between a starting location and a destination location of the AV [autonomous vehicle to destination location based on planned route].").
displayed to the user (Col. 24, lines 26-28: "Output component (312) [output component to user] includes a component that provides output information from device (300) (e.g., a display [display]").
Dean, et al. does not explicitly teach the process of selecting a route by a user from a set of two or more routes. However, Dean, et al. teaches the process of how a local route can be selected by the map generation system (102) or the vehicle computing system (106) from one or more local routes based on a preference by a user (Col. 32, lines 4-12). This is equivalent to the claim limitation at issue since the descriptions of the route set sizes are unlimited in size and overlap each other in scope. Therefore, this teaching would have made it obvious to modify Dean, et al. to include the process of selecting a route by a user from a set of two or more routes based on the motivation to improve the process of controlling the navigation of an autonomous vehicle.
Dean, et al. does not teach and enforcing, by the one or more processors during the controlling, the trip plan by penalizing selection of at least one alternate route when the at least one alternate route does not correspond to the trip plan, wherein the penalizing causes the vehicle to remain on the planned route.
In a similar field of endeavor (autonomous vehicle motion planning), Kazemi, et al. teaches: and enforcing, by the one or more processors during the controlling, the trip plan by penalizing selection of at least one alternate route when the at least one alternate route does not correspond to the trip plan, wherein the penalizing causes the vehicle to remain on the planned route (Step (704), Paragraph [0139]: "In particular, the autonomous vehicle motion planning system can optimize over the one or more cost functions to generate the autonomous motion plan [method step to control autonomous vehicle based on motion plan]." ; Paragraph [0099]: "To provide an example cost function (304) for the purpose of illustration: a first example cost function can provide a first cost that is negatively correlated to a magnitude of a first distance from the autonomous vehicle to a lane boundary. Thus, if a candidate motion plan approaches a lane boundary, the first cost increases, thereby discouraging (e.g., through increased cost penalization) the autonomous vehicle from selecting motion plans that come close to or cross over lane boundaries [penalizes selection of alternative route in circumstances in which route does not correlate to trip plan and in which vehicle remains on planned route].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dean, et al. to include the teaching of Kazemi, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of making automatic adjustments of the weighted functions used by an autonomous vehicle’s motion planning system (Kazemi, et al. Paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 2, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the trip plan further identifies a plurality of identifiers for road segments which when connected together with a pickup location and the destination location correspond to the selected route (Dean, et al. Col. 37, lines 45-50: "…vehicle computing system (106) receives one or more route elements [selected route] […] segments of a roadway [road segments] between a starting location [pickup location] and an exit location [destination location].").
Regarding claim 3, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remains as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the trip plan further identifies a plurality of geographic locations which when connected together with a pickup location and the destination location correspond to the selected route (Dean, et al. Step (404), Fig. 4, Col. 28, lines 31-36: "…one or more local routes in the one or more roadways between a starting location and one or more exit locations, wherein the one or more exit locations are located between the starting location of the AV and the destination location of the AV [plurality of geographic locations are connected between pickup and destination location for route].").
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. does not explicitly teach the process in which two or more of the plurality of geographic locations are a fixed distance from one another. However, Dean, et al. teaches the process on how the computing system (106) can select one or more exit locations that are located at a specific predetermined distance from a starting location (Col. 30, lines 39-46). This is equivalent to the claim limitation at issue since the descriptions of the geographic location set sizes are unlimited in size and overlap each other in scope. Therefore, this teaching would have made it obvious to modify the combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. to include the process in which two or more of the plurality of geographic locations are a fixed distance from one another based on the motivation to improve the process of controlling the navigation of an autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the trip plan further identifies a geographic location between the pickup location and the destination location on the selected route, (Dean, et al. Step (502), Col. 32, lines 61-66: "…includes determining one or more exit locations based on a threshold distance and the current location of the AV [identifies geographic location between pickup location and destination location on route].")
and the method further comprises: generating routes based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and the destination location; (Dean, et al. Step (502), Col. 32, lines 61-63: "…determining one or more exit locations based on a threshold distance and the current location of the AV [based on current location of autonomous vehicle and destination location]." ; Dean, et al. Step (504), Col. 33, lines 44-51: "…determines a plurality of candidate local routes, in the one or more roadways, for each exit location of the one or more exit locations [generates routes]")
and determining costs for the generated routes by adding an additional cost to each of the generated routes which do not pass through the identified geographic location, (Dean, et al. Col. 28, lines 14-16: "…a lane in the global route may have a cost in a cost field that is less than a cost in a cost field for a lane not in the global route [higher cost is assigned to route that does not pass through identified geographic location].")
and wherein determining whether to use the selected route or a new route is based on the determined costs (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 33-42: "…determines one or more diversion points based on determining a change in lane identifier associated with a lower cost route on the forks [judgment made based on determined costs]. For example, a change in lane identifier along with a lower cost route extending from a diversion point (e.g., a fork in route, etc.) may refer to a diversion point in the local graph where the route diverges (e.g., forks, splits, etc.) from a single route into at least two routes [selection of existing route or new route]").
Regarding claim 6, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the trip plan further identifies a geographic location between a pickup location and the destination location for each route of the set of routes, (Dean, et al. Step (508), Fig. 5, Col. 34, lines 51-53: "…determining lanes in candidate local routes for each exit location [identifies location between starting pickup and destination location for each route].")
and the method further comprises: generating routes based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and the destination location; (Dean, et al. Step (502), Col. 32, lines 61-63: "…determining one or more exit locations based on a threshold distance and the current location of the AV [based on current location of autonomous vehicle and destination location]." ; Dean, et al. Step (504), Col. 33, lines 44-51: "…determines a plurality of candidate local routes, in the one or more roadways, for each exit location of the one or more exit locations [generates routes]")
and determining costs for the generated routes by adding an additional cost to each of the generated routes which pass through the identified geographic locations for routes of the set of routes other than the selected route, (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 42-48: "…lower cost paths on the forks provides efficiency and accuracy by eliminating creation of any diversion point where a new path includes a higher cost than a current path [identifies higher cost regions for alternative routes and eliminates them for efficiency].")
and wherein determining whether to use the selected route or a new route is based on the determined costs (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 33-42: "…determines one or more diversion points based on determining a change in lane identifier associated with a lower cost route on the forks [judgment made based on determined costs]. For example, a change in lane identifier along with a lower cost route extending from a diversion point (e.g., a fork in route, etc.) may refer to a diversion point in the local graph where the route diverges (e.g., forks, splits, etc.) from a single route into at least two routes [selection of existing route or new route]").
Regarding claim 7, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the trip plan further identifies a plurality of geographic locations for each given route of the set of routes which when connected together with a pickup location and the destination location correspond to the given route (Dean, et al. Step (404), Fig. 4, Col. 28, lines 31-36: "…one or more roadways between a starting location and one or more exit locations, wherein the one or more exit locations are located between the starting location of the AV and the destination location of the AV [plurality of geographic locations are connected between pickup and destination location for route]." ; Dean, et al. Col. 27, lines 17-21: "…global route associated with each route of a plurality of routes [each route in the set of routes] in a geographic location between a starting location and a destination location.")
and the method further comprises: generating routes based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and the destination location; (Dean, et al. Step (502), Col. 32, lines 61-63: "…determining one or more exit locations based on a threshold distance and the current location of the AV [based on current location of autonomous vehicle and destination location]." ; Dean, et al. Step (504), Col. 33, lines 44-51: "…determines a plurality of candidate local routes, in the one or more roadways, for each exit location of the one or more exit locations [generates routes]")
and determining costs for the generated routes by adding an additional cost to each of the generated routes which pass within a radial distance of any of the identified geographic locations for routes of the set of routes, (Dean, et al. Col. 33, lines 5-9: "…map generation system (102) and/or vehicle computing system (106) may determine one or more exit locations in a cost field associated with a global route [identified geographic locations for routes based in set of routes] based on a sensor horizon (e.g., within a threshold distance of a sensor horizon) [pass though radial distance]." ; Dean, et al. Step (808), Fig. 8, Col 46, lines 9-18: "…adjusting costs of local routes associated with the global route to the destination location and determining local routes or roadways that satisfy one or more threshold costs for the coverage route [adding costs to created routes].")
and wherein determining whether to use the selected route or a new route is based on the determined costs (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 33-42: "…determines one or more diversion points based on determining a change in lane identifier associated with a lower cost route on the forks [judgment made based on determined costs]. For example, a change in lane identifier along with a lower cost route extending from a diversion point (e.g., a fork in route, etc.) may refer to a diversion point in the local graph where the route diverges (e.g., forks, splits, etc.) from a single route into at least two routes [selection of existing route or new route]").
Regarding claim 8, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the trip plan further identifies a plurality of geographic locations for each given route of the set of routes which when connected together with a pickup location and the destination location correspond to the given route, (Dean, et al. Step (404), Fig. 4, Col. 28, lines 31-36: "…one or more local routes in the one or more roadways between a starting location and one or more exit locations, wherein the one or more exit locations are located between the starting location of the AV and the destination location of the AV [plurality of geographic locations are connected between pickup and destination location for route]." ; Dean, et al. Col. 27, lines 17-21: "…global route associated with each route of a plurality of routes [each route in the set of routes] in a geographic location between a starting location and a destination location.")
and the method further comprises: generating routes based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and the destination location; (Dean, et al. Step (502), Col. 32, lines 61-63: "…determining one or more exit locations based on a threshold distance and the current location of the AV [based on current location of autonomous vehicle and destination location]." ; Dean, et al. Step (504), Col. 33, lines 44-51: "…determines a plurality of candidate local routes, in the one or more roadways, for each exit location of the one or more exit locations [generates routes]")
and determining costs for the generated routes by adding an additional cost to each of the generated routes which pass within a radial distance of any of the identified geographic locations for routes of the set of routes other than the selected route, (Dean, et al. Col. 33, lines 5-9: "…map generation system (102) and/or vehicle computing system (106) may determine one or more exit locations in a cost field associated with a global route [identified geographic locations for routes based in set of routes] based on a sensor horizon (e.g., within a threshold distance of a sensor horizon) [pass though radial distance]." ; Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 45-48: "…lower cost paths on the forks provides efficiency and accuracy by eliminating creation of any diversion point where a new path includes a higher cost than a current path [adding additional cost to routes that pass through routes other than selected route; filters out these routes].")
and wherein determining whether to use the selected route or a new route is based on the determined costs (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 33-42: "…determines one or more diversion points based on determining a change in lane identifier associated with a lower cost route on the forks [judgment made based on determined costs]. For example, a change in lane identifier along with a lower cost route extending from a diversion point (e.g., a fork in route, etc.) may refer to a diversion point in the local graph where the route diverges (e.g., forks, splits, etc.) from a single route into at least two routes [selection of existing route or new route]").
Regarding claim 10, Dean, et al. teaches: A system for controlling an autonomous vehicle, (Fig. 2, Col. 19, lines 33-35: "…diagram of a non-limiting embodiment of a system (200) for controlling autonomous vehicle (104) [system for controlling an autonomous vehicle].")
the system comprising one or more processors configured to: (Col. 18, lines 36-39: "…one or more computing systems, including one or more processors (e.g., one or more servers, etc.) [processors].")
receive dispatching instructions including a destination location and a trip plan identifying a selected route, (Col. 25, lines 23-32: "…map generation system (102) and/or autonomous vehicle (104) (e.g., vehicle computing system (106), etc.) receives map data associated with a map of a geographic location, wherein the map data includes a global route between a starting location associated with autonomous vehicle (104) (e.g., a current location of autonomous vehicle (104), a pickup location, etc.) and a destination location associated with autonomous vehicle (104) (e.g., a target location of autonomous vehicle (104), a drop-off location, etc.) [instructions including destination location and trip plan by processor]")
displayed to the user; (Col. 24, lines 26-28: "Output component (312) [output component to user] includes a component that provides output information from device (300) (e.g., a display [display]")
use the trip plan to plan a route locally at the autonomous vehicle; (Col. 28, lines 36-46: "…determines, based on the map data, a plurality of local routes (e.g., a route option in a global cost field, a portion of a global route, an alternative to a global route, etc.) in one or more roadways between a starting location of autonomous vehicle (104) (e.g., a current location of autonomous vehicle (104), etc.) and a plurality of exit locations [planning a route locally] that are located between a starting location of the AV and a destination location of the AV [autonomous vehicle].")
control the autonomous vehicle to the destination location based on the determination (Col. 32, lines 41-47: "…a processing time and/or a resource usage of an AV (e.g., one or more systems or devices of an AV, etc.) [using processors] […] control travel [controlling] of an autonomous vehicle (104) between a starting location and a destination location of the AV [autonomous vehicle to destination location based on determination].").
Dean, et al. does not explicitly teach the process of selecting a route by a user from a set of two or more routes. However, Dean, et al. teaches the process of how a local route can be selected by the map generation system (102) or the vehicle computing system (106) from one or more local routes based on a preference by a user (Col. 32, lines 4-12). This is equivalent to the claim limitation at issue since the descriptions of the route set sizes are unlimited in size and overlap each other in scope. Therefore, this teaching would have made it obvious to modify Dean, et al. to include the process of selecting a route by a user from a set of two or more routes based on the motivation to improve the process of controlling the navigation of an autonomous vehicle.
Dean, et al. does not teach and enforce, during the control of the autonomous vehicle to the destination location, the trip plan by penalizing selection of at least one alternate route when the at least one alternate route does not correspond to the trip plan, wherein the penalizing causes the vehicle to remain on the planned route.
In a similar field of endeavor (autonomous vehicle motion planning), Kazemi, et al. teaches: and enforce, during the control of the autonomous vehicle to the destination location, the trip plan by penalizing selection of at least one alternate route when the at least one alternate route does not correspond to the trip plan, wherein the penalizing causes the vehicle to remain on the planned route (Paragraph [0101]: "For example, the motion planning system (200) can provide the selected motion plan to a vehicle controller 106 that controls one or more vehicle controls (e.g., actuators that control gas flow, steering, braking, etc.) to execute the selected motion plan [system controls vehicle based on motion plan]." ; Paragraph [0099]: "To provide an example cost function (304) for the purpose of illustration: a first example cost function can provide a first cost that is negatively correlated to a magnitude of a first distance from the autonomous vehicle to a lane boundary. Thus, if a candidate motion plan approaches a lane boundary, the first cost increases, thereby discouraging (e.g., through increased cost penalization) the autonomous vehicle from selecting motion plans that come close to or cross over lane boundaries [penalizes selection of alternative route in circumstances in which route does not correlate to trip plan and in which vehicle remains on planned route].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dean, et al. to include the teaching of Kazemi, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of making automatic adjustments of the weighted functions used by an autonomous vehicle’s motion planning system (Kazemi, et al. Paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 11, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remain as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The system of claim 10, wherein the trip plan further identifies a plurality of identifiers for road segments which when connected together with a pickup location and the destination location correspond to the selected route (Dean, et al. Col. 37, lines 45-50: "…vehicle computing system (106) receives one or more route elements [selected route] […] segments of a roadway [road segments] between a starting location [pickup location] and an exit location [destination location].").
Regarding claim 12, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remains as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The system of claim 10, wherein the trip plan further identifies a plurality of geographic locations which when connected together with a pickup location and the destination location correspond to the selected route (Dean, et al. Col. 28, lines 36-46: "…determines, based on the map data, a plurality of local routes (e.g., a route option in a global cost field, a portion of a global route, an alternative to a global route, etc.) in one or more roadways between a starting location of autonomous vehicle (104) (e.g., a current location of autonomous vehicle (104), etc.) and a plurality of exit locations that are located between a starting location of the AV and a destination location of the AV [plurality of geographic locations are connected between pickup and destination location for route].").
Regarding claim 13, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. does not explicitly teach the process in which two or more of the plurality of geographic locations are a fixed distance from one another. However, Dean, et al. teaches the process on how the computing system (106) can select one or more exit locations that are located at a specific predetermined distance from a starting location (Col. 30, lines 39-46). This is equivalent to the claim limitation at issue since the descriptions of the geographic location set sizes are unlimited in size and overlap each other in scope. Therefore, this teaching would have made it obvious to modify Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. to include the process in which two or more of the plurality of geographic locations are a fixed distance from one another based on the motivation to improve the process of controlling the navigation of an autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remains as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The system of claim 10, wherein the trip plan further identifies a geographic location between a pickup location and the destination location on the selected route, and the one or more processors are further configured to: (Dean, et al. Col. 32, lines 61-66: "…map generation system (102) and/or vehicle computing system (106) determines one or more exit locations of the global route at a predetermined distance (e.g., at a threshold distance from the starting location, at a threshold distance from a current location of autonomous vehicle (104), etc.) [identifies geographic location between pickup location and destination location on route].")
generate routes based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and the destination location; (Dean, et al. Col. 32, line 64 to Col. 33, lines 1-5: "…map generation system (102) and/or vehicle computing system (106) determines one or more exit locations of the global route at a predetermined distance (e.g., at a threshold distance from the starting location, at a threshold distance from a current location of autonomous vehicle (104), etc.) [based on current location of autonomous vehicle and destination location." ; Dean, et al. Col. 33, lines 47-51: "…determines a plurality of candidate local routes, in the one or more roadways, for each exit location of the one or more exit locations [generates routes].")
and determine costs for the generated routes by adding an additional cost to each of the generated routes which do not pass through the identified geographic location, (Dean, et al. Col. 28, lines 14-16: "…a lane in the global route may have a cost in a cost field that is less than a cost in a cost field for a lane not in the global route [higher cost is assigned to route that does not pass through identified geographic location].")
and wherein determining whether to use the selected route or a new route is based on the determined costs (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 33-42: "…determines one or more diversion points based on determining a change in lane identifier associated with a lower cost route on the forks [judgment made based on determined costs]. For example, a change in lane identifier along with a lower cost route extending from a diversion point (e.g., a fork in route, etc.) may refer to a diversion point in the local graph where the route diverges (e.g., forks, splits, etc.) from a single route into at least two routes [selection of existing route or new route]").
Regarding claim 15, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remain as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The system of claim 10, wherein the trip plan further identifies a geographic location between a pickup location and the destination location for each route of the set of routes, and the one or more processors are further configured to: (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 53-59: "…map generation system (102) and/or vehicle computing system (106) determines one or more lanes (e.g., routable lanes traversed within a route element), as well as alternative lanes (e.g., routable lanes that may not be traversed within a route element) within the same segment of roadway based on the cost field associated with the global route for controlling an autonomous vehicle (104) [identifies location between staring pickup and destination location for each route].")
generate routes based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and the destination location; (Dean, et al. Col. 32, line 64 to Col. 33, lines 1-5: "…map generation system (102) and/or vehicle computing system (106) determines one or more exit locations of the global route at a predetermined distance (e.g., at a threshold distance from the starting location, at a threshold distance from a current location of autonomous vehicle (104), etc.) [based on current location of autonomous vehicle and destination location." ; Dean, et al. Col. 33, lines 47-51: "…determines a plurality of candidate local routes, in the one or more roadways, for each exit location of the one or more exit locations [generates routes].")
and determine costs for the generated routes by adding an additional cost to each of the generated routes which pass through the identified geographic locations for routes of the set of routes other than the selected route, (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 42-48: "…lower cost paths on the forks provides efficiency and accuracy by eliminating creation of any diversion point where a new path includes a higher cost than a current path [identifies higher cost regions for alternative routes and eliminates them for efficiency].")
and wherein determining whether to use the selected route or a new route is based on the determined costs (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 33-42: "…determines one or more diversion points based on determining a change in lane identifier associated with a lower cost route on the forks [judgment made based on determined costs]. For example, a change in lane identifier along with a lower cost route extending from a diversion point (e.g., a fork in route, etc.) may refer to a diversion point in the local graph where the route diverges (e.g., forks, splits, etc.) from a single route into at least two routes [selection of existing route or new route]").
Regarding claim 16, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remain as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The system of claim 10, wherein the trip plan further identifies a plurality of geographic locations for each given route of the set of routes which when connected together with a pickup location and the destination location correspond to the given route, and the one or more processors are further configured to: (Dean, et al. Col. 28, lines 37-47: "…a plurality of local routes (e.g., a route option in a global cost field, a portion of a global route, an alternative to a global route, etc.) in one or more roadways between a starting location of autonomous vehicle (104) (e.g., a current location of autonomous vehicle (104), etc.) and a plurality of exit locations that are located between a starting location of the AV and a destination location of the AV [plurality of geographic locations are connected between pickup and destination location for route]." ; Dean, et al. Col. 27, lines 17-21: "…a global route associated with each route of a plurality of routes [each route in the set of routes] in a geographic location between a starting location and a destination location.")
generate routes based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and the destination location; (Dean, et al. Col. 32, line 64 to Col. 33, lines 1-5: "…map generation system (102) and/or vehicle computing system (106) determines one or more exit locations of the global route at a predetermined distance (e.g., at a threshold distance from the starting location, at a threshold distance from a current location of autonomous vehicle (104), etc.) [based on current location of autonomous vehicle and destination location." ; Dean, et al. Col. 33, lines 47-51: "…determines a plurality of candidate local routes, in the one or more roadways, for each exit location of the one or more exit locations [generates routes].")
and determine costs for the generated routes by adding an additional cost to each of the generated routes which pass within a radial distance of any of the identified geographic locations for routes of the set of routes, (Dean, et al. Col. 33, lines 5-9: "…map generation system (102) and/or vehicle computing system (106) may determine one or more exit locations in a cost field associated with a global route [identified geographic locations for routes based in set of routes] based on a sensor horizon (e.g., within a threshold distance of a sensor horizon) [pass though radial distance]." ; Dean, et al. Step (808), Fig. 8, Col 46, lines 9-18: "…adjusting costs of local routes associated with the global route to the destination location and determining local routes or roadways that satisfy one or more threshold costs for the coverage route [adding costs to created routes].")
and wherein determining whether to use the selected route or a new route is based on the determined costs (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 33-42: "…determines one or more diversion points based on determining a change in lane identifier associated with a lower cost route on the forks [judgment made based on determined costs]. For example, a change in lane identifier along with a lower cost route extending from a diversion point (e.g., a fork in route, etc.) may refer to a diversion point in the local graph where the route diverges (e.g., forks, splits, etc.) from a single route into at least two routes [selection of existing route or new route]").
Regarding claim 17, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remain as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The system of claim 10, wherein the trip plan further identifies a plurality of geographic locations for each given route of the set of routes which when connected together with a pickup location and the destination location correspond to the given route, and the one or more processors are further configured to: (Dean, et al. Col. 28, lines 37-47: "…a plurality of local routes (e.g., a route option in a global cost field, a portion of a global route, an alternative to a global route, etc.) in one or more roadways between a starting location of autonomous vehicle (104) (e.g., a current location of autonomous vehicle (104), etc.) and a plurality of exit locations that are located between a starting location of the AV and a destination location of the AV [plurality of geographic locations are connected between pickup and destination location for route]." ; Dean, et al. Col. 27, lines 17-21: "…a global route associated with each route of a plurality of routes [each route in the set of routes] in a geographic location between a starting location and a destination location.")
generate routes based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and the destination location; (Dean, et al. Col. 32, line 64 to Col. 33, lines 1-5: "…map generation system (102) and/or vehicle computing system (106) determines one or more exit locations of the global route at a predetermined distance (e.g., at a threshold distance from the starting location, at a threshold distance from a current location of autonomous vehicle (104), etc.) [based on current location of autonomous vehicle and destination location." ; Dean, et al. Col. 33, lines 47-51: "…determines a plurality of candidate local routes, in the one or more roadways, for each exit location of the one or more exit locations [generates routes].")
and determine costs for the generated routes by adding an additional cost to each of the generated routes which pass within a radial distance of any of the identified geographic locations for routes of the set of routes other than the selected route, (Dean, et al. Col. 33, lines 5-9: "…map generation system (102) and/or vehicle computing system (106) may determine one or more exit locations in a cost field associated with a global route [identified geographic locations for routes based in set of routes] based on a sensor horizon (e.g., within a threshold distance of a sensor horizon) [pass though radial distance]." ; Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 45-48: "…lower cost paths on the forks provides efficiency and accuracy by eliminating creation of any diversion point where a new path includes a higher cost than a current path [adding additional cost to routes that pass through routes other than selected route; filters out these routes].")
and wherein determining whether to use the selected route or a new route is based on the determined costs (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 33-42: "…determines one or more diversion points based on determining a change in lane identifier associated with a lower cost route on the forks [judgment made based on determined costs]. For example, a change in lane identifier along with a lower cost route extending from a diversion point (e.g., a fork in route, etc.) may refer to a diversion point in the local graph where the route diverges (e.g., forks, splits, etc.) from a single route into at least two routes [selection of existing route or new route]").
Regarding claim 19, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remains as applied to claim 10, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The system of claim 10, further comprising the autonomous vehicle (Fig. 1, Dean, et al. Col. 17, lines 35-37: "…map generation system (102) [system], autonomous vehicle (104) [autonomous vehicle]").
Regarding claim 20, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remains as applied to claim 19, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The system of claim 19, further comprising, one or more server computing devices including one or more processors configured to send the dispatching instructions to the one or more processors, and wherein the one or more processors are part of the autonomous vehicle (Dean, et al. Col. 18, lines 21-24: "…autonomous vehicle (104) and/or vehicle computing system (106) includes one or more devices capable of receiving map data associated with a map of a geographic location [dispatching instructions]" ; Dean, et al. Col. 18, lines 36-39: "…autonomous vehicle (104) [autonomous vehicle] […] one or more processors (e.g., one or more servers [servers], etc.) [processors].").
Regarding claim 23, Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. remain as applied to claim 3, and in a further embodiment, teaches: The method of claim 3, wherein the at least one alternate route is determined to not correspond to the trip plan when the at least one alternate route does not include travel through at least one of the plurality of geographic locations (Kazemi, et al. Paragraph [0099]: "To provide an example cost function (304) for the purpose of illustration: a first example cost function can provide a first cost that is negatively correlated to a magnitude of a first distance from the autonomous vehicle to a lane boundary. Thus, if a candidate motion plan approaches a lane boundary, the first cost increases, thereby discouraging (e.g., through increased cost penalization) the autonomous vehicle from selecting motion plans that come close to or cross over lane boundaries [alternative route in circumstances in which route does not correlate to geographic locations in trip plan; reaction is for vehicle to remain on planned route].").
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11333503) and Kazemi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180292830) in view of Nagy, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11441913).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the trip plan further identifies a geographic location between a pickup location and the destination location on the selected route, (Dean, et al. Step (502), Fig. 5, Col. 32, lines 61-66: "…includes determining one or more exit locations based on a threshold distance and the current location of the AV [identifies geographic location between pickup location and destination location on route]")
and the method further comprises: generating routes based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and the destination location; (Dean, et al. Step (502), Fig. 5, Col. 32, lines 61-63: "…determining one or more exit locations based on a threshold distance and the current location of the AV [based on current location of autonomous vehicle and destination location]." ; Dean, et al. Step (504), Col. 33, lines 44-51: "…determines a plurality of candidate local routes, in the one or more roadways, for each exit location of the one or more exit locations [generates routes]")
and wherein determining whether to use the selected route or a new route is based on the determined costs (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 33-42: "…determines one or more diversion points based on determining a change in lane identifier associated with a lower cost route on the forks [judgment made based on determined costs]. For example, a change in lane identifier along with a lower cost route extending from a diversion point (e.g., a fork in route, etc.) may refer to a diversion point in the local graph where the route diverges (e.g., forks, splits, etc.) from a single route into at least two routes [selection of existing route or new route]").
The combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. does not teach and determining costs for the generated routes by adding a negative cost to each of the generated routes which pass through the identified geographic location.
In a similar field of endeavor (autonomous vehicle waypoint routing), Nagy, et al. teaches: and determining costs for the generated routes by adding a negative cost to each of the generated routes which pass through the identified geographic location (Operation (404), Fig. 4, Col. 14, lines 58-61: "…cost for traversing to any given candidate vehicle start point can be more favorable (e.g., lower cost or higher reward) [negative cost] for candidate vehicle starting points that are closer, more accessible, or otherwise more favorable for picking-up the passenger [identified geographic location].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. to include the teaching of Nagy, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve routing of an autonomous vehicle (Nagy, et al. Col. 2, lines 51-62).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. teaches: The system of claim 10, wherein the trip plan further identifies a geographic location between a pickup location and the destination location on the selected route, and the one or more processors are further configured to: (Dean, et al. Col. 32, line 64 to Col. 33, lines 1-5: "…map generation system (102) and/or vehicle computing system (106) determines one or more exit locations of the global route at a predetermined distance (e.g., at a threshold distance from the starting location, at a threshold distance from a current location of autonomous vehicle (104), etc.) [identifies geographic location between pickup location and destination location on route].")
generate routes based on a current location of the autonomous vehicle and the destination location; (Dean, et al. Col. 32, line 64 to Col. 33, lines 1-5: "…map generation system (102) and/or vehicle computing system (106) determines one or more exit locations of the global route at a predetermined distance (e.g., at a threshold distance from the starting location, at a threshold distance from a current location of autonomous vehicle (104), etc.) [based on current location of autonomous vehicle and destination location." ; Dean, et al. Col. 33, lines 47-51: "…determines a plurality of candidate local routes, in the one or more roadways, for each exit location of the one or more exit locations [generates routes].")
and wherein determining whether to use the selected route or a new route is based on the determined costs (Dean, et al. Col. 34, lines 33-42: "…determines one or more diversion points based on determining a change in lane identifier associated with a lower cost route on the forks [judgment made based on determined costs]. For example, a change in lane identifier along with a lower cost route extending from a diversion point (e.g., a fork in route, etc.) may refer to a diversion point in the local graph where the route diverges (e.g., forks, splits, etc.) from a single route into at least two routes [selection of existing route or new route]").
The combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. does not teach and determining costs for the generated routes by adding a negative cost to each of the generated routes which pass through the identified geographic location.
In a similar field of endeavor (autonomous vehicle waypoint routing), Nagy, et al. teaches: and determine costs for the generated routes by adding a negative cost to each of the generated routes which pass through the identified geographic location (Col. 14, lines 58-61: "…cost for traversing to any given candidate vehicle start point can be more favorable (e.g., lower cost or higher reward) [negative cost] for candidate vehicle starting points that are closer, more accessible, or otherwise more favorable for picking-up the passenger [identified geographic location].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. to include the teaching of Nagy, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve routing of an autonomous vehicle (Nagy, et al. Col. 2, lines 51-62).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dean, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11333503) and Kazemi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180292830) in view of Bonanni, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11898859).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. does not teach the system of claim 10, wherein enforcing the trip plan includes: enforcing, during the control of the autonomous vehicle to the destination location, the trip plan based on differences between a cost of the selected route and costs of unselected routes to the destination location from a current location of the autonomous vehicle including at least one of: a cost difference between a cost of the selected route and a cost of an optimal route of the set of two or more routes; an additional cost added to routes that pass through or come within a radial distance around at least one location on each unselected route of the set of two or more routes that is not the destination location or a current location; or a discount cost added to routes that pass through or come within a radial distance around at least one location on the selected route that is not the destination location or a current location.
In a similar field of endeavor (updating routing data), Bonanni, et al. teaches: The system of claim 10, wherein enforcing the trip plan includes: enforcing, during the control of the autonomous vehicle to the destination location, the trip plan based on differences between a cost of the selected route and costs of unselected routes to the destination location from a current location of the autonomous vehicle including at least one of: a cost difference between a cost of the selected route and a cost of an optimal route of the set of two or more routes; an additional cost added to routes that pass through or come within a radial distance around at least one location on each unselected route of the set of two or more routes that is not the destination location or a current location; or a discount cost added to routes that pass through or come within a radial distance around at least one location on the selected route that is not the destination location or a current location (Col. 19, line 64 to Col. 20, lines 1-13: "…the relative travel time increment (the cost difference) between the two routes (e.g., the optimal route of formula (1) and the route determined using formula (2)) is represented as
[AltContent: textbox ((math)<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<formulawrapper><mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:m="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/math"><mml:mo>∆</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced separators="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>~</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>*</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>*</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>*</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:math></formulawrapper>)]
when this value is greater than zero, the travel time of the determined route is greater than the travel time of the optimal route, meaning that the user (rider) is arguably inconvenienced or disadvantaged by traversing the determined route, because it will take the rider a greater amount of time to arrive at end point (1304). Accordingly, a dynamic pricing scheme can, in some embodiments, be used in order to incentivize the rider to choose the longer route-that is, the route that permits the AV to obtain the updated map data [determine cost difference between selected route and optimal route cost of set of two routes].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. to include the teaching of Bonanni, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of updating routing data for the purpose of autonomous vehicle navigation (Bonanni, et al. Col. 1, lines 35-55).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the enforcing comprises: enforcing, by the one or more processors during the controlling, the trip plan based on differences between a cost of the selected route and costs of unselected routes to the destination location from a current location of the autonomous vehicle including at least one of: a cost difference between a cost of the selected route and a cost of an optimal route of the set of two or more routes; an additional cost added to routes that pass through or come within a radial distance around at least one location on each unselected route of the set of two or more routes that is not the destination location or a current location; or a discount cost added to routes that pass through or come within a radial distance around at least one location on the selected route that is not the destination location or a current location.
In a similar field of endeavor (updating routing data), Bonanni, et al. teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the enforcing comprises: enforcing, by the one or more processors during the controlling, the trip plan based on differences between a cost of the selected route and costs of unselected routes to the destination location from a current location of the autonomous vehicle including at least one of: a cost difference between a cost of the selected route and a cost of an optimal route of the set of two or more routes; an additional cost added to routes that pass through or come within a radial distance around at least one location on each unselected route of the set of two or more routes that is not the destination location or a current location; or a discount cost added to routes that pass through or come within a radial distance around at least one location on the selected route that is not the destination location or a current location (Col. 19, line 64 to Col. 20, lines 1-13: "…the relative travel time increment (the cost difference) between the two routes (e.g., the optimal route of formula (1) and the route determined using formula (2)) is represented as
[AltContent: textbox ((math)<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<formulawrapper><mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:m="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/math"><mml:mo>∆</mml:mo><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced separators="|"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>~</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>*</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>*</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>*</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:math></formulawrapper>)]
when this value is greater than zero, the travel time of the determined route is greater than the travel time of the optimal route, meaning that the user (rider) is arguably inconvenienced or disadvantaged by traversing the determined route, because it will take the rider a greater amount of time to arrive at end point (1304). Accordingly, a dynamic pricing scheme can, in some embodiments, be used in order to incentivize the rider to choose the longer route-that is, the route that permits the AV to obtain the updated map data [determine cost difference between selected route and optimal route cost of set of two routes].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. to include the teaching of Bonanni, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of updating routing data for the purpose of autonomous vehicle navigation (Bonanni, et al. Col. 1, lines 35-55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that amended claims 1 and 10 were patentable over Dean, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11333503) in view of Kundu, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230080281) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “and enforcing, by the one or more processors during the controlling, the trip plan by penalizing selection of at least one alternate route when the at least one alternate route does not correspond to the trip plan, wherein the penalizing causes the vehicle to remain on the planned route”. Please note that Kazemi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180292830) was cited in order to teach this feature. In Kazemi, et al., cost functions are used in order prioritize the selection of alternative routes for the autonomous vehicle, such as “…a first cost that is negatively correlated to a magnitude of a first distance from the autonomous vehicle to a lane boundary” (Paragraph [0099]). Therefore, if the autonomous vehicle selects an alternative route that takes the vehicle off of the planned trip path, the vehicle will deprioritize the selection of these routes and move the vehicle near a path that allows the vehicle to remain on the designated course, or “…if a candidate motion plan approaches a lane boundary, the first cost increases, thereby discouraging (e.g., through increased cost penalization) the autonomous vehicle from selecting motion plans that come close to or cross over lane boundaries” (Paragraph [0099]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Kazemi, et al. with Dean, et al. because Dean, et al. teaches the process of a transmitting a specific route to a vehicle (Fig. 4, Col. 25, lines 19-29, Col. 32, lines 4-12) and controlling a vehicle to travel to a destination location based on the given route (Fig. 4, Col. 32, lines 41-47).
Applicant also asserted that amended claims 1 and 10 were patentable over Dean, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11333503) because the reference did not meet the claim limitation “receiving, by one or more processors, dispatching instructions including a destination location and a trip plan identifying aspects of a selected route, wherein the selected route was selected by a user from a set of two or more routes displayed to the user”, or more specifically, that the “map generation system” or “vehicle computing system” mentioned in Dean, et al. (Col. 32, lines 4-12) is not a user. The examiner disagrees. In Dean, et al, it is explicitly mentioned that control by the map generation system (102) or vehicle computing system (106) is based on “…a selected local route of the one or more local routes” that is “…based on a user preference” (Col. 32, lines 4-12). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Dean, et al. with Kazemi, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180292830) because Kazemi, et al. teaches the process of enforcing a specific trip plan by penalizing the selection of an alternative route which does not correspond to a trip plan (Paragraph [0099]).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of Dean, et al. and Kazemi, et al. reads on the claim limitations “and enforcing, by the one or more processors during the controlling, the trip plan by penalizing selection of at least one alternate route when the at least one alternate route does not correspond to the trip plan, wherein the penalizing causes the vehicle to remain on the planned route” and “receiving, by one or more processors, dispatching instructions including a destination location and a trip plan identifying aspects of a selected route, wherein the selected route was selected by a user from a set of two or more routes displayed to the user”, as stated in amended claims 1 and 10, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matlack, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11500372) teaches a process in which an autonomous vehicle can be provided assistance with respect to determining an optimal plurality of routes based on operator availability and selecting an optimal route within the first plurality of routes for a user.
Abari, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11868140) teaches a method to determine a fleet-level objective for the transportation planning for a vehicle based on custom ride criteria provided by a user.
Kundu, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230080281) teaches a system which determines a plurality of routes between an initial and final destination for a vehicle using vehicle sensors or observation zone volumes for candidate routes.
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights