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 .
Response to the Applicant’s arguments
The applicant state on the record that no reference in the prior art either discloses individually or together with any other prior art of record of “...
PNG
media_image1.png
758
1296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
OMURA is silent but DITTTY teaches “...mechanical failure has caused the vehicle to lose an ability to control its
speed as the vehicle operates on a road;” . (see paragraph 267 where a mechanical failure of the acceleration 401 and 402 processor can ensure that an imminent collision and a lane departure of a poor autonomous driving function can be detected and see paragraph 298 where a failure of the processing cores can be detected and a second redundant processor can then be interrogated to be used; see paragraph 318 where the failure of the software also can be detected and in paragraph 346, 421 a mechanical failure of the vision sensor also can be taken and noted; see paragraph 440 where the device has a safety watchdog to detect faults see FIG. 33 )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of OMURA and the teachings of DITTY with a reasonable expectation of success since DITTY teaches that a deep learning super computer can monitor a runaway vehicle event from a mechanical breakdown. The safety watchdog monitor 5010 may for example watch and monitor the health of application processes 5002. The safety watchdog monitor 5010 is structured for example to ensure that sequencing is going correctly, deadlines are being met, and execution time is not taking longer than expected. As an example, the safety watchdog monitor 5010 might perform a sensor data integrity check in the case of application processes 5002 that are processing sensor data from cameras, RADAR, LIDAR, etc. If the safety watchdog monitor 5010 detects an error or fault, it may propagate an error notification up to a higher level in the safety framework. See paragraph 425-6 and the abstract.
It is not understood how this is not a runaway vehicle event that provides a runway vehicle safety location and providing an ability to lose the vehicle’s speed.
Ditty discloses that the mechanical failures include “significant mechanical failures, such as tire blow-outs, brake malfunctions, or unexpected behavior by other drivers”. See paragraph 9.
The device includes a deep learning accelerator. See paragraph 755 and a system on a chip.
This accelerator can malfunction. This is connected to the braking actuator 61 and paragraph 122. In paragraph 267 a mechanical failure of the acceleration 401 and 402 processor can ensure that an imminent collision and a lane departure of a poor autonomous driving function can be detected and see paragraph 298 where a failure of the processing cores can be detected and a second redundant processor can then be interrogated to be used; see paragraph 318 where the failure of the software also can be detected and in paragraph 346, 421 a mechanical failure of the vision sensor also can be taken and noted; see paragraph 440 where the device has a safety watchdog to detect faults see FIG. 33
If the processor does not work, the braking will not work and this can result in a loss of an ability to control the speed of the vehicle.
According to the applicant’s specification as originally filed the applicant states that a runaway vehicle detection event that has lost an ability to control a speed on the road. Clearly if the processor accelerator cannot control the brakes this meets the applicant’s own specification in paragraph 35.
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 and 17 and 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20150153733A1 to Omura et al. and assigned to HONDA™ that was filed in 2013 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20220097676A1 to Gesang et al. that was filed in 2019 (hereinafter “GESANG”) and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20190258251A1 to Ditty and assigned to NVIDIA™.
In regard to claim 1, 17, and 19, Omura discloses “...1. A method comprising:
processing sensor data to detect that a vehicle is involved in or predicted to be involved in a runaway vehicle event; (see paragraph 1-10 where the vehicle is wild running in paragraph due to an emergency situation in the vehicle as the driver has had a stroke and cannot drive and the vehicle is driving on its own)
PNG
media_image2.png
876
1059
media_image2.png
Greyscale
processing map data, the sensor data, or
a combination thereof to determine a runaway vehicle safety location based on at least one (see paragraph 41-44 where the vehicle has a runaway condition and there is a final stop position for the runaway vehicle on the side shoulder in FIG. 2a-2d as PDST)
attribute of the vehicle; (See paragraph 41 and FIG. 2a to 2e where a runaway vehicle is determined to be VE and between two functioning vehicles vz and vr)
generating an alert message indicating the runaway vehicle safety location; and (see paragraph 44 and 78 where the vehicle has a runaway condition and there is a final stop position for the runaway vehicle on the side shoulder in FIG. 2a-2d as PDST)
providing the alert message for display on a device associated with the vehicle. (see paragraph 58-59, 82-84 where a LED display 41 is provided for alerting the driver of the automatic driving 34 and saving of the VE vehicle and a so called capture mode of the runaway vehicle is provided to both vehicles)”.
PNG
media_image3.png
604
822
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The primary reference to Omura is silent but GESANG teaches “...a runaway vehicle event, wherein the runaway event indicates that a ... (see paragraph 127 where the truck brake failure can be detected and a mechanical degradation of the brakes can be determined)
PNG
media_image1.png
758
1296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
OMURA is silent but DITTTY teaches “...mechanical failure has caused the vehicle to lose an ability to control its
speed as the vehicle operates on a road;” . (see paragraph 267 where a mechanical failure of the acceleration 401 and 402 processor can ensure that a imminent collision and a lane departure of a poor autonomous driving function can be detected and see paragraph 298 where a failure of the processing cores can be detected and a second redundant processor can then be interrogated to be used; see paragraph 318 where the failure of the software also can be detected and in paragraph 346, 421 a mechanical failure of the vision sensor also can be taken and noted; see paragraph 440 where the device has a safety watchdog to detect faults see FIG. 33 )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of OMURA and the teachings of DITTY with a reasonable expectation of success since DITTY teaches that a deep learning super computer can monitor a runaway vehicle event from a mechanical breakdown. The safety watchdog monitor 5010 may for example watch and monitor the health of application processes 5002. The safety watchdog monitor 5010 is structured for example to ensure that sequencing is going correctly, deadlines are being met, and execution time is not taking longer than expected. As an example, the safety watchdog monitor 5010 might perform a sensor data integrity check in the case of application processes 5002 that are processing sensor data from cameras, RADAR, LIDAR, etc. If the safety watchdog monitor 5010 detects an error or fault, it may propagate an error notification up to a higher level in the safety framework. See paragraph 425-6 and the abstract.
The primary reference to Omura is silent but GESANG teaches the vehicle, wherein the processing of the map data,
the sensor data, or a combination thereof comprises:
searching the map data, the sensor data,
or a combination thereof for one or more candidate locations with one
or more topographical features capable of slowing the vehicle;
and selecting the runaway vehicle safety location from the one or more
candidate locations based
on minimizing damage to the vehicle, the vehicle runaway
vehicle safety location,
a passenger of the vehicle, or a combination thereof;”. (See paragraph 26-29 and 120-141 and FIG. 3 where the grade of the road can be determined to slow the vehicle for fuel economy and also for an emergency braking application and claims 1-10 where the vehicle control unit can use the grade for a predictive adaptive cruise control and an emergency braking assist via a 3d information of the road)”.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of GESANG with the disclosure of OMURA since GESANG teaches that a 3d model and an adaptive cruise control can determine the slope of the road for an emergency braking operation using the topographical features of the road. See claims 1-10 and the abstract.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 and 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20150153733A1 to Omura et al. and assigned to HONDA™ that was filed in 2013 and in view of Gesang and in view of Ditty.
Omura discloses “...2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating navigation guidance data from a location of the vehicle to the runaway vehicle safety location; (see paragraph 58-60 where the second vehicle captures the runway vehicle ve and will move it to the final stop position on the side of the road using the navigational unit 32) and providing the navigation guidance data as an output for presentation on the device. (see paragraph 58-59, 82-84 where a LED display 41 is provided for alerting the driver of the automatic driving 34 and saving of the VE vehicle and a so called capture mode of the runaway vehicle is provided to both vehicles)
In regard to claim 3, 18, and 20, Omura discloses “...3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: mapping the runaway vehicle safety location, the runaway vehicle event, or a combination thereof to digital map of a geographic database. (see paragraph 58-60 where the second vehicle captures the runway vehicle ve and will move it to the final stop position on the side of the road using the navigational unit 32)”.
Omura discloses “...4. The method of claim 3, wherein the runaway vehicle safety location is stored a data layer of the digital map. (see paragraph 67-68 where curved location can be avoided but a straight path that has a stoppage location on the shoulder is preferred)”
Claim 5 is cancelled.
PNG
media_image4.png
879
1038
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Omura discloses “...5. The method of claim 1, wherein the processing of the map data, the sensor data, or a combination thereof to determine the runaway vehicle safety location comprises: searching the map data, the sensor data, or a combination thereof for one or more candidate locations with one or more topographical features capable of slowing the vehicle; and 46 (See FIG. 1 and radar 11, 11, camera 12, 12, 13 and where the navigation 32 and brake actuator and steering actuator can move the vehicle not at a curve but instead to a patch where there is space to perform cpr and see paragraph 60-70)
selecting the runaway vehicle safety location from the one or more candidate locations based on minimizing damage to the vehicle, the vehicle runaway vehicle safety location, a passenger of the vehicle, or a combination thereof. (see paragraph 66-70 that recites the joining point PJN at which the vehicle 1 joins the unable-to-drive vehicle VE is determined, and the autonomous and automatic driving of the vehicle 1 is performed to the joining point PJN. Specifically, the running of the vehicle 1 is performed to the joining point PJN by the autonomous and automatic driving of a comparatively low speed with keeping the same running lane. Accordingly, it is possible to make the vehicle 1 automatically join the unable-to-drive vehicle. [0067] Further, the final stop position PDST at which the unable-to-drive vehicle VE is led to be stopped is determined, and the autonomous and automatic driving is performed to lead the unable-to-drive vehicle VE to the final stop position PDST. Accordingly, it is possible with no load on the driver of the vehicle 1 to lead the unable-to-drive vehicle VE to the final stop position PDST and to stop it there. [0068] Further, since the final stop position PDST is determined based on the road configuration, stoppage at a curved location, for example, is avoided, and the unable-to-drive vehicle VE can be stopped on a straight road of a long distance view or at a position near which the space for stoppage exists on the road shoulder, thereby enhancing safety of the vehicles VE, VR, and other vehicles running nearby.[0069]Alternatively, the final stop position PDST may be determined based on location information of medical institutions. In such case, it is possible to stop the unable-to-drive vehicle VE near a medical institution and to promptly perform the life-saving activity for the driver of the unable-to-drive vehicle VE.)
Omura discloses “...6. The method of claim 5, wherein the one or more topographical features include an open field, a large shoulder, an incline relative to a road on which the vehicle is traveling, a ground material that is softer than a threshold value, or a combination thereof. (see paragraph 69)”.
Omura discloses “...7. The method of claim 1, wherein the runaway vehicle safety location is selected to avoid one or more points of interest (POIs) within a threshold proximity. (see paragraph 66-70 that recites the joining point PJN at which the vehicle 1 joins the unable-to-drive vehicle VE is determined, and the autonomous and automatic driving of the vehicle 1 is performed to the joining point PJN. Specifically, the running of the vehicle 1 is performed to the joining point PJN by the autonomous and automatic driving of a comparatively low speed with keeping the same running lane. Accordingly, it is possible to make the vehicle 1 automatically join the unable-to-drive vehicle. [0067] Further, the final stop position PDST at which the unable-to-drive vehicle VE is led to be stopped is determined, and the autonomous and automatic driving is performed to lead the unable-to-drive vehicle VE to the final stop position PDST. Accordingly, it is possible with no load on the driver of the vehicle 1 to lead the unable-to-drive vehicle VE to the final stop position PDST and to stop it there. [0068] Further, since the final stop position PDST is determined based on the road configuration, stoppage at a curved location, for example, is avoided, and the unable-to-drive vehicle VE can be stopped on a straight road of a long distance view or at a position near which the space for stoppage exists on the road shoulder, thereby enhancing safety of the vehicles VE, VR, and other vehicles running nearby.[0069]Alternatively, the final stop position PDST may be determined based on location information of medical institutions. In such case, it is possible to stop the unable-to-drive vehicle VE near a medical institution and to promptly perform the life-saving activity for the driver of the unable-to-drive vehicle VE.)
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20150153733A1 to Omura et al. and assigned to HONDA™ that was filed in 2013 and in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,748,419 B1 to Fields and GESANG and in view of Ditty.
Omura is silent but Fields teaches “..8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining real-time or historical traffic data for a location of the vehicle, (see col. 2, lines 1-25 where based on the telematics device the vehicle can detect an abnormal traffic condition and then share this with a nearby vehicle to avoid the vehicle)
Omura discloses “...wherein the runaway vehicle safety location is determined..” (see paragraph 58-60 where the second vehicle captures the runway vehicle ve and will move it to the final stop position on the side of the road using the navigational unit 32) (see paragraph 58-59, 82-84 where a LED display 41 is provided for alerting the driver of the automatic driving 34 and saving of the VE vehicle and a so called capture mode of the runaway vehicle is provided to both vehicles)”
Omura is silent but Fields teaches “..based on the real-time or historical traffic data”. (see col 19, lines 15-60 where the vehicle can detect a rollover, a sudden stop, or departure from the road, and a pulled over vehicle)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of OMURA with the teachings of Fields with a reasonable expectation of success since FIELDS teaches that abnormal traffic behavior can be detected and shared with other vehicles. For example, if a vehicle can detect ice and a flipped over vehicle and also a car pulled over, then this information can be messaged to other vehicles to avoid the area. This provides increased safety and less risk of an accident. See col. 19, line 10 to col. 20, lines 45.
Omura is silent but Fields teaches “..9. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining real-time or historical weather data for a location of the vehicle, (see col 19, lines 15-60 where the vehicle can detect ice conditions on the road and a rollover, a sudden stop, or departure from the road, and a pulled over vehicle)
Omura discloses “...wherein the runaway vehicle safety location is determined (see paragraph 58-60 where the second vehicle captures the runway vehicle ve and will move it to the final stop position on the side of the road using the navigational unit 32) (see paragraph 58-59, 82-84 where a LED display 41 is provided for alerting the driver of the automatic driving 34 and saving of the VE vehicle and a so called capture mode of the runaway vehicle is provided to both vehicles)”.
Omura is silent but Fields teaches “..based on the real-time or historical weather data.” (see col 19, lines 15-60 where the vehicle can detect ice conditions, and a rollover, a sudden stop, or departure from the road, and a pulled over vehicle)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of OMURA with the teachings of Fields with a reasonable expectation of success since FIELDS teaches that abnormal traffic behavior can be detected and shared with other vehicles. For example, if a vehicle can detect ice and a flipped over vehicle and also a car pulled over, then this information can be messaged to other vehicles to avoid the area. This provides increased safety and less risk of an accident. See col. 19, line 10 to col. 20, lines 45.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20150153733A1 to Omura et al. and assigned to HONDA™ that was filed in 2013 and in view of Gesang and Ditty.
Omura discloses “...10. The method of claim 1, wherein the sensor data includes image data, sound data, or a combination thereof collected by one or more sensors of the vehicle, a passing vehicle, an infrastructure device, an aerial vehicle, or combination thereof”. (see paragraph 7-10) (See FIG. 1 and radar 11, 11, camera 12, 12, 13 and where the navigation 32 and brake actuator and steering actuator can move the vehicle not at a curve but instead to a patch where there is space to perform cpr and see paragraph 60-70)”.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20150153733A1 to Omura et al. and assigned to HONDA™ that was filed in 2013 and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20220122001A1 to Choe that was filed in 2021 and assigned to NVIDIA™ Corp and Gesang and in view of Ditty.
Omura discloses “...11. The method of claim 1, wherein the processing of the map data, the sensor data, or a combination thereof to determine the runaway vehicle safety location comprises:
extracting an input feature set from the at least one attribute of the vehicle, at least one topographical attribute of a current location of the vehicle, or a combination thereof; (see paragraph 67-68 where curved location can be avoided but a straight path that has a stoppage location on the shoulder is preferred) (See FIG. 1 and radar 11, 11, camera 12, 12, 13 and where the navigation 32 and brake actuator and steering actuator can move the vehicle not at a curve but instead to a patch where there is space to perform cpr and see paragraph 60-70)
Choe teaches “... providing the input feature set to a machine learning system that is trained to predict” (see abstract and paragraph 24, 34, 75, 179-183 and 249-250)
the runaway vehicle safety location”. (see paragraph 212 where the vehicle is brought to a safe stop location).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the disclosure of OMURA with the teachings of CHOE with a reasonable expectation of success since CHOE teaches that a neural network can look at failure cases (false positives and false negatives) and create synthetic data for an improved evaluation criteria of the neural network. This can provide more improved rules for an improved neural network model by examining false positives and false negatives more closely and applying this to the machine learning module. See paragraph 1-24 and claims 1-16.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 100 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US20150153733A1 to Omura et al. and assigned to HONDA™ that was filed in 2013 and in view of Gesang and in view of Ditty.
Omura discloses “..12. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting the alert message to another vehicle within a threshold proximity of the vehicle”. (See claims 1-8 where the vehicle can provide an alert that the vehicle is unable to drive and the second lead vehicle can instruct the vehicle to follow the lead vehicle to the parking stop for administering cpr or a hospital and it invalidates the controls of the runaway vehicle)”.
Omura discloses “...13. The method of claim 12, wherein the another vehicle activates one or more automated driving controls in response to the alert message to evade the vehicle, the runaway vehicle safety location, or a combination thereof. (See claims 1-8 where the vehicle can provide an alert that the vehicle is unable to drive and the second lead vehicle can instruct the vehicle to follow the lead vehicle to the parking stop for administering cpr or a hospital and it invalidates the controls of the runaway vehicle)”.
Omura discloses “...14. The method of claim 12, further comprising:
activating one or more automated driving controls of the vehicle in response to the alert message. (See claims 1-8 where the vehicle can provide an alert that the vehicle is unable to drive and the second lead vehicle can instruct the vehicle to follow the lead vehicle to the parking stop for administering cpr or a hospital and it invalidates the controls of the runaway vehicle)”.
Omura discloses “..15. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one attribute includes a vehicle type, a vehicle speed, a vehicle size, a vehicle weight, a vehicle cargo, or a combination thereof. (see paragraph 19 where the runaway vehicle is controlled to be driving at a low speed in response to the emergency to the final stop position for CPR).
Omura discloses “...16. The method of claim 1, wherein the runaway vehicle safety location includes a dedicated runaway vehicle safety location, an ad-hoc runaway vehicle safety location, or a combination thereof. (see paragraph 67-70)”.
Gesang teaches”21. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more topographical features capable of slowing the vehicle includes an incline relative to the road on which the vehicle is operating, a ground material that is softer than a threshold value, or a combination thereof”. (see FIG. 3 where the incline can be detected to slow)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to combine the teachings of GESANG with the disclosure of OMURA since GESANG teaches that a 3d model and an adaptive cruise control can determine the slope of the road for an emergency braking operation using the topographical features of the road. See claims 1-10 and the abstract.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668