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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, “provide in response to” should read “provide, in response to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mixed reality generator” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 16, and 20, “the autonomous vehicle” lacks antecedent basis, therefore these claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the autonomous vehicle” to mean “an autonomous vehicle”.
Regarding claims 3-4, these claims depend from claim 2 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 2 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 2 noted above.
Regarding claims 17-18, these claims depend from claim 16 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 16 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 16 noted above.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, “the vehicle” lacks antecedent basis, therefore these claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the vehicle” to mean “the autonomous vehicle”.
Regarding claim 8, “the storage device” lacks antecedent basis, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “the storage device” to mean “a computer readable storage device”.
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites “a driver” twice. It is unclear if the second recitation refers back to the first recitation, or the second recitation is a new separate unclaimed recitation of “a driver”, therefore this claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the second recitation of “a driver” to mean “the driver”.
Regarding claims 9-14, these claims depend from claim 8 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 8 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claim 8 noted above.
Regarding claim 12, claim limitation “mixed reality generator” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is disclosed that “Simulation provider module 110 can generate a mixed reality or virtual training simulation on a mixed reality device (e.g., virtual reality headset or vehicle windshield, vehicle windows, and/or mirrors)” [0026], however the specification is devoid of any description of structure of what the “mixed reality generator” is physically made of. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 13, this claim depends from claim 12 and is therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 12 above, as it does not cure the deficiencies of claim 12 noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 15-20, the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because these claims recite a computer program. A computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations is an example of a claim that is not directed to any of the four statutory categories.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 8 recites “a computing system for an autonomous vehicle, comprising:
a processor;
a memory device coupled to the processor; and
a computer readable storage device coupled to the processor, wherein the storage device contains program code executable by the processor via the memory device to implement a method for predicted context-based proactive driving training for a driver of the autonomous vehicle when in a manual driving mode, the method comprising:
predicting, by the processor, a driving context of a forthcoming driving route;
performing, by the processor, an experience gap analysis between a driving experience of a driver and the predicted driving context to identify an experience gap;
providing, by the processor, in response to the experience gap being identified, an in-vehicle driving training simulation to the driver related to the predicted driving context;
evaluating, by the processor, a response of the driver to the in-vehicle driving training simulation to produce a driving performance score; and
determining, by the processor, based on the driving performance score, a suitability of the driver to safely navigate the predicted forthcoming driving route”.
The limitations of predicting a driving context and performing an experience gap analysis, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the processor “predicting a driving context and performing an experience gap analysis” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing steps of predicting context of a future route and analyzing the experience gap in his mind. For example, the processor “predicting and performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking about and predicting route context and analyzing an experience gap between the driver and the route context. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitations of evaluating a response of the driver and determining a suitability of the driver to safely navigate the predicted forthcoming driving route, as drafted, are also processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a “processor”, nothing in the claim precludes the evaluating and determining from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a “processor” language, the claim encompasses the user looking at a driver and evaluating a response of the driver to produce a driving performance score, and thinking whether the user is capable of safely navigating the forthcoming driving route. Thus, these limitations are also mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using a processor to perform predicting, performing, providing, evaluating, and determining. The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions of predicting, performing, providing, evaluating, and determining) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a computing system and an autonomous vehicle amount to generic/conventional machines. The additional elements of a processor, memory device, and a computer readable storage device to perform predicting, performing, providing, evaluating, and determining amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Providing a training simulation is insignificant extra solution activity in the form of displaying/outputting data. Displaying data using known techniques does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Electric Power Group LLC. v. Alstom, S.A, 830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16, and 19-20 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as a windshield and a mixed reality display, which amount to generic/conventional machines. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 8.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device or controlling movement of the autonomous vehicle based on the suitability of the driver. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
Also, please note claims 3-4, 10-11, 17-18 were not rejected for being directed to an abstract idea because these claims recite a practical application of controlling drive modes of the autonomous vehicle based on the suitability of the driver.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IP.com_1 ("Method and System for Enabling Contextual Switching and Simulated Overriding in Autonomous Vehicles", included in IDS dated 10/3/2022) in view of Lopatine (US 20240095418 A1).
Regarding claim 1, IP.com_1 discloses a method for in-vehicle predicted context-based proactive driving training comprising (Page 2 Paragraph 1, Page 3 Paragraph 1, Fig. 1);
predicting a driving context of a forthcoming driving route (Page 3 Paragraph 1, Page 4 Paragraph 2);
performing an experience gap analysis between a driving experience of a driver and the predicted driving context to identify an experience gap (Page 3 Paragraphs 2-4, Fig. 2);
providing, in response to the experience gap being identified, an in-vehicle driving training simulation to the driver related to the predicted driving context (Fig. 2);
evaluating a response of the driver to the in-vehicle driving training simulation to produce a driving performance score (Page 4 Paragraph 1, Fig. 2);
and determining, based on the driving performance score, a suitability of the driver to safely navigate the predicted forthcoming driving route (Page 3 Paragraph 3, Page 4 Paragraph 1, Page 4 Paragraph 3, Fig. 2).
IP.com_1 does not specifically state by a processor of a computing system.
However, Lopatine teaches by a processor of a computing system (Paragraphs 0055-0056, Claim 17, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of IP.com_1 with a processor of Lopatine with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a processor is required to perform calculations and execute code. This allows the autonomous vehicle to provide training simulations and perform driver analysis. One would have been motivated to combine IP.com_1 with Lopatine as this achieves the hardware necessary to run programs on an autonomous vehicle. As stated in Lopatine, “The processing device 310 may execute the operating system of the computerized simulation controller 20” (Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 5, IP.com_1 discloses the in-vehicle driving training simulation includes generating a mixed reality representation of the predicted driving context (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, IP.com_1 discloses superimposing any number of virtual objects onto a windshield of the autonomous vehicle (Page 3 paragraph 1).
IP.com_1 does not specifically state by the processor.
However, Lopatine teaches by the processor (Paragraphs 0055-0056, Claim 17, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of IP.com_1 with a processor of Lopatine with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a processor is required to perform calculations and execute code. This allows the autonomous vehicle to provide training simulations and display virtual objects onto a windshield. One would have been motivated to combine IP.com_1 with Lopatine as this achieves the hardware necessary to run programs on an autonomous vehicle. As stated in Lopatine, “The processing device 310 may execute the operating system of the computerized simulation controller 20” (Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 7, IP.com_1 discloses maintaining a knowledge corpus of driving experiences of the driver (Page 4 Paragraphs 1-2, Fig. 2);
to store current route information for use in performing a subsequent experience gap analysis (Page 3 Paragraphs 1-2, Page 4 Paragraphs 1-3, Fig. 1, 2).
IP.com_1 does not specifically state by the processor.
However, Lopatine teaches by the processor (Paragraphs 0055-0056, Claim 17, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of IP.com_1 with a processor of Lopatine with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a processor is required to perform calculations and execute code. This allows the autonomous vehicle to maintain and process driving experiences of the driver. One would have been motivated to combine IP.com_1 with Lopatine as this achieves the hardware necessary to run programs on an autonomous vehicle. As stated in Lopatine, “The processing device 310 may execute the operating system of the computerized simulation controller 20” (Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 8, IP.com_1 discloses for an autonomous vehicle (Title, Page 2 Paragraph 1, Page 3 Paragraphs 1-4, Fig. 1);
a method for predicted context-based proactive driving training for a driver of the autonomous vehicle, the method comprising (Page 2 Paragraph 1, Page 3 Paragraph 1, Fig. 1);
predicting a driving context of a forthcoming driving route (Page 3 Paragraph 1, Page 4 Paragraph 2);
performing an experience gap analysis between a driving experience of a driver and the predicted driving context to identify an experience gap (Page 3 Paragraphs 2-4, Fig. 2);
providing, in response to the experience gap being identified, an in-vehicle driving training simulation to the driver related to the predicted driving context (Fig. 2);
evaluating a response of the driver to the in-vehicle driving training simulation to produce a driving performance score (Page 4 Paragraph 1, Fig. 2);
and determining, based on the driving performance score, a suitability of the driver to safely navigate the predicted forthcoming driving route (Page 3 Paragraph 3, Page 4 Paragraph 1, Page 4 Paragraph 3, Fig. 2).
IP.com_1 does not specifically state a computing system comprising: a processor; a memory device coupled to the processor; and a computer readable storage device coupled to the processor, wherein the storage device contains program code executable by the processor via the memory device to implement; when in a manual driving mode; by the processor.
However, Lopatine teaches a computing system comprising: a processor; a memory device coupled to the processor; and a computer readable storage device coupled to the processor, wherein the storage device contains program code executable by the processor via the memory device to implement (Paragraphs 0055-0056, Claim 17, Fig. 1);
when in a manual driving mode (Paragraph 0060-0061; Manual driving mode is mapped to driver inputting controls);
by the processor (Paragraphs 0055-0056, Claim 17, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of IP.com_1 with a processor, a memory containing program code, and performing driving training for a driver when in manual driving mode of Lopatine with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a processor is required to perform calculations and execute code. This allows the autonomous vehicle to provide training simulations and perform driver analysis. When the autonomous vehicle is in manual mode, a driver is able to input controls to a simulation using the vehicle controls. One would have been motivated to combine IP.com_1 with Lopatine as this achieves the hardware necessary to run simulations on an autonomous vehicle. As stated in Lopatine, “The processing device 310 may execute the operating system of the computerized simulation controller 20” (Paragraph 0056).
Regarding claims 12-14, all limitations have been examined with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 5-7. Please see the rejections above.
Regarding claim 15, IP.com_1 does not specifically state a computer program product for in-vehicle predicted context-based proactive driving training, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage device, and program instructions stored on the computer readable storage device, to.
However, Lopatine teaches a computer program product for in-vehicle predicted context-based proactive driving training, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage device, and program instructions stored on the computer readable storage device, to (Paragraphs 0055-0056, Claim 17, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of IP.com_1 with a computer readable storage device and program instructions of Lopatine with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand a storage device is required to store computer code and data. This allows the autonomous vehicle to provide training simulations and perform driver analysis. One would have been motivated to combine IP.com_1 with Lopatine as this achieves the hardware necessary to run programs on an autonomous vehicle. As stated in Lopatine, “The processing device 310 may execute the operating system of the computerized simulation controller 20” (Paragraph 0056).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Regarding claims 19-20, all limitations have been examined with respect to the prior art rejection of claims 5-6 and parent claim 15. Please see the rejections above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, and 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, as well as 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-4 and 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claim 2 recites:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying, by the processor, a location to safely initiate the in-vehicle driving training simulation while the autonomous vehicle is in motion.”
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
IP.com_1 ("Method and System for Enabling Contextual Switching and Simulated Overriding in Autonomous Vehicles", included in IDS dated 10/3/2022) teaches initiating the in-vehicle driving training simulation before the autonomous vehicle is in motion.
IP.com_1, however, does not teach identifying, by the processor, a location to safely initiate the in-vehicle driving training simulation while the autonomous vehicle is in motion.
Urano (US 20210407313 A1) teaches identifying a location to safely initiate the in-vehicle driving training simulation while the autonomous vehicle is in motion.
Urano, however, does not teach the in-vehicle driving training simulation is a driver driving training simulation while the vehicle is stationary as disclosed in IP.com_1. Rather, the driving training simulation of Urano is for controlling the autonomous vehicle while the vehicle is moving under autonomous mode.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 2 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 2 recites allowable subject matter.
Claims 9 and 16 recite allowable subject matter because these claims are similar to claim 2.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 recite allowable subject matter based upon their dependency from one of claims 2, 9, and 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669