DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The Amendment filed 23 September 2025 (hereinafter “the Amendment”) has been entered and considered. Claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, and 14-18 have been amended. Claims 2-3 and 12-13 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4-11, and 14-19, all the claims pending in the application, are rejected. All new grounds of rejection set forth in the present action were necessitated by Applicant’s claim amendments; accordingly, this action is made final.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
In view of the amendments to claims 5 and 15, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The claims have been amended to replace each recitation of “module” with “device”. Applicant contends that the amendment was intended to avoid these limitations from being interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112(f). The Examiner maintains that the claim limitations continue to invoke 35 USC 112(f).
According to MPEP 2181(I)(A):
“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.”” (emphasis added).
Thus, the term “device” (similar to “module”) is a nonce word that does not avoid invoking an interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). Accordingly, the interpretation is maintained.
If Applicant wishes to avoid interpretation of these claim limitations under 35 USC 112(f), the Examiner recommends amending the claim language modify these limitations with a structural feature such as a processor, CPU, computer, or the like.
Claim Interpretation – Superguide
The Examiner appreciates Applicant amending claims 1 and 11, as recommended, to adopt a disjunctive interpretation, consistent with the interpretation set forth in the previous action.
Prior Art
On page 9 of the Amendment, Applicant contends that the applied references do not teach or suggest the newly added features of the independent claims: “wherein the intersection entry determination device is further configured to generate a determination distance through an intersection data storage, determine an entrance to a signal information detection area based on the determination distance”. In support of this assertion, Applicant alleges that Kim merely discloses an operation of determining whether to enter an intersection when stopping at a stop line rather than setting forth any criteria for determining whether the stop line has been reached. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Kim does indeed teach the newly-added features of the independent claims.
For example, Kim discloses:
“[0080] A vehicle may receive information related to traffic lights by performing V2I communication with infrastructure at a predetermined distance before entering an intersection. However, once the vehicle enters the intersection, it will no longer receive information from the traffic lights. That is, the current vehicle is set to receive information by communicating only before entering the intersection, and no longer receive traffic light information when entering the intersection…
[0097] Next, the traffic light determining apparatus 100 may determine whether the vehicle enters the intersection (S105), and when it does not enter the intersection, may output currently received traffic light information to the vehicle control device 600 (S106). In the instant case, when the vehicle enters within a predetermined distance from the intersection or stops at a stop line of the intersection, the traffic light determination apparatus 100 may determine that the vehicle has entered the intersection…
[0100] Accordingly, according to various exemplary embodiments of the present invention, it is possible to estimate the corresponding traffic light status information based on surrounding vehicle information or pedestrian information when it is impossible to recognize the traffic light status by a front camera due to entering an intersection during autonomous driving, and it is impossible to obtain the traffic light status information due to a V2I communication problem.” (emphasis added).
Here, Kim discloses that the system determines an entrance to the intersection based on “a predetermined distance from the intersection”, wherein such a predetermined distance must be stored in storage. That is, Kim doesn’t simply make the determination of interest “when stopping at the stop line”, as Applicant alleges on page 9; rather, Kim contemplates an alternative to this in which the determination is made at “a predetermined distance from the intersection”. Thus, the Examiner maintains that the newly added limitations are disclosed by the reference. Accordingly, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “communication device”, “signal information inference device” and “intersection entry determination device” in claims 1, 4-11 and 14-19; and “object information collection device” in claims 1, 4-9, 11, and 14-19 (claim 10 recites structure that modifies this limitation). Notably, the “traffic light detection device” of claims 1, 4-11 and 14-19 is modified by the structural “image sensor” and therefore does not invoke 35 USC 112(f).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0061098 to Kim (hereinafter “Kim”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0179135 to Ahn (hereinafter “Ahn”).
As to independent claim 1, Kim discloses a system performing a method for detecting intersection traffic light information (Abstract and [0041-0042] discloses that Kim is directed to a “traffic light determining apparatus” comprising a processor configured to perform a series of steps within a vehicle), the system comprising: a traffic light detection device including an image sensor configured to generate first signal data based on traffic light image data in which a traffic light is included ([0044] discloses a traffic light determining apparatus 100 obtaining “traffic light status information from image data obtained by photographing a front traffic light using a front camera” on the vehicle); a communication device configured to receive second signal data for communication with a surrounding object and an external device ([0045, 0069-0071] disclose a communication device 300 which receives a signal phase and timing (SPAT) message, wherein the “SPAT message may include traffic light lighting status information” from a traffic light based on V2I communication for communication with “vehicles outside the vehicle” by “V2V” (Vehicle2Vehicle) communication); an object information collection device configured to collect dynamic data of the surrounding object; and a signal information inference device configured to infer third signal data based on the dynamic data ([0046, 0053, 0063, 0067] discloses that the system “may estimate the traffic light status information based on surrounding vehicle information or pedestrian information”; see also [0054-0055, 0079-0084] and Fig. 2 which details this surrounding vehicle or pedestrian information as information regarding movement), an intersection entry determination device configured to determine whether to enter an intersection, based on one signal data among the first signal data, the second signal data, and the third signal data ([0078-0090] of Kim describe different scenarios in which the vehicle “enters the intersection” and “no longer receive[s] information from the traffic lights” via V2I communication (claimed second signal data) and “a traffic light status cannot be recognized by the front camera” (claimed first signal data), wherein the vehicle “may estimate the traffic light status information based on surrounding vehicle information or pedestrian information” (claimed third signal data)), wherein the dynamic data of the surrounding object includes at least one information of whether the surrounding object moves, a moving direction of the surrounding object, a moving speed of the surrounding object, and whether the surrounding object accelerates or decelerates ([0046, 0053, 0063, 0067] discloses that the system “may estimate the traffic light status information based on surrounding vehicle information or pedestrian information”; for example, [0054-0055, 0079-0084] and Fig. 2 describe a scenario in which the vehicle “enters the intersection” and “no longer receive[s] information from the traffic lights” via V2I communication and “a traffic light status cannot be recognized by the front camera”, wherein the vehicle recognizes that vehicles 21-25 “cross left and right at an intersection” in front of host vehicle “in the direction perpendicular to the vehicle” and thereby may “estimate that a red traffic light is turned on as a traffic light status” for the vehicle), and wherein the third signal data includes pieces of information about a type of the traffic light, whether the traffic light is turned on, and a signal direction of the traffic light ([0078-0090] describe different scenarios in which the system estimates the status of the traffic light according to surrounding objects, wherein Figs. 2-4 show each scenario in which a type of traffic light (e.g., having a red, yellow, left green, and forward green lights), which of the lights are turned on, and the direction of the traffic light (facing the host vehicle 10)), and wherein the intersection entry determination device is further configured to generate a determination distance through an intersection data storage, determine an entrance to a signal information detection area based on the determination distance ([0080, 0097-0100] discloses that the system determines an entrance to the intersection based on “a predetermined distance from the intersection”, wherein such a predetermined distance must be stored in storage), and when the first signal data and the second signal data are not present after a vehicle enters a signal information detection area, the intersection entry determination device determines whether to enter the intersection, based on the third signal data ([0078-0090] of Kim describe different scenarios in which the vehicle “enters the intersection” and “no longer receive[s] information from the traffic lights” via V2I communication (claimed second signal data) and “a traffic light status cannot be recognized by the front camera” (claimed first signal data), wherein the vehicle “may estimate the traffic light status information based on surrounding vehicle information or pedestrian information” (claimed third signal data)).
Kim describes “traffic light status” as being obtained interchangeably by the three disclosed options: 1) based on image data acquired by the front camera on the vehicle, 2) based on the SPAT message through V2I communication, and 3) based on an estimate according to the surrounding vehicles or pedestrians (See at least [0044-0046]). Accordingly, Kim implicitly discloses that the signal data estimated in option 3 is the same type of data as the signal data obtained in options 1 and 2, and thus contains the same information (type, “on” status, and direction) as disclosed for option 3. However, Kim does not expressly disclose what the traffic light status information obtained from options 1 and 2 comprise. That is, Kim does not expressly disclose that each of the first signal data, and the second signal data includes the same pieces of information as the third signal data – namely, information about a type of the traffic light, whether the traffic light is turned on, and a signal direction of the traffic light.
Ahn, like Kim, is directed to an autonomous driving vehicle using V2X communication to acquire signal information about traffic lights installed at an intersection and using images acquired by a camera 31 among other roadside equipment 30 for the same (Abstract and [0038-0039]). In particular, Ahn discloses that “traffic light information” includes IDs and “kinds (i.e., a longitudinal type, a transverse type, a three-way type, a four-way type, etc.) of the traffic lights”, “entry directions to the intersection” for the corresponding traffic lights, and “signal states” including “which are turned on” ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim such that each of the first signal data captured by a camera and the second signal data transmitted via V2X communication also include information about a type of the traffic light, whether the traffic light is turned on, and a signal direction of the traffic light, as taught by Ahn, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have provided a more robust autonomous driving system “capable of preventing a collision with a peripheral vehicle …and thus improving stability or reliability of the vehicle”, as taught by Ahn ([0103]).
As to claim 5, Kim as modified above further teaches that, when the intersection entry determination device determines whether to enter the intersection based on the third signal data, the intersection entry determination device determines whether to enter the intersection, based on an event that the surrounding object that is present in the signal information detection area accelerates or decelerates ([0085-0086] of Kim discloses a scenario illustrated in Fig. 3 in which a vehicle 31 is stopped in front of host vehicle 10, then the vehicle 31 goes straight (accelerates from the stopped position), wherein the system estimates that the straight traffic light is turned on such that the vehicle 10 can enter the intersection).
As to claim 6, Kim as modified above further teaches that, when the intersection entry determination device determines whether to enter the intersection based on the third signal data, the intersection entry determination device determines not to enter the intersection when the moving direction of the surrounding object that is present in the signal information detection area is perpendicular to a moving direction of the vehicle ([0054-0055, 0079-0084] and Fig. 2 describe a scenario in which the vehicle recognizes that vehicles 21-25 “cross left and right at an intersection” in front of host vehicle “in the direction perpendicular to the vehicle” and thereby may “estimate that a red traffic light is turned on as a traffic light status” for the vehicle such that the vehicle 10 should not enter the intersection).
As to claim 8, Kim as modified above further teaches that, when the intersection entry determination device determines whether to enter the intersection based on the third signal data, the intersection entry determination device determines not to enter the intersection when the moving direction of the surrounding object that is present at the intersection is perpendicular to a moving direction of the vehicle ([0054-0055, 0079-0084] and Fig. 2 describe a scenario in which the vehicle recognizes that vehicles 21-25 “cross left and right at an intersection” in front of host vehicle “in the direction perpendicular to the vehicle” and thereby may “estimate that a red traffic light is turned on as a traffic light status” for the vehicle such that the vehicle 10 should not enter the intersection).
As to claim 9, Kim as modified above further teaches that the first signal data, the second signal data, and the third signal data are different signal data from one another ([0044] discloses a traffic light determining apparatus 100 obtaining “traffic light status information from image data obtained by photographing a front traffic light using a front camera” on the vehicle (first signal data); [0045, 0069-0071] disclose a communication device 300 which receives a signal phase and timing (SPAT) message, wherein the “SPAT message may include traffic light lighting status information” from a traffic light based on V2I communication for communication with “vehicles outside the vehicle” by “V2V” (Vehicle2Vehicle) communication (second signal data); [0046, 0053, 0063, 0067] discloses that the system “may estimate the traffic light status information based on surrounding vehicle information or pedestrian information” (third signal data), wherein each of the above signal data are different by virtue of being acquired by different means).
Independent claim 11 recites a method comprising steps performed by and recited in the system of independent claim 1. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claim 1.
Claims 15-16, and 18-19 recite features nearly identical to those recited in claims 5-6, and 8-9, respectively. Accordingly, claims 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claims 5-6, and 8-9, respectively.
Claims 4, 7, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ahn and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0032675 to Sakai et al. (hereinafter “Sakai”).
As to claim 4, Kim as modified above does not expressly disclose that, when the intersection entry determination device determines whether to enter the intersection based on the third signal data, the intersection entry determination device determines not to enter the intersection when the surrounding object that is present in the signal information detection area is stopped.
Sakai, like Kim, is directed to estimating a travel environment of a vehicle “on the basis of the behavior of another vehicle” when the vehicle is in a “blind area” in which “a sensor cannot detect display of a traffic signal or when a communication failure occurs and display information of a traffic signal cannot be acquired” (Abstract and [0103]; see also Fig. 12). In particular, Sakai contemplates a scenario in which the traffic signal is estimated as red when the other vehicle “stops or reduces speed” ([0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to estimate the traffic light status as red such that the host vehicle does not enter the intersection when a surrounding vehicle is stopped, as taught by Sakai, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have been to carry out “safe and smooth drive control” ([0060] of Sakai).
As to claim 7, Kim as modified above further teaches that, when the intersection entry determination device determines whether to enter the intersection based on the third signal data, the intersection entry determination device determines to enter the intersection when the surrounding object that is present in the signal information detection area moves in the same direction as the vehicle ([0085-0086] of Kim discloses a scenario illustrated in Fig. 3 in which a vehicle 31 goes straight in the same direction as the host vehicle 10, wherein the system estimates that the straight traffic light is turned on such that the vehicle 10 can enter the intersection).
Kim as modified above does not expressly disclose that the surrounding object moves at a constant speed.
Sakai, like Kim, is directed to estimating a travel environment of a vehicle “on the basis of the behavior of another vehicle” when the vehicle is in a “blind area” in which “a sensor cannot detect display of a traffic signal or when a communication failure occurs and display information of a traffic signal cannot be acquired” (Abstract and [0103]; see also Fig. 12). In particular, Sakai contemplates a scenario in which the traffic signal is estimated as green when the surrounding vehicle “travels at a predetermined speed” ([0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to estimate the traffic light status as green such that the host vehicle enters the intersection when a surrounding vehicle is moving in the same direction at a constant speed, as taught by Sakai, to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have been to carry out “safe and smooth drive control” ([0060] of Sakai).
Claims 14 and 17 recite features nearly identical to those recited in claims 4 and 7, respectively. Accordingly, claims 14 and 17 are rejected for reasons analogous to those discussed above in conjunction with claims 4 and 7, respectively.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Ahn and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0325241 to Lombrozo et al. (hereinafter “Lombrozo”).
As to claim 10, Kim as modified above does not expressly disclose that the object information collection device includes at least one of radio detection and ranging (radar), light detection and ranging (LIDAR), and a camera.
Lombrozo, like Kim, is directed to an autonomous vehicle that infers the state of a traffic light based on the behavior of surrounding vehicles when none of the sensors are able to observe the state of the traffic signal due to the presence of an obscuring object (Abstract and [0074-0076]). Lombrozo discloses that the inference system obtains information about the environment of the vehicle using a camera, RADAR, and/or LIDAR ([0075-0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proposed combination of Kim and Ahn to include a camera, RADAR, and LIDAR for observing the environment of the vehicle, as taught by Lombrozo, in order to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. It is predictable that the proposed modification would have produced a more vivid characterization of the vehicle’s surroundings than Kim’s camera alone, thus improving the recognition of behaviors by the surrounding vehicles.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0139019) contemplates a distance from an intersection at which a vehicle driving system can no longer discern at traffic light status and will rely on the behavior of surrounding vehicles to inform driving decisions (See Fig. 4 and corresponding description). This is pertinent to the newly added features of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M CONNER whose telephone number is (571)272-1486. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM Monday through Friday, and some Saturday afternoons.
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, Greg Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. 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.
/SEAN M CONNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663