DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 02/19/2026.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-22 received on 02/19/2026 are considered in this Office Action.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-22 are pending for examination.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camhi (US 20200017124 A1), in view of NARUSE (US 20190258250 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Camhi teaches a method, comprising:
outputting a notification to an occupant within a vehicle at a first point in time (FIG. 6 620: “The data processing system can present an indication in advance of the condition (ACT 620).”; FIG. 3-5 325: “Once at the initiation time T.sub.I 325, the policy enforcement module 240 can initiate generation of the stimulus to indicate to the occupant 120 to assume manual control of the vehicular function. For example, the policy enforcement module 240 can initiate playing of an audio alert (e.g., “Please take control of steering wheel: intersection up ahead”)”; para. [0073]: “the reaction prediction module 235 can use other factors as inputs to the behavior model in determining the estimated reaction time of the occupant 120 to the presentation of the indication to assume manual control of the vehicular function”);
detecting (para. [0024]: “For example, the ADAS 125 can use tactile sensors on the steering wheel to detect that the occupant 120 has made contact with the steering wheel to assume manual control of the vehicle controls.”);
measuring a reaction time of the occupant based on a difference between the first point in time and the second point in time (FIGs. 4-5 405 and 505; para. [0088]: “FIG. 4 depicts a line graph of a timeline 400 for transferring controls in vehicular settings in accordance with the ADAS 125 as detailed herein above in conjunction with FIGS. 1 and 2, among others. In the context of the ADAS 125, the response tracking module 245 can identify the measured reaction time at T.sub.M 405, in response to the state change in the operation mode of the vehicle control unit 210”; para. [0089]: “In the context of the ADAS 125, the response tracking module 245 can identify the measured reaction time at T.sub.M 505,”);
determining an expected reaction time for the notification (FIG. 6 para. 610) based on historical reaction data of the occupant (FIG.6 625: “Modify Model Using Measured Reaction Time”; para. [0019]: “Over time, the model can acquire a statistically significant number of measurements and converge to a more accurate reaction time for the particular driver for various activity types”; para [0024]: “Using the actual response time and the determined activity, the ADAS 125 can adjust or modify the behavior model to produce modified estimated reaction times for the same activity. As more and more measurements are acquired, the estimated reaction times determined by the ADAS 125 using the behavior model may become more accurate to the particular occupant 120 of the electric vehicle 105”), a type of the notification (para. [0072]: “For each type of stimulus for the presentation of the indication, the reaction prediction module 235 can generate the estimated reaction time of the occupant 120 to the type of the stimulus based on the activity type. As discussed above, the presentation of the indication can include an audio stimulus, a visual stimulus, or a tactile stimulus, or any combination thereof outputted by the user interface 145. […]. For the same activity type, the estimated reaction times of the occupant 120 may vary based on the type of stimulus used for the presentation of the indication to assume manual control of the vehicular function. For instance, the occupant 120 when previously napping may have a shorter estimated reaction time to a tactile stimulus but a longer estimated reaction to a visual stimulus. The reaction prediction module 235 can apply the types of stimuli as inputs of the behavior model to determine the estimated reaction time of the stimulus”), and an operating condition of the vehicle (para. [0073]: “The reaction prediction module 235 can use the time of day as an input to the behavior model to determine the estimated reaction time of the occupant 120. The reaction prediction module 235 can identify a time of day from a timer maintained in one of the ECUs. For the same activity type, estimated reaction time of the occupant 120 can vary. For example, a driver during night time (between 6:00 pm and 11:59 pm) may have a slower estimated reaction time than the driver during midday (between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm), due to varying levels of alertness throughout the day”);
determining that a response of the occupant is slower than expected based on a difference between the measured reaction time and the expected reaction time (FIG. 5; para. [0089]: “The response tracking module 245 can also determine that the ΔT 510, indicating that the estimated reaction time T.sub.R 310 was an under-estimate. For the previous example, the response tracking module 245 can determine that T.sub.M 505 occurred subsequent to T.sub.S 310, and thus an under-estimate”); and
altering a notification timing threshold of the vehicle based on the response of the occupant being slower than expected, wherein the altering comprises altering the notification timing threshold by an amount of time based on the difference (para. [0089]: “Using the difference ΔT 510, the model training module 230 can adjust or modify the one or more parameters of the behavior model to increase the estimated reaction times for the same activity type in subsequent determinations. For example, the model training module 230 can adjust the parameters of the behavior model for the activity type of reading a book, so that the estimated reaction time for the activity type of reading a book is increased in future calculations”; para. [0076]: “determine an initiation time for the presentation of the indication based on the estimated reaction time”; para. [0087]: “Once at the initiation time T I 325, the policy enforcement module 240 can initiate generation of the stimulus to indicate to the occupant 120 to assume manual control of the vehicular function. For example, the policy enforcement module 240 can initiate playing of an audio alert (e.g., “Please take control of steering wheel: intersection up ahead”)”, wherein “increase the estimated reaction times for the same activity type” indicates altering a notification timing threshold).
However, NARUSE teaches detecting an increase in grip force on a steering wheel of the vehicle (FIG. 4A 404: Does indication exceed threshold?; para. [0089]: “Similarly, the computing device may utilize sensors to ensure that a driver has both hands on the steering wheel prior to transitioning control of the vehicle to the driver”; para. [0053]: “If the grip sensor 16 has a voltage value V that is higher than or equal to the voltage threshold Vth (Vth1, Vth2), the grip determination unit 36 determines that the vehicle occupant grips the steering wheel 70 (step S5: YES),”; para. [0061]: “The grip sensor 16 may be a pressure sensor instead of the electrostatic capacitance sensor. In this case, a pressure value P and a pressure threshold Pth are compared, and the pressure threshold Pth in the particular area 80 is set higher than the pressure threshold Pth in the area other than the particular area 80.”, wherein increase in grip force is used to determine whether steering wheel is gripped).
Camhi and NARUSE are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of detecting the response of the driver in response to a notification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the steering wheel of Camhi and incorporate the teachings of NARUSE and determine whether the gripping pressure is increasing to determine whether the steering wheel is gripped. Doing so would allow easier detection of the response of the driver, such as, becomes easier to determine that the steering wheel is gripped (NARUSE, para. [0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Camhi in view of NARUSE teaches the method of claim 1. Camhi further teaches wherein the method further comprises: associating the measured reaction time to one of motor control or perception (para. [0017]: “driver who is looking at a smartphone and occasionally monitoring the environment may have a different level of attentiveness from another driver who is watching asleep unable to scan the outside at all”; para. [0073]: “a slower estimated reaction time than the driver during midday (between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm), due to varying levels of alertness throughout the day”; para. [0088]: “The response tracking module 245 can determine a difference between the T.sub.S 310 and the measured reaction time T.sub.M 405 as ΔT 410. In the previous example, the response tracking module 245 can calculate ΔT 410 as 40 seconds (580−540 seconds). The response tracking module 245 can also determine that the ΔT 410, indicating that the estimated reaction time T.sub.R 310 was an over-estimate”, wherein attentiveness/alertness corresponds to perception which is based on the estimated reaction time and measured reaction time being “over-estimate” or “under-estimate” indicates lower alertness or higher alertness relative to the estimated reaction time).
Regarding claim 8, Camhi further teaches a system (FIG. 2), comprising: a processor (para. [0021]: “The ADAS 125 can include one or more processors and memory disposed throughout the vehicle 105 or remotely operated from the vehicle 105, or in any combination thereof”); and a memory , coupled to the processor, comprising instructions that when executed by the processor are configured to (para. [0025: “The ADAS 125 can include one or more processors, logic array, and memory to execute one or more computer-readable instructions.”; para. [0106]: “The processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform actions by operating on input data and generating output. The processes and logic flows can also be performed by, and apparatuses can also be implemented as, special purpose logic circuitry, e.g., an FPGA (field programmable gate array) or an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit). Devices suitable for storing computer program instructions and data can include non-volatile memory, media and memory devices, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, e.g., EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks, e.g., internal hard disks or removable disks; magneto optical disks; and CD ROM and DVD-ROM disks. The processor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, special purpose logic circuitry”) perform claim limitations similar to the method of claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 10, it recites a system performing claim limitations similar to the method of claim 3, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15, Camhi further teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform (para. [0100]: “Some of the description herein emphasizes the structural independence of the aspects of the system components (e.g., various modules of the data processing system 125, components of the ECUs 205, and remote server 110), and illustrates one grouping of operations and responsibilities of these system components. Other groupings that execute similar overall operations are understood to be within the scope of the present application. Modules can be implemented in hardware or as computer instructions on a non-transient computer readable storage medium, and modules can be distributed across various hardware or computer based components.”; para. [0106]: “The processes and logic flows described in this specification can be performed by one or more programmable processors executing one or more computer programs to perform actions by operating on input data and generating output. The processes and logic flows can also be performed by, and apparatuses can also be implemented as, special purpose logic circuitry, e.g., an FPGA (field programmable gate array) or an ASIC (application specific integrated circuit). Devices suitable for storing computer program instructions and data can include non-volatile memory, media and memory devices, including by way of example semiconductor memory devices, e.g., EPROM, EEPROM, and flash memory devices; magnetic disks, e.g., internal hard disks or removable disks; magneto optical disks; and CD ROM and DVD-ROM disks. The processor and the memory can be supplemented by, or incorporated in, special purpose logic circuitry”) claim limitations similar to the method of claim 1, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 17, it recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium with instructions claim limitations similar to the method of claim 3, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 21, Camhi in view of NARUSE teaches the method of claim 1. Camhi further teaches wherein the determining the expected reaction time further adjusting the expected reaction time based on an operating condition of the vehicle that includes at least one of traffic conditions, weather conditions, time of day, and route characteristics (para. [0073]: “The reaction prediction module 235 can use the time of day as an input to the behavior model to determine the estimated reaction time of the occupant 120. The reaction prediction module 235 can identify a time of day from a timer maintained in one of the ECUs. For the same activity type, estimated reaction time of the occupant 120 can vary. For example, a driver during night time (between 6:00 pm and 11:59 pm) may have a slower estimated reaction time than the driver during midday (between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm), due to varying levels of alertness throughout the day”).
Regarding claim 22, Camhi in view of NARUSE teaches the method of claim 1. Camhi further teaches wherein the determining the expected reaction time comprises selecting the expected reaction time from among a plurality of possible reactions based on the type of the notification (para. [0072]: “For the same activity type, the estimated reaction times of the occupant 120 may vary based on the type of stimulus used for the presentation of the indication to assume manual control of the vehicular function. For instance, the occupant 120 when previously napping may have a shorter estimated reaction time to a tactile stimulus but a longer estimated reaction to a visual stimulus. The reaction prediction module 235 can apply the types of stimuli as inputs of the behavior model to determine the estimated reaction time of the stimulus”).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camhi in view of NARUSE, and further in view of CHOI (US20240416964A1).
Regarding claim 4, Camhi in view of NARUSE teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach wherein the altering comprises: obtaining an authorization prior to the altering of the notification timing threshold.
However, CHOI teaches obtaining an authorization prior to the altering of an element (para. [0101]: “Furthermore, the travel situation determination unit 239 is configured to determine whether a dangerous situation has occurred based on the state information of the driver or the weather information determined by the driver monitoring unit 231 and transmits a result of the determination to the driving mode switching unit 237”; para. [0102]: “The input/output interface 250 provides the driver of the vehicle with recommendation information on the autonomous driving mode according to a situation of the vehicle or receives whether to accept the recommendation information on the autonomous driving mode from the driver”).
CHOI is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of adjusting vehicular setting based on the detected driver state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Camhi in view of NARUSE to incorporate the teachings of CHOI and receive approval from the driver prior to adjusting the notification setting of Camhi in view of NARUSE. Doing so would enhance user experience by confirming with the user prior to applying the recommended settings.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camhi in view of NARUSE, and further in view of BYUN (KR20240168502A), and further in view of KIM (KR102010216B1).
The Espacenet English translation of descriptions of BYUN and KIM are attached in the Office Action sent on 03/10/2025.
Regarding claim 5, Camhi in view of NARUSE teaches the method of claim 1. Camhi further teaches determining an event (FIG. 505; para. [0089]: “In the previous example, the response tracking module 245 can calculate ΔT 510 as 15 seconds (595−580 seconds). The response tracking module 245 can also determine that the ΔT 510, indicating that the estimated reaction time T.sub.R 310 was an under-estimate”) and maintaining the altered notification timing threshold (para. [0089]: “For the previous example, the response tracking module 245 can determine that T.sub.M 505 occurred subsequent to T.sub.S 310, and thus an under-estimate. Using the difference ΔT 510, the model training module 230 can adjust or modify the one or more parameters of the behavior model to increase the estimated reaction times for the same activity type in subsequent determinations.”), but fails to specifically teach further comprising: determining an event is a repeated event within a time period; and maintaining the altered notification timing threshold of the vehicle for a new time period.
However, BYUN teaches comprising: determining an event is a repeated event (para. [0106]: “Meanwhile, during the above process, the control module unit (3) measures the number of times the warning control signal is generated due to the drowsiness of the vehicle driver (11). At this time, if the set number of times the warning control signal is detected is, for example, 3 times or more, i.e., if the vehicle driver (11) repeats drowsy driving 3 times or more”); and
maintaining the altered element of the vehicle for a new time period (para. [0106]: “Meanwhile, during the above process, the control module unit (3) measures the number of times the warning control signal is generated due to the drowsiness of the vehicle driver (11). At this time, if the set number of times the warning control signal is detected is, for example, 3 times or more, i.e., if the vehicle driver (11) repeats drowsy driving 3 times or more, the control module unit (3) controls the ECU (Electronic Control Unit: not shown) of the vehicle to forcibly reduce the driving speed of the vehicle below a certain speed and to drive it in the set safety mode for a certain period of time.”).
BYUN is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of adjusting vehicular setting based on the detected driver state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Camhi in view of NARUSE to incorporate the teachings of BYUN and detect drowsiness based on the number of repeated events and maintain the countermeasure, which is the adjusted notification timing as taught by Camhi in view of NARUSE. Doing so would provide additional support in confirming that the driver is drowsy. Camhi in view of NARUSE in view of BYUN fails to specifically teach determining the event is a repeated event within a time period.
However, KIM teaches determining an event is a repeated event within a time period (para. [0033]: “For example, if it is determined that the driver continues to drowsy driving even after a predetermined period elapses after it is determined that there is drowsy driving, or if the drowsy driving is repeatedly detected at a predetermined period interval, the detection unit 26 is bedding. The control signal may be transmitted to the vibrator 30.”).
KIM is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of adjusting vehicular setting based on the detected driver state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Camhi in view of NARUSE and further in view of BYUN to incorporate the teachings of KIM and detect drowsiness based on the number of repeated events in a predetermined period. Doing so would provide additional support in confirming that the driver is drowsy.
Regarding claim 12, it recites a system performing claim limitations similar to the method of claim 5, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camhi in view of NARUSE, and further in view of Futterlieb (US 20230406203 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Camhi in view of NARUSE teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach comprising: determining an upcoming route of the vehicle is likely to produce a health characteristic for the occupant; identifying another vehicle occupant; and notifying the vehicle with a notification that contains a recommendation for the other vehicle occupant to drive the vehicle on the upcoming route.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Futterlieb teaches determining an upcoming route of the vehicle is likely to produce a health characteristic for the occupant (FIG. 4 401-404; para. [0046: “Now referring to FIG. 4, another method is exemplarily illustrated. The first steps correspond to what has been described with respect to FIG. 3 above. In particular, the method includes determining a drowsiness level of a driver of a vehicle (step 401) by means of data provided by a monitoring unit, the monitoring unit being configured to determine one or more driver parameters. Based on the current drowsiness level, a current driver focus level and an estimated time of remaining driver focus level are determined (step 402), wherein the driver focus level is inversely proportional to the drowsiness level. The method further includes determining an estimated remaining travel time of the vehicle until a desired destination is reached (step 403) by means of data provided by a navigation system. If, based on the current driver focus level, the estimated time of remaining focus level, and the estimated remaining travel time, it is determined that a current driver focus level is less than a defined threshold focus level (step 404)”);
identifying another vehicle occupant; and notifying the vehicle, with a notification that contains a recommendation for the other vehicle occupant to drive the vehicle on the upcoming route (FIG. 4 405-411; para. [0049]: “a passenger 14 is available, the method includes determining a drowsiness level of the passenger (step 408) by means of data provided by a monitoring unit, the monitoring unit being configured to determine one or more driver parameters. Based on the current drowsiness level, a current passenger focus level and an estimated time of remaining passenger focus level are determined (step 409), wherein the passenger focus level is inversely proportional to the drowsiness level. If, based on the current passenger focus level, the estimated time of remaining focus level, and the estimated remaining travel time, it is determined that a current passenger focus level is equal to or greater than the defined threshold focus level (step 410), a change of driver is proposed to the driver and the passenger (step 411).”).
Futterlieb is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of adjusting vehicular setting based on the detected driver state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Camhi in view of NARUSE to incorporate the teachings of Futterlieb and detect if there are passengers to take over the driving when the driver is deemed unfit to drive. Doing so would provide increase safety by preventing an impaired driver from continuously driving.
Regarding claim 13, it recites a system performing claim limitations similar to the method of claim 6, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camhi in view of NARUSE, and further in view of Roell (US20240351601A1).
Regarding claim 7, Camhi in view of NARUSE teaches the method of claim 1. Camhi further teaches determining a new event has not occurred (para. [0093]: “The behavior model can initially be trained using baseline measurements. The baseline measurements can indicate reaction times of test subjects”; para. [0084]: “The model training module 230 can determine that the estimated reaction time is greater than the measured reaction time”, wherein “estimated reaction time is greater than the measured reaction time” is an example corresponding to determining a new event has not occurred); and restoring the altered notification timing threshold of the vehicle to a less-altered state (para. [0084]: “The model training module 230 can determine that the estimated reaction time is greater than the measured reaction time. Based on the determination that the estimated reaction time is greater, the model training module 230 can adjust the one or more parameters of the behavior model to decrease the estimated reaction time for the determined activity type in subsequent determinations.”, wherein “decrease the estimated reaction time” indicates restoring the altered notification timing threshold of the vehicle to a less-altered state), but fails to specifically teach a time period.
However, Roell teaches determining a new event has not occurred within a time period from the event (FIG. 2; para. [0028]: “An input to ECU 20 is a driver drowsiness level (“DDL”) measurement, calculation, or estimate 30. Such DDL measurement, calculation, or estimate may itself be a calculation provided by an ECU. Alternatively, the DDL may be provided from a dedicated DDL sensor.”; para. [0051]: “Transition 114 from Alert Level 1 120 to Alert Level 0 110 occurs if the DDL is less than 7 for 240 seconds”, wherein “DDL is less than 7” corresponds to an example of a new event has not occurred within a time period from the event); and
restoring the altered setting of the vehicle to a less-altered state (FIG. 2; para. [0051]: “Transition 114 from Alert Level 1 120 to Alert Level 0 110 occurs if the DDL is less than 7 for 240 seconds”, wherein transitioning back to level 0 indicates restoring to a less-altered state).
Roell is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of adjusting vehicular setting based on the detected driver state. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Camhi in view of NARUSE to incorporate the teachings of Roell and revert to a previous state if the an event is not detected within a time period. Doing so would enhance user experience by automatically reverting to the previous vehicle setting when the detected driver condition disappeared, thus eliminating unnecessary warnings.
Regarding claim 14, it recites a system performing claim limitations similar to the method of claim 7, and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Linder (US 20180315315 A1) teaches determining an optimal warning distance based on a braking distance of the vehicle and the reaction profile of the operator of the vehicle.
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 ANDREW S KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7356. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM - 5PM.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/A.S.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights