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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 11/19/2025, have been entered into the record. Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-9, 14, and 16-20 stand rejected. Claims 21-22 and 25-26 are objected to as relying upon a rejected dependent claim but contain allowable subject matter. Claims 10-12 and 23-24 are allowed.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 2 of the previous claim set, the limitations of which have been added to claim 1, 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. By combining the limitations of dependent claims 2 and 4 of the previous claim set simultaneously with claim 1 of the previous claim set, the scope of the claim limitations of claim 2 are changed such that Eppstein is no longer the best prior art to teach the limitations of amended claim 1 that were previously in claim 2 of the previous claim set. That is, by specifying that the removable calibration target is a corner reflector, a limitation not claimed in the previous claim set, the teachings of Eppstein no longer render obvious the steps of placing and then removing the corner reflector calibration target. A new grounds of rejection using teachings from Jiang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0104879 A1), cited as relevant prior art to the claimed invention in the previous Office Action, is used to below to reject claim 1 of the amended claim set.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 10 have been considered and are convincing. The amendment of claim 10 to include the step of, “coupling a first calibration target with a seatbelt buckle within a cabin of a vehicle,” overcomes the rejection set out in the previous office action. Claim 10, and its dependent claims, are allowed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 14 have been carefully considered and are moot. The amendment of claim 14 to reach, “the first calibration target is configured to be coupled with a seatbelt buckle of the vehicle,” does overcome the rejection set out in the previous office action. However, a new ground of rejection using a new reference is used to reject claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelapati et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0001906), hereinafter Nelapati, in view of Ikram et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0158840 A1) hereinafter Ikram, and further in view of Jiang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0104879 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nelapati discloses (note: what Nelapati does not teach is struck through),
A method for calibrating an in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor (para. 0001, “The technical field generally relates to vehicle systems and more particularly relates to using existing features within an interior of a vehicle for radar calibration.”), the method comprising the steps of: detecting a calibration target positioned within a cabin of a vehicle using an in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor (para. 0035, “The vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 initiates operation of the speaker 404 within the interior passenger compartment of the vehicle concurrently to operating the radar 402 to emit calibration reference electromagnetic signals within the interior passenger compartment 401, where operation of the speaker 404 produces a Doppler shift or other radar signature within the reflected electromagnetic signals received at the radar 402.”), (para. 0035, “In response to identifying the observed radar signature within the reflected electromagnetic signals corresponding to the audio speaker 404, the vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 obtains the expected reference position for the audio speaker 404 that defines an expected orientation for an axis 406 aligned between the radar 402 and the audio speaker 404. The vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 calculates or otherwise determines a measured position 414 for the audio speaker 404 that defines an observed orientation for an axis 416 aligned between the radar 402 and the audio speaker 404.”); and calibrating the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor using predetermined locational data of the calibration target within the vehicle (para. 0036, “Based on the difference 410 between the observed orientation axis 416 and the expected orientation axis 406, the vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 calculates or otherwise determines a calibration offset value to be applied to measured positions of subsequently detected objects to compensate for the calibrated or observed deviation in the antenna boresight axis from the expected orientation axis 406 to the measured orientation axis 416.”),
Ikram discloses,
…wherein the calibration target comprises a corner reflector (para. 0042, “In block 910, the calibration computer 802 processes the radar data received from the radar sensor 810 to identify the corner reflector 302, and thereby identify the location of the centroid of the first panel 202 with respect to the radar sensor 810.”)…before the step of detecting the calibration target, temporarily placing the calibration target around the vehicle (fig. 9, step 902); and following the step of calibrating the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor, removing the calibration target from the vehicle (fig. 9, steps 914-902, noting that repositioning the calibration target, as necessitated by the iterative nature of the process of fig. 9, requires first removing it from its initial position).
Jiang teaches,
…before the step of detecting the calibration target, temporarily placing the calibration target within the vehicle (para. 0058, “For example, FIG. 2B illustrates an example placement of a plurality of hybrid calibration targets 200 within the interior space 250 of a vehicle such as vehicle 1000”)
Nelapati, Ikram and Jiang are analogous to the claimed invention because they teach systems and methods for calibrating vehicle radar devices. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nelapati to include the corner reflectors of Ikram because corner reflectors have a large radar cross-section for their size, thus allowing for a smaller calibration target to be used. Using a smaller calibration target is beneficial in the art of vehicle radar calibration because it facilitates moving the calibration target as needed, as demonstrated by the procedure of Ikram that involves repositioning the calibration target around the vehicle. The invention of Jiang, in which calibration targets are positioned inside the vehicle, demonstrates that the procedure of Nelapati in view of Ikram is applicable to an in-vehicle radar device just as it is to an external radar device.
Regarding claim 3, Nelapati in view of in view of Ikram and further in view of Jiang discloses the method of claim 2. Nelapati as previously combined with Ikram and Jiang does not further disclose,
…wherein the calibration target comprises a coupling piece configured to facilitate temporary placement of the calibration target to a respective component of the vehicle
Jiang discloses,
…wherein the calibration target comprises a coupling piece configured to facilitate temporary placement of the calibration target to a respective component of the vehicle (fig. 2B, unnumbered box is used to couple two of the calibration targets 200 with the seat cushions 254, 258. The examiner notes that the unnumbered box must be temporary because it precludes sitting in the driver’s seat).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calibration target of Nelapati with the coupling piece of Jiang because the coupling piece of Jiang ensures the calibration target is properly placed in the vehicle by aligning the two seat back calibration targets 200. This known distance establishes a horizontal frame of reference, thus allowing for reliable calibration.
Regarding claim 5, Nelapati in view of Ikram and further in view of Jiang teaches the method of claim 1. Nelapati further teaches,
…detecting a second calibration target positioned within the cabin of the vehicle using the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor (para. 0037, “It should be noted that FIG. 4 depicts an implementation with three interior audio speakers 404, 418, 420 (e.g., left, right and center), where in such implementations, the calibration process 300 may be performed to determine a respective calibration offset value for each of the audio speakers 404, 418, 420”); and measuring one or more locational parameters of the second calibration target relative to the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor (para. 0031, “Still referring to FIG. 3, in exemplary implementations, the calibration process 300 calculates or otherwise determines a measured position for a respective interior vehicle component based on one or more characteristics of the obtained measurement signals at 308.” The Examiner notes that the calibration process 300 is carried out for each speaker 404, 418, 420, per para. 0037), wherein the step of calibrating the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor further comprises using predetermined locational data of the second calibration target within the vehicle (para. 0032, “The calibration process 300 identifies or otherwise obtains an expected reference position for the respective interior vehicle component corresponding to the expected or targeted position and orientation for the sensing arrangement at 310 and then calculates or otherwise determines a calibration offset corresponding to the current position and orientation of the sensing arrangement based on the difference between the measured position of that interior vehicle component and its expected reference position at 312.” The Examiner notes that, per para. 0037, the calibration process 300 is carried out for each speaker).
Regarding claim 9, Nelapati in view of Ikram and further in view of Jiang teaches the method of claim 1. Nelapati further teaches,
…sending the predetermined locational data of the calibration target to the in-cabin RADAR sensor from a calibration console (para. 0032, “For example, the vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 may read, query or otherwise access a data storage (e.g., data storage element 212) that maintains calibration data for a radar 102, 200 that identifies the expected distance (or range) and the expected orientation (or azimuth or angle) for the different actuatable interior vehicle components 104 in relation to the antenna boresight or other reference axis associated with the radar 102, 200.” The Examiner notes that the data storage that maintains calibration data is understood as being a calibration console).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelapati in view of Ikram, further in view of Jiang, and further in view of Diamond et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0151092 A1), hereinafter Diamond.
Regarding claim 8, Nelapati in view of Ikram and further in view of Jiang discloses the method of claim 1. Nelapati does not disclose a second in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor, but does disclose (note: what Nelapati does not disclose is struck through),
…detecting a second calibration target positioned within the cabin of the vehicle using a (para. 0037, “It should be noted that FIG. 4 depicts an implementation with three interior audio speakers 404, 418, 420 (e.g., left, right and center), where in such implementations, the calibration process 300 may be performed to determine a respective calibration offset value for each of the audio speakers 404, 418, 420…” The Examiner notes that the calibration process 300 includes a step in which the calibration target is detected); measuring one or more locational parameters of the second calibration target relative to the (para. 0032, “The calibration process 300 identifies or otherwise obtains an expected reference position for the respective interior vehicle component corresponding to the expected or targeted position and orientation for the sensing arrangement at 310 and then calculates or otherwise determines a calibration offset corresponding to the current position and orientation of the sensing arrangement based on the difference between the measured position of that interior vehicle component and its expected reference position at 312.” The Examiner notes that, per para. 0037, the calibration process 300 is carried out for each speaker); and calibrating the (para. 0037, “the calibration process 300 may be performed to determine a respective calibration offset value for each of the audio speakers 404, 418, 420, which, in turn, may be averaged to arrive at an averaged calibration offset value to be applied to subsequent radar returns.” The Examiner notes that the calibration process 300, is described above as using the predetermined locational data to calibrate the radar device).
Diamond discloses a second in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor (para. 0050, “The plurality of interior sensors may also include interior radar sensors 32 shown located on opposite lateral sides of the cabin interior 14 of the vehicle 10 for sensing objects located inside of the cabin interior 14.”).
Diamond is analogous to the claimed invention because it discloses interior sensors for a vehicle. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the method of calibrating a radar sensor of Nelapati to calibrate a second radar sensor. The courts have held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), discussion pertaining to In re Harza 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)). Adding a second radar sensor to a vehicle interior is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by Diamond, because it allows for sensors to measure different regions of the car or verify readings to reduce the likelihood of incorrect measurements. Extending the method of Nelapati to a second radar sensor is therefore no more than a simple duplication of parts.
Claims 14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelapati in view of Ren et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0104941 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Nelapati teaches (note: what Nelapati does not teach is struck through),
A system for calibrating an in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor, comprising: an in-cabin RADAR sensor positioned within a cabin of a vehicle (fig. 4, radar sensor 402 is, per para. 0036, mounted within the interior passenger compartment); a first calibration target positioned within the cabin of the vehicle (fig. 4, speaker 418), (para. 0036, “Based on the difference 410 between the observed orientation axis 416 and the expected orientation axis 406, the vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 calculates or otherwise determines a calibration offset value to be applied to measured positions of subsequently detected objects to compensate for the calibrated or observed deviation in the antenna boresight axis from the expected orientation axis 406 to the measured orientation axis 416.” The Examiner notes that para. 0036 describes calibrating the radar using target 404, para. 0037 makes it clear that the same process is used for all three calibration targets 404 ,418, 420).
Ren teaches,
… wherein the first calibration target is configured to be coupled with a seatbelt buckle of the vehicle (para. 0046, “The one or more detected fiducial points may be implemented as fiducial markers (alternatively referred to herein as fiducial point markers) integrated into the…seatbelts…” The examiner notes that a target that is integrated into a seatbelt is configured to be coupled with a seatbelt buckle of the vehicle, since the seatbelt is configured to be coupled with the seatbelt buckle and the target is part of the seatbelt)
Regarding claim 17, Nelapati in view of Ren teaches the system of claim 14. Nelapati further teaches,
…wherein the calibration module is configured to detect calibration parameters of the first calibration target using the in-cabin RADAR sensor (para. 0035, “The vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 calculates or otherwise determines a measured position 414 for the audio speaker 404 that defines an observed orientation for an axis 416 aligned between the radar 402 and the audio speaker 404.”) and compare stored calibration parameters of the first calibration target with the detected calibration parameters to calibrate the in-cabin RADAR sensor (para. 0036, “Based on the difference 410 between the observed orientation axis 416 and the expected orientation axis 406, the vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 calculates or otherwise determines a calibration offset value to be applied to measured positions of subsequently detected objects to compensate for the calibrated or observed deviation in the antenna boresight axis from the expected orientation axis 406 to the measured orientation axis 416.” The Examiner notes that, per para. 0035, the expected orientation axis 406 is based on a stored calibration target location).
Regarding claim 18, Nelapati in view of Ren teaches the system of claim 17. Nelapati further teaches,
…wherein the stored calibration parameters are stored within a memory component of the vehicle (para. 0032, “For example, the vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 may read, query or otherwise access a data storage (e.g., data storage element 212) that maintains calibration data for a radar 102, 200 that identifies the expected distance (or range) and the expected orientation (or azimuth or angle) for the different actuatable interior vehicle components 104 in relation to the antenna boresight or other reference axis associated with the radar 102, 200.”).
Regarding claim 20, Nelapati in view of Ren teaches the system of claim 14. Nelapati further teaches,
…wherein the first calibration target comprises a vibrating calibration target, and wherein the vibrating calibration target is configured to vibrate at a preconfigured vibrational frequency to facilitate calibration of the in-cabin RADAR sensor (“paras. 0027-0028, “In step 220, computer 110 then generates audio signals at the indicated frequencies and transmits them to the handheld testing device 102 which then plays the audio frequency signals through the speaker 106. The resulting sound stimulates the radar gun to register a reading in miles per hour, which, in step 222, is read by the user and input through software 112 and communicated to server software 116, by similar means to that described above…After the radar gun readings have been recorded for each desired audio frequency signal, the results input by the user are compared to the correct readings that the radar gun should have registered. If the radar gun readings are within an acceptable margin of error then the radar gun has passed the test and is certified for continued use.”).-
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelapati in view of Ren, and further in view of Diamond.
Regarding claim 16, Nelapati in view of Ren discloses the system of claim 14. Nelapati further discloses,
…a second calibration target positioned within the cabin of the vehicle (fig. 4, speakers 404 and 420)
Nelapati in view of Ren does not disclose,
…and a second in-cabin RADAR sensor positioned within the cabin of the vehicle.
Diamond discloses,
…and a second in-cabin RADAR sensor positioned within the cabin of the vehicle (para. 0050, “The plurality of interior sensors may also include interior radar sensors 32 shown located on opposite lateral sides of the cabin interior 14 of the vehicle 10 for sensing objects located inside of the cabin interior 14.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the system for calibrating a radar sensor of Nelapati in view of Ren to include a second radar sensor. Adding a second radar sensor to a vehicle interior is a known technique in the art, as demonstrated by Diamond, because it allows for sensors to measure different regions of the car or verify readings to reduce the likelihood of incorrect measurements.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelapati in view of Ren and further in view of Mihlin (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0365174 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Nelapati in view of Ren discloses the system of claim 14. Nelapati as previously combined with Ren further discloses (note: what Nelapati as previously combined with Ren does not disclose is struck through),
…wherein the calibration parameters comprise a range, azimuth, (para. 0032, “Based on the difference between the measured orientation and the expected orientation associated with a particular interior vehicle component 104, the vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 calculates or otherwise determines a calibration offset that represents an amount by which the reference axis or antenna boresight of the radar 102, 200 deviates from its expected alignment using the difference between the measured and expected distances to the particular interior vehicle component 104.” The Examiner notes that, in para. 0031, the orientation is specified as being the pitch and azimuth angles).
Mihlin discloses,
…wherein the calibration parameters comprise a range, azimuth, and elevation of the first calibration target relative to the in-cabin RADAR sensor (para. 0050, “The bias value of the coordinates of the reference target element measured by the radar antenna being calibrated comprises in some embodiments at least one of: antenna measurement azimuth bias (Bu) for calibrating reference target measured azimuth (um), antenna measurement elevation bias (Bv) for calibrating reference target measured elevation angle (vm), and antenna measurement range/distance bias (Br) value for calibrating reference target measured range/distance (rm).”).
Mihlin is analogous to the claimed invention because it discloses calibration methods for a radar device. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calibration parameters of Nelapati to include elevation as in Mihlin because Nelapati suggests representing the calibration offset in three different orientation or translation axes (para. 0037). Range, azimuth, and elevation are the standard axes for a three-dimensional orientation in a spherical coordinate system, which is a commonly used system for describing three-dimensional positions of objects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22 and 25-26 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claim 21, Nelapati in view of Ikram and further in view of Jiang teaches the method of claim 1. However, the prior combination of Nelapati in view of Ikram and further in view of Jiang does not teach,
…wherein the calibration target is configured to be coupled with a seatbelt buckle.
Ren teaches a calibration target that is configured to be coupled with a seatbelt buckle (see claim 14, above), but the calibration target of Ren is designed to be permanently part of the vehicle (see Ren, para. 0003). Thus, the combination of Ren with Nelapati in view of Ikram and further in view of Jiang does not reasonably render obvious the invention of claim 21.
Claim 22 is allowable because it depends upon, and thus includes all the limitations of, claim 21.
Regarding claim 25, Nelapati in view of Ren teaches the system of claim 14. Ikram teaches a corner reflector. However, the combination of Nelapati in view of Ren with the corner reflector of Ikram is not obvious because the calibration target of Ikram cannot reasonably be integrated into a seatbelt in a fixed manner, as taught by Ren (see Ren, para. 0003).
Claim 26 is allowable because it depends upon, and thus includes all the limitations of, claim 25.
Claims 10-12 and 23-24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 10, Nelapati discloses (note: what Nelapati does not teach is struck through),
A method for calibrating an in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor, the method comprising the steps of: initiating a calibration mode of the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor (para. 0035, “The vehicle control module 106 and/or the radar control module 206 initiates operation of the speaker 404 within the interior passenger compartment of the vehicle concurrently to operating the radar 402 to emit calibration reference electromagnetic signals within the interior passenger compartment 401”); ; detecting the first calibration target positioned within the cabin of the vehicle (para. 0037, “It should be noted that FIG. 4 depicts an implementation with three interior audio speakers 404, 418, 420 (e.g., left, right and center), where in such implementations, the calibration process 300 may be performed to determine a respective calibration offset value for each of the audio speakers 404, 418, 420…” The Examiner notes that the calibration process 300 includes a step in which the calibration target is detected); detecting a second calibration target positioned within the cabin of the vehicle (para. 0037, “It should be noted that FIG. 4 depicts an implementation with three interior audio speakers 404, 418, 420 (e.g., left, right and center), where in such implementations, the calibration process 300 may be performed to determine a respective calibration offset value for each of the audio speakers 404, 418, 420…” The Examiner notes that the calibration process 300 includes a step in which the calibration target is detected); calculating bias parameters associated with the first calibration target and/or the second calibration target (para. 0037, “the calibration process 300 may be performed to determine a respective calibration offset value for each of the audio speakers 404, 418, 420.”); and calibrating the in-cabin vehicle RADAR sensor using the calculated bias parameters (para. 0037, “the calibration process 300 may be performed to determine a respective calibration offset value for each of the audio speakers 404, 418, 420, which, in turn, may be averaged to arrive at an averaged calibration offset value to be applied to subsequent radar returns.”).
Ren teaches a calibration target that is configured to be coupled with a seatbelt buckle of the vehicle (para. 0046, “The one or more detected fiducial points may be implemented as fiducial markers (alternatively referred to herein as fiducial point markers) integrated into the…seatbelts…” The examiner notes that a target that is integrated into a seatbelt is configured to be coupled with a seatbelt buckle of the vehicle, since the seatbelt is configured to be coupled with the seatbelt buckle and the target is part of the seatbelt), however, the calibration target of Ren is a permanent fixture in the vehicle (see Ren, para. 0003). Thus, it would not be obvious to couple the calibration target of Ren with a seatbelt buckle, because the target comes pre-coupled.
Claims 11-12 and 23-24 are allowed because they depend upon, and thus include all limitations of, claim 10.
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
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 Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648