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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 11-30 are pending. Claims 1-10 are canceled by Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
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.
Claims 11-13, 16-17, 23-25, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galula et al. (US 2020/0216097) (hereinafter Galula as previously cited) in view of Bandakka et al. (US 2013/0125107) (hereinafter Bandakka).
As per claim 11, Galula primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a processor system for a vehicle (title), comprising at least one processor (fig. 2, block 201) in communication with a non-transitory computer readable memory storing a plurality of instructions (fig. 1, blocks 120 and 125) that, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:
output an instruction for starting ([0066] security layer may detect process execution by receiving signals, messages or events from an operating system in ECU, and the security layer or processor may detect, determine or identify that a process has been invoked in ECU and [0070] kill a process, restart it, revert a system to a known state) and stopping processes ([0008] reverting a component to a known state and blocking a message and killing a process; [0045] security layer may scan, analyze, examine or monitor the memory of running processes; [0047] kill or stop execution of the relevant/violating process, reboot a system, revert to a known state of a system; and [0054] when security layer identifies or detects a dirty, unexpected or suspicious operation or event, security layer kills e.g. terminates execution of a process);
receive a process list with started processes ([0078] and [0081] lists of processes); and
output a termination signal for stopping the at least one process should the process list comprise the at least one process ([0078] and [0080]-[0081] a list may indicate that a specific process, script or program is allowed to access files in a first folder, accordingly, if the process accesses files in a second, different folder, heuristic or rule engine may determine a rule was breached and may perform an action e.g., report the event, terminate the process).
Galula does not explicitly teach:
receive a degradation signal specifying a failed remote software update;
upon receipt of the degradation signal specifying the failed remote software update, output an instruction instructing a change to a predetermined state, with an execution of at least one process not being allowed in the predetermined state.
However, Bandakka teaches:
receive a degradation signal specifying a failed remote software update ([0024] the firmware update configuration file can be received, on the client device, from a remote management server storing firmware update information for a plurality of client devices. If the files and files sizes in the list and in the repository path do not match, the firmware update process can report an appropriate error and does not proceed. If the cyclic redundancy check values do not match, the update process can stop and report an appropriate error to a remote management server or software and [0084] if the update encounters a failure or error sending appropriate and exact error information to the remote management server e.g., by identifying, in the error message sent to the remote management server, the type of error encountered and the update operation during which the error was detected);
upon receipt of the degradation signal specifying the failed remote software update, output an instruction instructing a change to a predetermined state, with an execution of at least one process not being allowed in the predetermined state ([0073] if one or more cyclic redundancy check values is not found, the firmware update application stops the firmware updating process and returns an error to the remote management server and [0106] if the firmware update application does not receive a response from the remote management server, or if the firmware update application receives an error response, the firmware update application can terminate the firmware update process).
Bandakka and Galula are both concerned with process management in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galula in view of Bandakka because it would provide for verification and/or authentication of executable code prior to loading of the executable code into memory and, in case validation or authentication fails, loading of the executable code into the memory may be canceled, prevented or aborted. For example, if validation or authentication fails, a controller may prevent the executable code from being loaded into the memory or the controller may abort a loading of the executable code into the memory. This would improve the technology of vehicle computer security by preventing malicious or suspicious code from being loaded into computer memory thus increasing security of the systems.
As per claim 12, Bandakka teaches a nonvolatile storage module, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to store the degradation signal in the nonvolatile storage module ( [0075]-[0076] error signals and non-volatile memory).
As per claim 13, Galula further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive the termination signal; and initiate a shutdown of at least a part of the processor system upon reception of the termination signal ([0053] and [0058] if the behavior of a system deviates from an expected behavior, security layer may include disabling a component connected to an in-vehicle communication network e.g., shutdown ECU).
As per claim 16, Galula further teaches wherein the at least one processor is a single System-on-a-Chip (“SoC”)-based processor ([0019] system on chip (SOC)).
As per claim 17, Galula further teaches wherein the at least one process relates to a driving function for automated driving ([0002] autonomous vehicles).
As per claim 23, it has similar limitations as claim 17 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 24, it has similar limitations as claim 17 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 25, it has similar limitations as claim 11 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 27, it has similar limitations as claim 13 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 30, it has similar limitations as claims 23-24 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 14 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Gerszberg et al. (US 2018/0261925) (hereinafter Gerszberg as previously cited).
As per claim 14, Galula in view of Bandakka do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to initiate the shutdown by means of a heartbeat to a watchdog.
However, Gerszberg teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to initiate the shutdown by means of a heartbeat to a watchdog ([0316] watchdog relay can perform various functions including heartbeat monitoring and fail-safe shutdown. Detection of an undesired condition caused by power surges, extreme weather or device malfunctions, results in the watchdog relay energizing and providing a shutdown signal that can be used to achieve shut down).
Gerszberg and Galula are both concerned with vehicles and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Gerszberg because it would provide a way to facilitate providing power management to the system in the event of a fail-safe shutdown.
As per claim 28, it has similar limitations as claim 14 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Wunderlich et al. (US 12,141,022) (hereinafter Wunderlich as previously cited).
As per claim 15, Galula in view of Bandakka do not explicitly teach wherein at least one of: states of processes is indicated by quality managed (“QM”) pursuant to standard International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) 26262; the instruction for starting and stopping the process is indicated by Automotive Safety Integrity Level (“ASIL”) A, ASIL B, ASIL C, or ASIL D pursuant to standard ISO 26262; or the degradation signal specifying a failed remote software update is indicated by ASIL A, ASIL B, ASIL C, or ASIL D pursuant to standard ISO 26262.
However, Wunderlich teaches wherein at least one of: states of processes is indicated by quality managed (“QM”) pursuant to standard International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) 26262; the instruction for starting and stopping the process is indicated by Automotive Safety Integrity Level (“ASIL”) A, ASIL B, ASIL C, or ASIL D pursuant to standard ISO 26262; or the degradation signal specifying a failed remote software update is indicated by ASIL A, ASIL B, ASIL C, or ASIL D pursuant to standard ISO 26262 (col. 2, ll. 4-28 and ll. 50-57 vehicle ISO 26262, QM, and ASIL A-D).
Wunderlich and Galula are both concerned with vehicles and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Wunderlich because it would provide for increased failure safety of the shut-off unit which offers the advantage of intercepting unforeseen motor interventions in the steering to minimize the risk of dangerous malfunctions of safety-relevant electronic systems. This means that safety can be guaranteed in all conceivable situations within the scope of ISO 26262, ASIL D specifications.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto et al. (US 12,157,496) (hereinafter Nemoto as previously cited).
As per claim 18, Galula in view of Bandakka do not explicitly teach a first processor and a second processor, wherein the first processor sends the degradation signal to the at least one processor, and wherein the second processor receives the termination signal for stopping the at least one process.
However, Nemoto teaches a first processor and a second processor, wherein the first processor sends the degradation signal to the at least one processor, and wherein the second processor receives the termination signal for stopping the at least one process (col. 8, ll. 52 to col. 9, ll. 2 a control device provided in a vehicle that executes autonomous traveling control comprising: a first processor that is configured to execute the autonomous traveling control of the vehicle, and set a traveling plan to a destination; and a second processor that is configured to execute a first process, a second process, and a third process, the first process of detecting that the autonomous traveling control is not able to be continued to the destination due to a failure of the autonomous traveling control and executing stop control of the vehicle, the stop control of the vehicle corresponding to the vehicle being pulled over to a shoulder to stop, the failure of the autonomous traveling control being detected based on error detection in a response signal by the first processor to a transmitted signal by the second processor).
Nemoto and Galula are both concerned with vehicles and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto because it would provide a way for when it is determined that the autonomous traveling control cannot be continued, the control device causes the vehicle to travel in a limp home mode to a safe evacuation site and then stops the vehicle. Then, when the vehicle is stopped, the control is terminated without operating a parking device. This suppresses difficulty in movement of the vehicle after the vehicle is stopped.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto in view of Huang et al. (US 2019/0359222) (hereinafter Huang as previously cited).
As per claim 19, Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto do not explicitly teach wherein the second processor, upon execution of a second set of instructions, is configured to output a planned trajectory to electronic control units of corresponding actuators of a vehicle driving autonomously.
However, Huang teaches wherein the second processor, upon execution of a second set of instructions, is configured to output a planned trajectory to electronic control units of corresponding actuators of a vehicle driving autonomously ([0004] and [0037] calculate a desired vehicle trajectory, one or more of ECUs may be configured to effectuate/form trajectory control subsystem, wherein trajectory control subsystem uses planning output and state estimation output in conjunction with feedback and/or feedforward control techniques to calculate actuator commands e.g., control data that may cause autonomous vehicle to execute its intended trajectory within it operating environment).
Huang and Galula are both concerned with vehicles and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto in view of Huang because it would provide for multiple ECUs to enhance redundance and reliability. By gathering sensor data and generating updated failure contingency plans more frequently, the more accurate and current the resulting failure contingency plans will be.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto in view of Koopman et al. (US 2019/0056735) (hereinafter Koopman as previously cited).
As per claim 20, Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto do not explicitly teach wherein the second processor, in response to receiving the termination signal for stopping the at least one process, no longer outputs the planned trajectory.
However, Koopman teaches wherein the second processor, in response to receiving the termination signal for stopping the at least one process, no longer outputs the planned trajectory ([0036] if the Complex Subsystem fails silently via the decision logic disconnecting the Complex Subsystem when it generates unsafe trajectories), then the Safety Subsystem is put in control of the vehicle if a command is not received from the Complex Subsystem within a specified time window. Forcing safety-planner trajectories to terminate in a safe and stopped state can ensure that the trajectories are generated within a limited planning horizon. By limiting the planning horizon, safe trajectory generation can be computationally feasible and can exist entirely within the known configuration space region local to the vehicle, thus eliminating the possibility of encountering an obstacle beyond sensor range while executing the emergency trajectory controls. Terminating a safety-planner trajectory with a stopped state may be necessary to avoid circumstances where after executing a safety maneuver the vehicle ends in an inevitable collision state where no matter what control action is taken in the future, a collision will occur).
Koopman and Galula are both concerned with vehicles and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto in view of Koopman because it would provide for an architecture for autonomous vehicles that incorporates arbitrary autonomy algorithms into a system that upholds strict safety requirements. In this architecture, autonomy components are allowed to fail arbitrarily, even maliciously, while higher-integrity (e.g., higher Safety Integrity Level) “safety gate” components, which might be built without the need for autonomy techniques, uphold safety requirements by using a multi-channel approach to ensure continued operation despite one or potentially multiple component failures.
As per claim 21, Galula in view of Bandakka, in view of Nemoto do not explicitly teach wherein the second processor, in response to receiving the termination signal for stopping the at least one process, outputs a predetermined emergency trajectory instead of the planned trajectory.
However, Koopman teaches wherein the second processor, in response to receiving the termination signal for stopping the at least one process, outputs a predetermined emergency trajectory instead of the planned trajectory ([0036] if the Complex Subsystem fails silently via the decision logic disconnecting the Complex Subsystem when it generates unsafe trajectories), then the Safety Subsystem is put in control of the vehicle if a command is not received from the Complex Subsystem within a specified time window. Forcing safety-planner trajectories to terminate in a safe and stopped state can ensure that the trajectories are generated within a limited planning horizon. By limiting the planning horizon, safe trajectory generation can be computationally feasible and can exist entirely within the known configuration space region local to the vehicle, thus eliminating the possibility of encountering an obstacle beyond sensor range while executing the emergency trajectory controls. Terminating a safety-planner trajectory with a stopped state may be necessary to avoid circumstances where after executing a safety maneuver the vehicle ends in an inevitable collision state where no matter what control action is taken in the future, a collision will occur).
Koopman and Galula are both concerned with vehicles and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto in view of Koopman because it would provide for an architecture for autonomous vehicles that incorporates arbitrary autonomy algorithms into a system that upholds strict safety requirements. In this architecture, autonomy components are allowed to fail arbitrarily, even maliciously, while higher integrity (e.g., higher Safety Integrity Level) “safety gate” components, which might be built without the need for autonomy techniques, uphold safety requirements by using a multi-channel approach to ensure continued operation despite one or potentially multiple component failures.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto in view of Gerszberg.
As per claim 22, Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto do not explicitly teach wherein the second processor is connected to the at least one processor via a heartbeat.
However, Gerszberg teaches wherein the second processor is connected to the at least one processor via a heartbeat ([0316] watchdog relay can perform various functions including heartbeat monitoring and fail-safe shutdown. Detection of an undesired condition caused by power surges, extreme weather or device malfunctions, results in the watchdog relay energizing and providing a shutdown signal that can be used to achieve shut down).
Gerszberg and Galula are both concerned with vehicles and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto in view of Gerszberg because it would provide a way to facilitate providing power management to the system in the event of a fail-safe shutdown.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Stevens et al. (US 2014/0297665) (hereinafter Stevens as previously cited).
As per claim 26, Galula in view of Bandakka do not explicitly teach wherein the second processor receives the termination signal for stopping the at least one process via the at least one processor stopping the heartbeat.
However, Stevens teaches wherein the second processor receives the termination signal for stopping the at least one process via the at least one processor stopping the heartbeat ([0098] a watchdog process that maintains the queues in the worker state store and monitors worker heartbeats. When a worker stops publishing heartbeats it is marked as dead and its mission definition is queued for reassignment to another worker).
Stevens and Galula are both concerned with vehicles and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Stevens because it would provide for a real-time pathway that includes a real-time analytics store containing a storage layer which can facilitate parallelization of stream analytics and to protect against data loss in the event of worker failure. The storage layer keeps all data in memory to optimize data access speed and regularly persists data to disk to provide fault tolerance.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto in view of Huang in view of Koopman.
As per claim 29, Huang teaches outputting a planned trajectory to electronic control units of corresponding actuators of a vehicle driving autonomously ([0004] and [0037] calculate a desired vehicle trajectory, one or more of ECUs may be configured to effectuate/form trajectory control subsystem, wherein trajectory control subsystem uses planning output and state estimation output in conjunction with feedback and/or feedforward control techniques to calculate actuator commands e.g., control data that may cause autonomous vehicle to execute its intended trajectory within it operating environment).
Huang and Galula are both concerned with vehicles and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto in view of Huang because it would provide for multiple ECUs to enhance redundance and reliability. By gathering sensor data and generating updated failure contingency plans more frequently, the more accurate and current the resulting failure contingency plans will be.
Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto in view of Huang do not explicitly teach in response to receiving the termination signal, ceasing outputting of the planned trajectory.
However, Koopman teaches in response to receiving the termination signal, ceasing outputting of the planned trajectory ([0036] if the Complex Subsystem fails silently via the decision logic disconnecting the Complex Subsystem when it generates unsafe trajectories), then the Safety Subsystem is put in control of the vehicle if a command is not received from the Complex Subsystem within a specified time window. Forcing safety-planner trajectories to terminate in a safe and stopped state can ensure that the trajectories are generated within a limited planning horizon. By limiting the planning horizon, safe trajectory generation can be computationally feasible and can exist entirely within the known configuration space region local to the vehicle, thus eliminating the possibility of encountering an obstacle beyond sensor range while executing the emergency trajectory controls. Terminating a safety-planner trajectory with a stopped state may be necessary to avoid circumstances where after executing a safety maneuver the vehicle ends in an inevitable collision state where no matter what control action is taken in the future, a collision will occur).
Koopman and Galula are both concerned with vehicles and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Galula in view of Bandakka in view of Nemoto in view of Huang in view of Koopman because it would provide for an architecture for autonomous vehicles that incorporates arbitrary autonomy algorithms into a system that upholds strict safety requirements. In this architecture, autonomy components are allowed to fail arbitrarily, even maliciously, while higher integrity (e.g., higher Safety Integrity Level) “safety gate” components, which might be built without the need for autonomy techniques, uphold safety requirements by using a multi-channel approach to ensure continued operation despite one or potentially multiple component failures.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments because the new grounds 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.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Ocko et al. (US 2006/0015764) in at least [0086] disclose by monitoring the active processes and comparing them to the list of valid processes, the service appliance can readily identify and terminate an unauthorized process.
Butler et al. (US 2012/0311710) in at least [0063] disclose comparing all applications to be executed to the inventory recordation and terminating execution if not listed thereon.
Choi et al. (US 2019/0034222) in at least [0166] disclose terminate the background running applications based on the list by comparing applications included in the list with the background running applications and determine whether to terminate the background running applications according to a result of the determination.
Winneg et al. (US 7,069,586) in at least col. 17, ll. 60-67 disclose the list may contain one or more entries, where each entry contains an identifier of a process currently executing on the computer system. Each entry may be accessed to determine whether the identifier of the entry is an identifier for the first application. If a match is found, the instance of the first application may be terminated and the identification of the instance may be removed from the list of currently executing processes.
Jain et al. (US 2009/0165132) in at least [0096] disclose the list of currently running processes returned by the operating system can be compared against a predefined list of permitted/prohibited processes and a determination can be made by the monitoring process regarding whether any of the running processes should be halted.
Pecen et al. (US 2013/0078946) in at least [0060] disclose comparing each request for network resources to the list of disapproved mobile device applications, and terminating the requests initiated by mobile device applications on the list. The wireless terminal can use additional or different techniques to prevent the disapproved mobile device applications from being assigned a network resource.
Paczkowski (US 11,809,562) in at least col. 4, ll. 35-37 discloses comparing the current processes being executed in the memory stack to a blacklist signature file and stopping the execution of identified processes.
Wenzinger et al. (US 2009/0013409) in at least claim 8 disclose comparing all processes running on the computer with a whitelist of allowed processes; and terminating all processes not on the whitelist of allowed processes.
Won (US 2019/0118857) disclose electric power steering and sensor signals for safety enhancements.
Verghese et al. (US 2013/0062966) disclose electric vehicle wireless energy transfer systems.
Sarkar et al. (US 2016/0266886) disclose performing a vehicle update.
Sharma et al. (US 2016/0299749) disclose remote software installation.
John Naum Vangelov et al. (US 2019/0217777) disclose automated vehicle software update feedback.
Hartung et al. (US 2017/0139411) disclose autonomous vehicle platform and safety architecture.
Gesang et al. (US 2023/0303052) disclose fuel-saving robot system for ace heavy-duty trucks.
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 Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights