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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 5/19/2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 22, 29 and 30; and canceled claim 20. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19 and 22-30 are pending and are examined below.
CONTINUED EXAMINATION UNDER 37 CFR § 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 5/19/2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regard to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 1, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose the amended features of claim 1. Namely, Applicant argues Ben’s disclose at para. [0253] that “processing unit 110 may cause the system response when the traffic light is yellow or red, or when the traffic light is transitioning from yellow to red, or when the traffic light is transitioning from green to yellow” does not read on the added limitation of “predict whether at least one of the color or the symbol of the traffic signal will change based on at least one of (1) an amount of time that the color or the symbol has remained constant or (2) data about behavior of the traffic signal at the intersection prior to the vehicle reaching the intersection.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ben discloses the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following claim limitations:
identify that (1) a vehicle is approaching an intersection and (2) at least one of a color or a symbol of a traffic signal at the intersection based on sensor data while the vehicle is operating (“FIG. 5D is a flowchart showing an exemplary process 500D for detecting traffic lights in a set of images … processing unit 110 may perform color analysis on the candidate objects and identify the relative position of the detected colors appearing inside possible traffic lights.” ¶ 126 and FIG. 5D. See also ¶¶ 152, 191.).
predict whether at least one of the color or the symbol of the traffic signal will change based on at least data about behavior of the traffic signal at the intersection prior to the vehicle reaching the intersection (“Traffic lights may be detected from images captured by one or more image capture devices 122-126 … processing unit 110 may identify a transition status (e.g., from green to yellow to red) based on the colors of the traffic light captured in a plurality of images (e.g., two or more sequentially acquired images).” Emphasis added; ¶ 232. “When processing unit 110 determines that one or more conditions are satisfied, and the vehicle is approaching a red light (a yellow light, or a green light that is transitioning to a yellow light), processing unit 110 may cause a system response. The system response may include an alert or warning notification to the driver of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the system response may include an acceleration (to pass the intersection more quickly), a braking (to reduce the speed or to stop before the intersection), or maintaining the current speed (to safely pass the intersection).” Emphasis added; ¶ 244. Note: Determining that a green light is transitioning to a yellow light based on colors of a traffic light captured sequentially analogizes to the BRI of predicting that a color of the traffic signal will change based on data about traffic signal behavior as it is a determination that the green light will change to a yellow light based on how the traffic signal behaves.).
implement, based on the sensor data, the time to arrival at the intersection, and the prediction that at least one of the color or the symbol of the traffic signal will change, an intersection actuator behavior at a time instance at which the time to arrival at the intersection equals a threshold value (“When processing unit 110 determines that one or more conditions are satisfied, and the vehicle is approaching a red light (a yellow light, or a green light that is transitioning to a yellow light), processing unit 110 may cause a system response. The system response may include an alert or warning notification to the driver of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the system response may include an acceleration (to pass the intersection more quickly), a braking (to reduce the speed or to stop before the intersection), or maintaining the current speed (to safely pass the intersection).” ¶ 244. The processing unit 110 may “trigger the system response when the amount of time is smaller than or equal to the predetermined time threshold.” See at least ¶ 271. The system response may constitute “braking of the vehicle” – see at least ¶ 265.).
Summarizing, Ben predicts that a color of a traffic signal will change based on at least data about behavior of the traffic signal at the intersection prior to the vehicle reaching the intersection; Ben then implements actuator behavior based on the predicted change in color of the traffic signal. Hence, Ben reads on the BRI of the claim limitations at issue.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” which is coupled with functional language. Such claim limitations are: “means for identifying,” “means for computing,” “means for identifying,” “means for adjusting,” “means for outputting a first indication” and “means for outputting a second indication” in claim 29.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes: cellular baseband processor 1524 and/or the application processor 1506 (See PGPUB para. [0150].)
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 13-16, 18, 19 and 22-30 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Shalom (US20160318490A1; “Ben”) in view of Kakeshita et al. (US20240109535A1; “Kakeshita”).
As to independent claim 1, Ben discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a device, comprising:
at least one memory (“memory” – ¶ 46; see also FIG. 1.); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (“central processing unit (CPU)” – see at least ¶ 46; see also FIG. 1.), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
identify that (1) a vehicle is approaching an intersection and (2) at least one of a color or a symbol of a traffic signal at the intersection based on sensor data while the vehicle is operating (“Processing unit 110 may determine an amount of time until the vehicle will reach an intersection associated with the traffic light fixture based on the distance and a current speed of the vehicle” – see at least ¶ 271. “FIG. 5D is a flowchart showing an exemplary process 500D for detecting traffic lights in a set of images … processing unit 110 may perform color analysis on the candidate objects and identify the relative position of the detected colors appearing inside possible traffic lights.” ¶ 126 and FIG. 5D. See also ¶¶ 152, 191.);
compute a time to arrival at the driving event based on the sensor data (“Processing unit 110 may determine an amount of time until the vehicle will reach an intersection associated with the traffic light fixture based on the distance and a current speed of the vehicle” – see at least ¶ 271.);
predict whether at least one of the color or the symbol of the traffic signal will change based on at least data about behavior of the traffic signal at the intersection prior to the vehicle reaching the intersection (“Traffic lights may be detected from images captured by one or more image capture devices 122-126 … processing unit 110 may identify a transition status (e.g., from green to yellow to red) based on the colors of the traffic light captured in a plurality of images (e.g., two or more sequentially acquired images).” Emphasis added; ¶ 232. “When processing unit 110 determines that one or more conditions are satisfied, and the vehicle is approaching a red light (a yellow light, or a green light that is transitioning to a yellow light), processing unit 110 may cause a system response. The system response may include an alert or warning notification to the driver of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the system response may include an acceleration (to pass the intersection more quickly), a braking (to reduce the speed or to stop before the intersection), or maintaining the current speed (to safely pass the intersection).” Emphasis added; ¶ 244. Note: Determining that a green light is transitioning to a yellow light based on colors of a traffic light captured sequentially analogizes to the BRI of predicting that a color of the traffic signal will change based on data about traffic signal behavior as it is a determination that the green light will change to a yellow light based on how the traffic signal behaves.)
implement, based on the sensor data, the time to arrival at the intersection, and the prediction that at least one of the color or the symbol of the traffic signal will change, an intersection actuator behavior at a time instance at which the time to arrival at the intersection equals a threshold value (“When processing unit 110 determines that one or more conditions are satisfied, and the vehicle is approaching a red light (a yellow light, or a green light that is transitioning to a yellow light), processing unit 110 may cause a system response. The system response may include an alert or warning notification to the driver of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the system response may include an acceleration (to pass the intersection more quickly), a braking (to reduce the speed or to stop before the intersection), or maintaining the current speed (to safely pass the intersection).” ¶ 244. The processing unit 110 may “trigger the system response when the amount of time is smaller than or equal to the predetermined time threshold.” See at least ¶ 271. The system response may constitute “braking of the vehicle” – see at least ¶ 265.); and
output a first indication if the green light actuator behavior is implemented and output a second indication if the intersection actuator behavior is implemented to indicate whether the vehicle is driving through the intersection or stopping before the intersection (“When processing unit 110 determines that one or more conditions are satisfied, and the vehicle is approaching a red light (a yellow light, or a green light that is transitioning to a yellow light), processing unit 110 may cause a system response. The system response may include an alert or warning notification to the driver of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the system response may include an acceleration (to pass the intersection more quickly), a braking (to reduce the speed or to stop before the intersection), or maintaining the current speed (to safely pass the intersection).” ¶ 244. Note: That is, a corresponding indication is provided as to whether the vehicle is implementing green light actuator behavior (i.e., accelerating through the intersection) or intersection actuator behavior (i.e., stopping at the intersection).).
Ben fails to explicitly disclose: implement intersection actuator behavior at a time instance at which the time to arrival equals a threshold value such that the implementation of the intersection actuator behavior is capable of being overridden prior to the vehicle reaching the intersection.
Nevertheless, Kakeshita teaches: adjusting actuator behavior at a time instance such that the actuator behavior is capable of being overridden prior to the vehicle reaching a driving event (“The ECU20 determines that a driver has performed an acceleration override operation when an acceleration override condition … is satisfied. In this case, the ECU20 prohibits the collision control.” See at least ¶ 37. “In a case where the acceleration override flag Xaor is ‘1’ when the process proceeds to step 245 (step 245: Yes), the process proceeds to step 260. In step 260, the CPU sets the execution flag Xexe to ‘0’. After that, the process proceeds to step 295, and the CPU terminates the present routine tentatively. Therefore, when the CPU determines that the driver has performed the acceleration override operation during execution of the collision control, the CPU stops/canceling the collision control being executed (that is, the CPU prohibits the collision control).” ¶ 66. See also FIG. 2.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ben with the feature of: adjusting actuator behavior at a time instance such that the actuator behavior is capable of being overridden prior to the vehicle reaching a driving event, as taught by Kakeshita, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing a driver more agency to control their vehicle, thereby enhancing user comfort and safety. As Kakeshita illustrates, it is known concept in the art to implement automatic vehicle control early enough such that the control can be overridden, as otherwise accidents may occur. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Ben’s intersection is a form of driving event to which Kakeshita’s teaching may apply to with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success given that it is naturally desirable to stop before reaching an intersection. Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Ben’s actuator behaviors may be modified with Kakeshita’s teaching with a reasonable expectation of success as they are forms of acceleration control as well.
Independent claims 22, 29 and 30 are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claims 2 and 23, Ben discloses: wherein to identify that the vehicle is approaching the intersection, the at least one processor is configured to: detect that the vehicle is moving toward the intersection and that the vehicle is within a threshold distance of the intersection (The processing unit 110 may determine whether “the distance to the intersection is smaller than or equal to a predetermined distance” – see at least ¶ 265.).
As to claims 3 and 24, Ben discloses: obtain the sensor data prior to the identification that the vehicle is approaching the intersection, wherein to identify that the vehicle is approaching the intersection, the at least one processor is configured to identify that the vehicle is approaching the intersection based on the obtained sensor data (“Processing unit 110 may determine an amount of time until the vehicle will reach an intersection associated with the traffic light fixture based on the distance and a current speed of the vehicle” – see at least ¶ 271.).
As to claims 4 and 25, Ben discloses: wherein the vehicle is operating in a self-driving mode while approaching the intersection (The vehicle may be an “autonomous vehicle” – see at least ¶ 155.).
As to claims 5 and 26, Ben discloses: wherein the vehicle is operating in a driver-assisted mode while approaching the intersection (The vehicle may be a “conventional vehicle operated by a driver” – see at least ¶ 155.).
As to claims 7, 27 and 28, Ben discloses: wherein to implement the green light actuator behavior based on the sensor data and the time to arrival at the intersection being equal to the threshold value, the at least one processor is configured to increase an acceleration value or maintain a current acceleration of the vehicle at the time instance at which the time to arrival at the intersection is equal to the threshold value (“If the traffic light is green, system 100 may cause vehicle 200 to continue.” ¶ 170. “If vehicle 200 is within a predetermined time (e.g., five seconds, ten seconds, etc.) and/or distance (e.g., one meter, five meters, ten meters, etc.) threshold, system 100 may cause vehicle 200 to continue to pass the intersection (e.g., by maintaining the current speed and direction or by accelerating).” ¶ 171.).
As to claim 8, Ben discloses: wherein to implement the intersection actuator behavior based on the sensor data and the time to arrival at the intersection being equal to the threshold value, the at least one processor is configured to decrease an acceleration value of the vehicle at a time instance at which the time to arrival at the intersection is equal to the threshold value (The processing unit 110 may “trigger the system response when the amount of time is smaller than or equal to the predetermined time threshold.” See at least ¶ 271. The system response may constitute “braking of the vehicle” – see at least ¶ 265.).
As to claim 9, Ben discloses: wherein to compute the time to arrival at the intersection, the at least one processor is configured to compute a first time to a stop position associated with the intersection (“Processing unit 110 may determine the TTC based on the current distance from the vehicle to the intersection (e.g., to the stop line …).” See at least ¶ 157.).
As to claim 13, Ben discloses: wherein to implement the green light actuator behavior or the intersection actuator behavior the at least one processor is configured to implement the green light actuator behavior or the intersection actuator behavior prior to the vehicle reaching the intersection (The processing unit 110 may “trigger the system response when the amount of time is smaller than or equal to the predetermined time threshold.” See at least ¶ 271. The system response may constitute “braking of the vehicle” – see at least ¶ 265.).
As to claim 14, Ben discloses: provide, concurrently with the implementation of the intersection actuator behavior, at least one visual indication that the vehicle is approaching the intersection (When the system 100 determines that one or more conditions are satisfied in respect to approaching an intersection, “a visual alert message may be displayed on the on-board display to the driver;” the system may also “cause an automatic navigational response (regardless of whether the vehicle is a conventional vehicle operated by a driver or an autonomous vehicle), such as braking to decelerate.” See at least ¶ 155. Indeed, the system 100 may “provide a warning or alert toa driver,” and, “Additionally …, system 100 may cause vehicle 200 e to take a navigational response, such as acceleration, deceleration.” Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 228.).
As to claim 15, Ben discloses: provide, concurrently with the implementation of the intersection actuator behavior, at least one auditory indication that the vehicle is approaching the intersection (When the system 100 determines that one or more conditions are satisfied in respect to approaching an intersection, “an auditory message may be sounded to alert the driver;” the system may also “cause an automatic navigational response (regardless of whether the vehicle is a conventional vehicle operated by a driver or an autonomous vehicle), such as braking to decelerate.” See at least ¶ 155. Indeed, the system 100 may “provide a warning or alert to a driver,” and, “Additionally …, system 100 may cause vehicle 200 e to take a navigational response, such as acceleration, deceleration.” Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 228.).
As to claim 16, Ben discloses: wherein the first indication corresponds to at least one of a first visual indication, a first haptic indication, or a first auditory indication, and wherein the second indication corresponds to at least one of a second visual indication, a second haptic indication, or a second auditory indication (When the system 100 determines that one or more conditions are satisfied in respect to approaching an intersection, “an auditory message may be sounded to alert the driver;” the system may also “cause an automatic navigational response (regardless of whether the vehicle is a conventional vehicle operated by a driver or an autonomous vehicle), such as braking to decelerate.” See at least ¶ 155. Indeed, the system 100 may “provide a warning or alert to a driver,” and, “Additionally …, system 100 may cause vehicle 200 e to take a navigational response, such as acceleration, deceleration.” Emphasis added; see at least ¶ 228.).
As to claim 18, Ben discloses: wherein to output the first indication or the second indication, the at least one processor is configured to store, in the memory or a cache, first indication or the second indication (“Processing unit 110 may include various devices, such as … memory.” ¶ 50. Continuing: “When processing unit 110 determines that one or more conditions are satisfied, and the vehicle is approaching a red light (a yellow light, or a green light that is transitioning to a yellow light), processing unit 110 may cause a system response. The system response may include an alert or warning notification to the driver of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the system response may include an acceleration (to pass the intersection more quickly), a braking (to reduce the speed or to stop before the intersection), or maintaining the current speed (to safely pass the intersection).” ¶ 244. Note: Per the ordinary understanding of computer architecture, the processing unit 110 would necessarily have to query its associated memory in order to obtain and then subsequently present a corresponding alert/warning notification.).
As to claim 19, Ben discloses: wherein to output the first indication or the second indication, the at least one processor is configured to output the first indication or the second indication to at least one system of the vehicle (“When processing unit 110 determines that one or more conditions are satisfied, and the vehicle is approaching a red light (a yellow light, or a green light that is transitioning to a yellow light), processing unit 110 may cause a system response. The system response may include an alert or warning notification to the driver of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the system response may include an acceleration (to pass the intersection more quickly), a braking (to reduce the speed or to stop before the intersection), or maintaining the current speed (to safely pass the intersection).” ¶ 244. Note: That is, a corresponding indication is provided as to whether the vehicle is implementing green light actuator behavior (i.e., accelerating through the intersection) or intersection actuator behavior (i.e., stopping at the intersection).).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ben in view of Kakeshita as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Zhu (US20210403043A1; “Zhu”).
As to claim 10, the combination of Ben and Kakeshita fails to explicitly disclose: wherein to identify that the vehicle is approaching the intersection, the at least one processor is configured to identify that the vehicle is approaching an obstacle on a road.
Nevertheless, Zhu teaches: wherein to identify that the vehicle is approaching the intersection, at least one processor is configured to identify that the vehicle is approaching an obstacle on a road (It may be determined “that a predicted time to a collision with an obstacle is less than a predicted time threshold” – see at least ¶ 15. See also ¶ 36 which discusses how Zhu’s invention applies to an “intersection” environment.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ben and Kakeshita to include the feature of: wherein to identify a the vehicle is approaching a driving event, at least one processor is configured to identify that the vehicle is approaching an obstacle on a road, as taught by Zhu, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known and ordinary in the vehicle control art that it is useful to identify whether a vehicle is approaching an obstacle on a road to, for example, avoid collision with said obstacle.
As to claim 11, the combination of Ben and Kakeshita fails to explicitly disclose: adjusting a position of a vehicle such that the vehicle avoids the obstacle.
Nevertheless, Zhu teaches: adjusting a position of a vehicle such that the vehicle avoids the obstacle (Upon “determining that a predicted time to a collision with an obstacle is less than a predicted time threshold, the emergency braking signal can be activated for the ADV.” See at least ¶ 15. Indeed, “a sharp braking action … avoid[s] a collision” – see at least ¶ 14.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ben and Kakeshita to include the feature of: adjusting the position of a vehicle such that the vehicle avoids the obstacle, as taught by Zhu, with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known and ordinary in the vehicle control art that it is useful to perform collision avoidance with obstacles as to avoid crashing a host vehicle.
Claim 17 is rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Ben in view of Kakeshita as applied to claim 1 — further in view of Cho (US20220201445A1; “Cho”).
As to claim 17, the combination of Ben and Kakeshita fails to explicitly disclose: at least one of a transceiver or an antenna coupled to the at least one processor, wherein to output the first indication or the second indication, the at least one processor is configured to transmit, via at least one of the transceiver or the antenna, the first indication or the second indication.
Nevertheless, Cho teaches: at least one processor configured to transmit, via at least a transceiver, an indication of a vehicle control (“The server 250 may receive the state of the vehicle from the vehicle that provides the notification service and may transmit the notification on the state of the vehicle to a communication terminal of a user.” ¶ 75.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Ben and Kakeshita to include the feature of: at least one processor configured to transmit, via at least a transceiver, an indication of a vehicle control, as taught by Cho, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for notifying a driver of a current or upcoming vehicle action, thereby enhancing user satisfaction and safety.
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon pertains to Applicant’s disclosure. Meyer et al. (US20150329107A1) discloses: predicting whether at least one of a color or a symbol of a traffic signal will change based on at least one of: (1) an amount of time that the color or the symbol has remained constant or (2) data about behavior of the traffic signal at the intersection prior to the vehicle reaching the intersection (“If, based on signals output by the autonomous driving sensor 120, the autonomous mode controller 125 determines that the traffic control device 110 has been in the green light state for approximately 110 seconds, the autonomous mode controller 125 may estimate that the traffic control device 110 will change to yellow light state and the red light state within the next 10-15 seconds.” ¶ 19.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/MARIO C GONZALEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights