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
The amendments filed 12/15/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-11, & 13-20 remain pending. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, & 20 have been amended. Claims 2, 12 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 6-8, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to "Objections to the Claims" regarding claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 9-16, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to "Claim Rejections -35 USC §112" regarding claim 1, 11, & 20 limitations of "computing device", "first living actor", ""in response", "vehicles indicating yielding" have been fully considered and are persuasive. The corresponding rejection of claims 1, 11, & 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 9-16, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to "Claim Rejections -35 USC §112" regarding claims 6 & 15 antecedent basis issues have been fully considered and are persuasive. The corresponding rejections of claims 6 & 15 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 9-16, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to "claim rejections - 35 USC §112" regarding claims 1, 11, & 20 with no recitation of what sensors/detectors are used to create the data have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 7 lines 12-13):
“Each of the independent claims have been amended and Applicant now believes that the section 112 rejections have been addressed.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
At least with regard to rejections pertaining to recitation of sensors/detectors, the amended claims (as well as the originally filed claims) recite “obtaining … perception data associated with the environment” without clarifying how the data is obtained or what the data is. For the purposes of examination (and based on Fig. 3-300: “lidar system”) the data is assumed to have been collected by a lidar, radar, or camera system.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 line 17 to page 9 line 14, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 8 lines 1-5):
“However, the claims recite eligible subject matter. For example, claim 1 has been amended and recites in part “generating a motion plan for the vehicle based on the inferred existence of at least one of the first living actor and the second living actor, and issuing at least one of a braking, speed, or steering command in accordance with the motion plan.”. Applicant respectfully submits that, as amended, claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception.”
& (page 8 lines 19-21):
“These operations require sensor-derived data processing, trajectory generation, and execution of physical vehicle control commands, and therefore cannot be practically performed in the human mind.”
& (page 8 lines 22-23):
“Moreover, even if portions of the claim were viewed as relating to an abstract idea, claim 1 integrates any such concept into a practical application.”
& (page 9 lines 9-11):
“Such functionality is not routine and instead reflects a specific technological solution to challenges in autonomous vehicle navigation and safety.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
Limitations directed towards “detecting and using intentions of living actors in an environment of a vehicle” and specifically “obtaining perception data …”, “analyzing the perception data …”, “inferring an existence of at least one of (a) a first living actor…”, “generating a motion plan for the vehicle …” are limitations directed towards the abstract idea grouping of mental processes. All of these limitations (singularly as well as as a group) are regularly performed by drivers. Moreover, if any one of these limitations were not performed by a driver (as mental processes) they would not be able to drive a car in an environment which included other vehicles and pedestrians.
The amended limitation of “generating a motion plan for the vehicle …” does not overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection because a driver must generate a motion plan in order for them to move their vehicle; no plan means no signal to the arms and legs which means no control over elements such as the brake pedal, the gas pedal, and the steering wheel. The claim effectively claims the mental processes that a driver uses to drive a vehicle in an environment which includes pedestrians and other vehicles.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claims 1, 11, & 20 in lines 3, 7, & 4 (respectively) recites the limitation "obtain[ing, by a computing device,] perception data associated with the environment". There is no recitation of what sensors/detectors are used to create the data; it is not clear how the data is obtained. However, some sensor(s)/detector(s) are necessary for the data to have been created.
For the purposes of examination (based on Fig. 3 & para 0055: “For example, the vehicle on-board computing device 220 may process sensor data (for example, lidar data, RADAR data, camera images, etc.) in order to identify objects and/or features in the environment of vehicle.”), It is assumed that there is step for gathering data using lidar data, RADAR data, or camera images. Examiner recommends amending the independent claims with subject matter relating to a sensor or detector such as depicted in Fig. 3; This would clarify what sort of data is collected and how the data is collected.
Claims 8 & 17 in lines 7 (both claims) recites the limitation "a course ray to a bounding box of the parked vehicle". It is not clear what a “bounding box” is or how it is determined.
For the purposes of examination (and based on para 0099: “bounding box 902 as shown in FIG. 9” & Fig. 9), “bounding box” is interpreted as a boundary defined by code which surrounds the vehicle and which is then used to determine behavior depending on whether an object is inside or outside the ‘bounding box’.
Regarding inherited limitations:
Claims 2-10, & 12-19 are rejected for inheriting the limitations of a rejected base claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the base claim(s) was rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “a method for detecting and using intentions” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“obtaining perception data associated with the environment;”
“analyzing perception data to detect crosswalks, other vehicles and living actors that are traveling on foot in the environment; and”
“inferring an existence of at least one of (a) a first living actor having a crosswalking intent in response to one of the vehicles indicating yielding at a respective crosswalk of the crosswalks proximate to the first living actor and (b) a second living actor having a jaywalking intent based on movements of the second living actor within a predefined distance of one of the vehicles that is parked.”
“generating a motion plan for the vehicle based on the inferred existence of at least one of the first living actor and the second living actor, and issuing at least one of a braking, speed, or steering command in accordance with the motion plan.”
Explanation:
Issue:
These limitations (except for inclusion of generic computer elements) are directed towards processes which can be done in the human mind.
Rule:
According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.”
According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”.
Analysis:
“perception data”, “detect” elements of the environment such as “crosswalks”, “inferring” existence of “actor having a crosswalking intent” or a “jaywalking intent”, “generating a motion plan” are processes regularly performed by the human mind.
Conclusion:
Therefore, these limitations are directed towards nonpatentable subject matter of “mental processes”.
Additionally, ‘issuing a command’ is at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation is ‘sending a signal’. Which is something any computing system from brains to generic computing elements is capable of doing and so could be considered to be a mental process.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The additional elements of:
“a computing device”, “a vehicle”, “other vehicles”, “crosswalk[s]”
Are “merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception … activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field” (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional element(s) as recited in step 2A prong two are “directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements” and “that the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer” (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(1) and form paragraph 7.05.016)
Evidentiary requirements (see MPEP 2106.07(a)(III) “A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)”)
Regarding the additional element of “vehicle[s]”,:
US 12037018 B2 “Navigation Relative To Pedestrians At Crosswalks” (Shalev-Shwartz) see Fig. 2A-2E vehicle 200 & Fig. 12 vehicle 1217
US 11460846 B2 “Unmarked Crosswalks For Autonomous Vehicles” (Parasuram) see Fig. Fig. 2 & Fig. 5A vehicle 100
Regarding the additional element of “crosswalk[s]”,:
US 12037018 B2 “Navigation Relative To Pedestrians At Crosswalks” (Shalev-Shwartz) see Title & Fig. 44
US 11460846 B2 “Unmarked Crosswalks For Autonomous Vehicles” (Parasuram) see Title & Fig. 5A-5C
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “a method for detecting and using intentions” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein the living actors include at least one pedestrian.”
These elements are no more than humans (or data about humans), MPEP 2106.04(b) Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena & Products of Nature. As such, they are non-patentable subject matter.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “a method for detecting and using intentions” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“wherein the inferring of the existence of at least one of a first living actor and a second living actor includes identifying that at least one of the other vehicles is within a predefined distance of one of the crosswalks and is determined to be yielding.”
Explanation:
Issue:
These limitations are directed towards processes which can be done in the human mind.
Rule:
According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.”
Analysis:
“inferring”, “identifying”, & “determined” are mental processes and are therefore judicial exceptions.
Conclusion:
Therefore, these limitations are directed towards nonpatentable subject matter of “mental processes”.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “a method for detecting and using intentions” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“further comprising: obtaining a likelihood value indicating how likely an intent of the first living actor is to cross along the respective crosswalk;”
“and increasing the likelihood value in response to the first living actor being located on the respective crosswalk at which one of the vehicles is yielding.”
Explanation:
Issue:
These limitations are directed towards processes which can be done in the human mind.
Rule:
According to 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.”
Analysis:
“obtaining a likelihood value”, “intent of”, & “likelihood value in response” are mental processes and are therefore judicial exceptions.
Conclusion:
Therefore, these limitations are directed towards nonpatentable subject matter of “mental processes”.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “a method for detecting and using intentions” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“wherein the likelihood value is increased by an amount based on at least one of (i) a presence of one or more yielding vehicles at the respective crosswalk, (ii) a number of yielding vehicles or queuing vehicles at the respective crosswalk, (iii) likelihood values associated with the one or more yielding vehicles, (iv) geometric reasoning information associated with the first living actor and the respective crosswalk, and (v) geometric reasoning information associated with the vehicle and the respective crosswalk.”
Explanation:
Issue:
These limitations are directed towards processes which can be done in the human mind (and mathematical concepts).
Rule:
According to 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.”
(Also MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS)
Analysis:
“likelihood value is increased”, “likelihood values”, & “geometric reasoning information” are mental processes (and mathematical concepts) and are therefore judicial exceptions.
Conclusion:
Therefore, these limitations are directed towards nonpatentable subject matter of “mental processes” (and mathematical concepts).
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “a method for detecting and using intentions” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 7 additionally recites:
“wherein the inferring of the existence of at least one of a first living actor and a second living actor includes: identifying at least one of the vehicles that are closest to the second living actor;”
“extracting at least one social feature indicative of a behavior of the second living actor in relation to the at least one vehicle;”
“and using the at least one social feature to generate a likelihood that the second living actor intends to jaywalk.”
Explanation:
Issue:
These limitations are directed towards processes which can be done in the human mind (and mathematical concepts).
Rule:
According to 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.”
Analysis:
“inferring of the existence”, “identifying”, “extracting … social feature indicative of a behavior”, & “social feature to generate a likelihood” are mental processes and are therefore judicial exceptions.
Conclusion:
Therefore, these limitations are directed towards nonpatentable subject matter of “mental processes”.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “a method for detecting and using intentions” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 7 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 7 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“wherein the at least one social feature includes a probability that a vehicle is parked, a distance in an X direction between a pedestrian's center axis and a vehicle's center point, a distance in a Y direction between the pedestrian's center axis and the vehicle's center point, an angle of the pedestrian in a vehicle frame, a difference in a distance from the pedestrian to a boundary of a closest lane and a distance from a parked vehicle to the boundary of the closest lane, a distance along a course ray to a bounding box of the parked vehicle, and a distance between a course ray and the bousing box of the parked vehicle.”
Explanation:
Issue:
These limitations are directed towards processes which can be done in the human mind (and mathematical concepts).
Rule:
According to 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.”
Analysis:
“social feature” are mental processes and are therefore judicial exceptions.
(“probability”, “distance”, & “angle” are mathematical concepts and are not patentable subject matter under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
Conclusion:
Therefore, these limitations are directed towards nonpatentable subject matter of “mental processes”.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “a method for detecting and using intentions” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 9 additionally recites:
“wherein the analyzing further includes identifying the vehicles that are located on the crosswalks, the living actors that are located on the crosswalks, and the living actors that are located in predefined proximity to road edges.”
Explanation:
Issue:
These limitations are directed towards processes which can be done in the human mind.
Rule:
According to 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.”
Analysis:
“analyzing” & “identifying” are mental processes and are therefore judicial exceptions.
Conclusion:
Therefore, these limitations are directed towards nonpatentable subject matter of “mental processes”.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a “a method for detecting and using intentions” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“wherein the inferring further includes making an assumption that a third living actor exists with a crosswalking intent when (i) no living actor was detected during the analyzing as being on a given crosswalk of the crosswalks and (ii) one of the vehicles is located on the given crosswalk and is classified as a crosswalk yielding system.”
Explanation:
Issue:
These limitations are directed towards processes which can be done in the human mind.
Rule:
According to 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.”
Analysis:
“inferring”, “making an assumption”, “intent”, “detected”, “analyzing”, & “classified” are mental processes and are therefore judicial exceptions.
Conclusion:
Therefore, these limitations are directed towards nonpatentable subject matter of “mental processes”.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claims 11, & 13-20 are rejected for analogous reasons as claims 1, & 3-10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12065132 B2 "Methods And Systems For Inferring Unpainted Stop Lines For Autonomous Vehicles" (Seegmiller) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 20240034355 A1 "Method For Controlling A Vehicle When An Obstacle Is Detected In Surroundings Of The Vehicle; Control Device For A Vehicle With An Autonomous Driving Function; Computer Readable Medium And Motor Vehicle" (Böddeker) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3.
US 9302678 B2 "Robotic Driving System" (Murphy) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2.
US 20210118303 A1 "Method of Controlling Vehicle Considering Adjacent Pedestrian's Behavior"(Chan) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 4.
US 11760388 B2 "Assessing Present Intentions Of An Actor Perceived By An Autonomous Vehicle" (Savtchenko) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2.
US 11691650 B2 "Systems And Methods For Generating Motion Forecast Data For A Plurality Of Actors With Respect To An Autonomous Vehicle" (Li) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 5.
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858