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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119
(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/312,473, filed on
09/27/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed October 1st, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and is therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed October 1st, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the primary reference Okongi does not disclose “limit acceleration of a pertinent vehicle”. Examiner respectfully disagrees, examiner notes that Okongi does disclose the above limitation. Okongi discloses a Vehicle control device which functions as a control unit or a controller that outputs a control command for changing the driving state of vehicle (own vehicle) (0041). Further, Okongi discloses that the Driving state detection unit includes multiple sensors…..an acceleration sensor for detecting. Wheel speed sensors…and acceleration sensor outputs an acceleration signals to control unit (0032-0033). Lastly, Okongi discloses vehicle control device includes a function for outputting a control command for changing the driving state of vehicle to make way for a vehicle traveling (0041). Therefore, Okongi discloses controlling driving state (i.e. acceleration) and when necessary based on surrounding information increasing driving state (i.e. acceleration). Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20230021000 A1 Okonogi, hereinafter referred to as Okonogi.
Regarding claim 1, Okonogi discloses limiting acceleration of a pertinent vehicle according to an acceleration limitation level which has been set based on a predetermined command (see at least paragraph [0041] “vehicle control device 510 determines a control command (driving action command) for changing the driving state of vehicle 100 based on the obtained information, and outputs the determined control command to speed control device 520 or traveling path control device 530.”);
And adjusting the acceleration limitation level based on a first parameter regarding a driver's request for acceleration and a second parameter regarding a traveling state of a peripheral vehicle when a preset acceleration limitation alleviation condition is satisfied (see at least paragraphs [0041] “vehicle control device 510 determines a control command (driving action command) for changing the driving state of vehicle 100 based on the obtained information, and outputs the determined control command to speed control device 520 or traveling path control device 530”. [0044] “when a command is obtained from vehicle control device 510, speed control device 520 calculates a target acceleration according to a follow-target vehicle and a target inter-vehicle time that are based on the obtained command”).
Regarding claim 4, Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: the preset acceleration limitation alleviation condition comprises a condition that the pertinent vehicle requires additional acceleration, and the condition that the pertinent vehicle requires additional acceleration is determined based on at least one of whether the pertinent vehicle and a front vehicle located in front of the pertinent vehicle maintain a traveling lane (see at least paragraph [0042] “When no command is obtained from vehicle control device 510, speed control device 520 calculates a target acceleration necessary to follow a vehicle (leading vehicle)”),
whether the acceleration of the pertinent vehicle relative to the front vehicle is less than a predetermined acceleration (see at least paragraph [0067] “vehicle control device 510 detects… a vehicle that has generated a deceleration greater than or equal to a predetermined value within a predetermined range from a leading vehicle (second vehicle) in front of that vehicle”),
and whether an instantaneous change rate of an accelerator pedal sensing value exceeds a threshold (see at least paragraph [0118] “…when the vehicle β has decelerated relative to the leading vehicle γ at a deceleration exceeding the threshold Ath, vehicle control device 510 proceeds to step S3050A and calculates a lane change…”).
Regarding claim 5, Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: determining the first parameter based on an amount of instantaneous change of an accelerator pedal sensing value and a maintenance time during which the accelerator pedal sensing value is included in a predetermined range (see at least paragraphs [0032] “an acceleration sensor 420 for detecting the longitudinal acceleration and the lateral acceleration of vehicle 100”. [0246] “Speed control device 520 calculates a target acceleration based on the follow-target vehicle and the target inter-vehicle time received from vehicle control device 510, sets a braking command and/or a drive command for achieving the target acceleration, and outputs the one or more set commands to braking control device 540 and/or drive control device 550”).
Regarding claim 6, Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: determining the second parameter based on a distance between the pertinent vehicle and a peripheral vehicle and the acceleration of the pertinent vehicle relative to the peripheral vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0205] “when the distance between vehicle 100 and a vehicle (trailing vehicle) behind vehicle 100 is less than a predetermined value and the deceleration of vehicle 100 is likely to influence the driving of the trailing vehicle and when vehicle 100 can make a lane change to a passing lane (adjacent right lane), vehicle control device 510 sets a lane change request”. [0061] “vehicle control device 510 includes a function for outputting a control command for changing the driving state of vehicle 100 to make way for a vehicle traveling in a lane adjacent to the own lane according to driving states of nearby vehicles traveling in the own lane and adjacent lanes”).
Regarding claim 7, Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: adjusting the acceleration limitation level such that an upper limit of the acceleration is set to be proportional to a value of the first parameter, and the value of the first parameter is proportional to an amount of instantaneous change of an accelerator pedal sensing value (see at least paragraph [0246] “Speed control device 520 calculates a target acceleration based on the follow-target vehicle and the target inter-vehicle time received from vehicle control device 510, sets a braking command and/or a drive command for achieving the target acceleration, and outputs the one or more set commands to braking control device 540 and/or drive control device 550”).
Regarding claim 8, Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: adjusting the acceleration limitation level such that an upper limit of the acceleration is set to be proportional to a value of the second parameter, and the value of the second parameter is inversely proportional to the acceleration of the pertinent vehicle relative to the peripheral vehicle (see at least paragraph [0061] “vehicle control device 510 includes a function for outputting a control command for changing the driving state of vehicle 100 to make way for a vehicle traveling in a lane adjacent to the own lane according to driving states of nearby vehicles traveling in the own lane and adjacent lanes”. [0067] “vehicle control device 510 detects, from vehicles (first vehicles) traveling in front of vehicle 100 in the adjacent right lane or the adjacent left lane, a vehicle that has generated a deceleration greater than or equal to a predetermined value within a predetermined range from a leading vehicle (second vehicle) in front of that vehicle”).
Regarding claim 9, Okonogi discloses A computer-readable recording medium in which a program for executing the vehicle speed control method of one of claims 1 to 8 is recorded (see at least paragraph [0035] “Each of control devices 510-560 constituting control unit 500 is an electronic control device mainly composed of a microcomputer that performs calculations based on input information and outputs calculation results. The microcomputer includes a microprocessor unit (MPU), a read-only memory (ROM), and a random-access memory (RAM)”).
Regarding claim 10, Okonogi discloses a processor configured to limit acceleration of a pertinent vehicle according to an acceleration limitation level (see at least paragraph [0041] “vehicle control device 510 determines a control command (driving action command) for changing the driving state of vehicle 100 based on the obtained information, and outputs the determined control command to speed control device 520 or traveling path control device 530.”);
and set the acceleration limitation level according to a predetermined command and configured to adjust the acceleration limitation level based on a first parameter regarding a driver's request for acceleration and a second parameter regarding the traveling state of a peripheral vehicle when a preset acceleration limitation alleviation condition is satisfied (see at least paragraphs [0041] “vehicle control device 510 determines a control command (driving action command) for changing the driving state of vehicle 100 based on the obtained information, and outputs the determined control command to speed control device 520 or traveling path control device 530”. [0044] “when a command is obtained from vehicle control device 510, speed control device 520 calculates a target acceleration according to a follow-target vehicle and a target inter-vehicle time that are based on the obtained command”).
Regarding claim 13, Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: wherein the preset acceleration limitation alleviation condition comprises a condition that the pertinent vehicle requires additional acceleration, and the processor is configured to determine the condition that the pertinent vehicle requires additional acceleration based on at least one of whether the pertinent vehicle and a front vehicle located in front of the pertinent vehicle maintain a traveling lane (see at least paragraph [0042] “When no command is obtained from vehicle control device 510, speed control device 520 calculates a target acceleration necessary to follow a vehicle (leading vehicle)”),
whether the acceleration of the pertinent vehicle relative to the front vehicle is less than a predetermined acceleration (see at least paragraph [0067] “vehicle control device 510 detects… a vehicle that has generated a deceleration greater than or equal to a predetermined value within a predetermined range from a leading vehicle (second vehicle) in front of that vehicle”),
and whether an instantaneous change rate of an accelerator pedal sensing value exceeds a threshold (see at least paragraph [0118] “…when the vehicle β has decelerated relative to the leading vehicle γ at a deceleration exceeding the threshold Ath, vehicle control device 510 proceeds to step S3050A and calculates a lane change…”),
Regarding claim 14, Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: wherein the processor is configured to determine the first parameter based on an amount of instantaneous change of an accelerator pedal sensing value and a maintenance time during which the accelerator pedal sensing value is included in a predetermined range (see at least paragraphs [0032] “an acceleration sensor 420 for detecting the longitudinal acceleration and the lateral acceleration of vehicle 100”. [0246] “Speed control device 520 calculates a target acceleration based on the follow-target vehicle and the target inter-vehicle time received from vehicle control device 510, sets a braking command and/or a drive command for achieving the target acceleration, and outputs the one or more set commands to braking control device 540 and/or drive control device 550”).
Regarding claim 15, Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: wherein the processor is configured to determine the second parameter based on a distance between the pertinent vehicle and a peripheral vehicle and the acceleration of the pertinent vehicle relative to the peripheral vehicle (see at least paragraphs [0205] “when the distance between vehicle 100 and a vehicle (trailing vehicle) behind vehicle 100 is less than a predetermined value and the deceleration of vehicle 100 is likely to influence the driving of the trailing vehicle and when vehicle 100 can make a lane change to a passing lane (adjacent right lane), vehicle control device 510 sets a lane change request”. [0061] “vehicle control device 510 includes a function for outputting a control command for changing the driving state of vehicle 100 to make way for a vehicle traveling in a lane adjacent to the own lane according to driving states of nearby vehicles traveling in the own lane and adjacent lanes”).
Regarding claim 16, Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: wherein the processor is configured to adjust the acceleration limitation level such that an upper limit of the acceleration is set to be proportional to a value of the first parameter, and the value of the first parameter is proportional to the amount of instantaneous change of an accelerator pedal sensing value (see at least paragraph [0246] “Speed control device 520 calculates a target acceleration based on the follow-target vehicle and the target inter-vehicle time received from vehicle control device 510, sets a braking command and/or a drive command for achieving the target acceleration, and outputs the one or more set commands to braking control device 540 and/or drive control device 550”).
Regarding claim 17, Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: wherein the processor is configured to adjust the acceleration limitation level such that an upper limit of the acceleration is set to be proportional to a value of the second parameter, and the value of the second parameter is inversely proportional to the acceleration of the pertinent vehicle relative to the peripheral vehicle (see at least paragraph [0061] “vehicle control device 510 includes a function for outputting a control command for changing the driving state of vehicle 100 to make way for a vehicle traveling in a lane adjacent to the own lane according to driving states of nearby vehicles traveling in the own lane and adjacent lanes”. [0067] “vehicle control device 510 detects, from vehicles (first vehicles) traveling in front of vehicle 100 in the adjacent right lane or the adjacent left lane, a vehicle that has generated a deceleration greater than or equal to a predetermined value within a predetermined range from a leading vehicle (second vehicle) in front of that vehicle”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Okonogi, in view of Ito et al., U.S. Patent No. 20210269041 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ito.
Regarding claim 2 Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: whether an instantaneous change rate of an accelerator pedal sensing value exceeds a threshold (see at least paragraph [0118] “…when the vehicle β has decelerated relative to the leading vehicle γ at a deceleration exceeding the threshold Ath, vehicle control device 510 proceeds to step S3050A and calculates a lane change…”),
and whether a rear and lateral vehicle located on a rear and lateral side of the pertinent vehicle is sensed (see at least paragraph [0205] “when the distance between vehicle 100 and a vehicle (trailing vehicle) behind vehicle 100 is less than a predetermined value and the deceleration of vehicle 100 is likely to influence the driving of the trailing vehicle and when vehicle 100 can make a lane change to a passing lane (adjacent right lane), vehicle control device 510 sets a lane change request”).
Okonogi fails to disclose: the preset acceleration limitation alleviation condition comprises a condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes and the condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes is determined based on at least one of whether a direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle is blinking, whether the direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle keeps blinking for a predetermined period of time.
Further, Ito teaches the preset acceleration limitation alleviation condition comprises a condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes and the condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes is determined based on at least one of whether a direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle is blinking, whether the direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle keeps blinking for a predetermined period of time (see at least paragraph [0037] “The time required to change lane represents the time required for the subject vehicle to reach the target point from the time when starting blinking of the direction indicator of the subject vehicle”).
Okonogi discloses a vehicle speed control method that limits acceleration using predetermined commands and parameters while Ito teaches changing lanes using the blinking of the direction indicator.
Thus, 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 Okonogi and include using blinking of the direction indicator as a condition in which the vehicle changes lanes as taught by Ito, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would improve the safety of switching lanes for the user and for other drivers on the road.
Regarding claim 3 Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: the preset acceleration limitation alleviation condition comprises a condition that a front and lateral vehicle located on a front and lateral side of the pertinent vehicle changes lanes and moves into a traveling lane of the pertinent vehicle (see at least paragraph [0061] “vehicle control device 510 includes a function for outputting a control command for changing the driving state of vehicle 100 to make way for a vehicle traveling in a lane adjacent to the own lane according to driving states of nearby vehicles traveling in the own lane and adjacent lanes”),
whether an instantaneous change rate of an accelerator pedal sensing value exceeds a threshold (see at least paragraph [0118] “…when the vehicle β has decelerated relative to the leading vehicle γ at a deceleration exceeding the threshold Ath, vehicle control device 510 proceeds to step S3050A and calculates a lane change…”),
and whether a front vehicle located in front of the pertinent vehicle is sensed in the traveling lane of the pertinent vehicle (see at least paragraph [0109] “At step S3020, vehicle control device 510 calculates an inter-vehicle time Tdif [sec] between a subject vehicle β and a leading vehicle γ traveling immediately in front of the subject vehicle β, a longitudinal relative position Ytf [m] of the leading vehicle γ relative to the own vehicle (vehicle 100), a threshold Ath [m/s.sup.2] for determining a rapid deceleration, and a relative acceleration Adif [m/s.sup.2] (relative deceleration) of the subject vehicle β relative to the leading vehicle γ.”).
Okonogi fails to disclose: the preset acceleration limitation alleviation condition comprises a condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes and the condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes is determined based on at least one of whether a direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle is blinking, whether the direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle keeps blinking for a predetermined period of time.
Further, Ito teaches the preset acceleration limitation alleviation condition comprises a condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes and the condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes is determined based on at least one of whether a direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle is blinking, whether the direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle keeps blinking for a predetermined period of time (see at least paragraph [0037] “The time required to change lane represents the time required for the subject vehicle to reach the target point from the time when starting blinking of the direction indicator of the subject vehicle”).
Okonogi discloses a vehicle speed control method that limits acceleration using predetermined commands and parameters while Ito teaches changing lanes using the blinking of the direction indicator.
Thus, 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 Okonogi and include using blinking of the direction indicator as a condition in which the vehicle changes lanes as taught by Ito, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would improve the safety of switching lanes for the user and for other drivers on the road.
Regarding claim 11 Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: wherein the preset acceleration limitation alleviation condition comprises a condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes (see at least paragraph [0049] “when a command is obtained from vehicle control device 510, traveling path control device 530 calculates a target traveling path for causing vehicle 100 to make a lane change to an adjacent lane…”),
whether an instantaneous change rate of an accelerator pedal sensing value exceeds a threshold (see at least paragraph [0118] “…when the vehicle β has decelerated relative to the leading vehicle γ at a deceleration exceeding the threshold Ath, vehicle control device 510 proceeds to step S3050A and calculates a lane change…”),
and whether a rear and lateral vehicle located on a rear and lateral side of the pertinent vehicle is sensed (see at least paragraph [0205] “when the distance between vehicle 100 and a vehicle (trailing vehicle) behind vehicle 100 is less than a predetermined value and the deceleration of vehicle 100 is likely to influence the driving of the trailing vehicle and when vehicle 100 can make a lane change to a passing lane (adjacent right lane), vehicle control device 510 sets a lane change request”).
Okonogi fails to disclose: the processor is configured to determine the condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes and the condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes based on at least one of whether a direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle is blinking, whether the direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle keeps blinking for a predetermined period of time.
Further, Ito teaches the processor is configured to determine the condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes and the condition that the pertinent vehicle changes lanes based on at least one of whether a direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle is blinking, whether the direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle keeps blinking for a predetermined period of time (see at least paragraph [0037] “The time required to change lane represents the time required for the subject vehicle to reach the target point from the time when starting blinking of the direction indicator of the subject vehicle”).
Okonogi discloses a vehicle speed control method that limits acceleration using predetermined commands and parameters while Ito teaches changing lanes using the blinking of the direction indicator.
Thus, 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 Okonogi and include using blinking of the direction indicator as a condition in which the vehicle changes lanes as taught by Ito, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would improve the safety of switching lanes for the user and for other drivers on the road.
Regarding claim 12 Okonogi discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Okonogi discloses: the preset acceleration limitation alleviation condition comprises a condition that a front and lateral vehicle located on a front and lateral side of the pertinent vehicle changes lanes and moves into a traveling lane of the pertinent vehicle (see at least paragraph [0061] “vehicle control device 510 includes a function for outputting a control command for changing the driving state of vehicle 100 to make way for a vehicle traveling in a lane adjacent to the own lane according to driving states of nearby vehicles traveling in the own lane and adjacent lanes”),
whether an instantaneous change rate of an accelerator pedal sensing value exceeds a threshold (see at least paragraph [0118] “…when the vehicle β has decelerated relative to the leading vehicle γ at a deceleration exceeding the threshold Ath, vehicle control device 510 proceeds to step S3050A and calculates a lane change…”),
and whether a front vehicle located in front of the pertinent vehicle is sensed in the traveling lane of the pertinent vehicle (see at least paragraph [0109] “At step S3020, vehicle control device 510 calculates an inter-vehicle time Tdif [sec] between a subject vehicle β and a leading vehicle γ traveling immediately in front of the subject vehicle β, a longitudinal relative position Ytf [m] of the leading vehicle γ relative to the own vehicle (vehicle 100), a threshold Ath [m/s.sup.2] for determining a rapid deceleration, and a relative acceleration Adif [m/s.sup.2] (relative deceleration) of the subject vehicle β relative to the leading vehicle γ.”).
Okonogi fails to disclose: the processor is configured to determine the condition that the front and lateral vehicle changes lanes based on at least one of whether a direction indicator lamp of the front and lateral vehicle is blinking, whether the direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle keeps blinking for a predetermined period of time.
Further, Ito teaches the the processor is configured to determine the condition that the front and lateral vehicle changes lanes based on at least one of whether a direction indicator lamp of the front and lateral vehicle is blinking, whether the direction indicator lamp of the pertinent vehicle keeps blinking for a predetermined period of time (see at least paragraph [0037] “The time required to change lane represents the time required for the subject vehicle to reach the target point from the time when starting blinking of the direction indicator of the subject vehicle”).
Okonogi discloses a vehicle speed control method that limits acceleration using predetermined commands and parameters while Ito teaches changing lanes using the blinking of the direction indicator.
Thus, 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 Okonogi and include using blinking of the direction indicator as a condition in which the vehicle changes lanes as taught by Ito, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would improve the safety of switching lanes for the user and for other drivers on the road.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Fadey S Jabr whose telephone number is (571)272-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am to 4:oopm.
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 at 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.
FADEY S. JABR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668