DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. Claims 1-17 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 10/31/2023 has been received and considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Examiner’s Note
5. Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all of part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
6. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/25/2022 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
7. Regarding 101 Rejection: Applicant’s amendment to claims overcome the 101-rejection raised in the previous action, rejection is withdrawn.
8. Regarding 103 rejection: Applicant's arguments filed 01/05/2026 have been fully considered and Examiner agrees that Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa did not teach all of the amended claims. However, Examiner brings forth reference Nakada, in which a new rejection can be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 15-17 recites “…a recognition accuracy indication...”. The term is not found in the specification and Examiner is unable to determine what this term indicates. The term must be described, in sufficient detail, within the specification. Therefore, the examiner believes that applicant has not evidenced, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of any or all of what the term may be covered/encompassed by the claim.
11. 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 1-17 are 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.
The terms “a recognition accuracy indication” in claims 1 and 15-17 renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “a recognition accuracy indication” is not clearly described within the specification and similarly “better investment” and “near future.” The Examiner is unsure what applicant means by recognition accuracy indication.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (US 20170057355) in view of Ichinokawa (US 20150197247) in further view of Nakada (US 20170080942).
Regarding Claim 1, Oikawa discloses A moving object control system comprising: (Oikawa, see at least [Abstract] “a vehicle speed control system”)
a storage device that stores instructions; and at least one processor that executes the instructions to: (Oikawa, see at least [0051] wherein a processor, memory and more are used to detect a curve in front of the vehicle through image recognition)
acquire a captured image of a travel area to be a movement destination of a moving object; (Oikawa, see at least [0024-0025] wherein the vehicle is equipped with an image capturing unit to capture images of the road as the vehicle is traveling.)
recognize a road shape included in the captured image; (Oikawa, see at least [0011] “The “curve information obtaining unit” according to the invention determines the presence or absence of a curve in front of the vehicle, in an image captured by a vehicle-mounted camera, for example, through image recognition, or the like.”)
generate a path of the moving object, based on the recognized road shape; (Oikawa, see at least [0011] wherein the curve information obtaining unit may create a track of a center line of a lane in which the vehicle is traveling based off the captured image and calculate the radius of the curvature from the track of the centerline. The vehicle’s speed is controlled to ensure the vehicle does not deviate from the traveling lane as it travels alongside the straight section of the road, the curve start position and the curve section of the road. Also see Fig. 5 in which shown is the vehicle’s path as it transitions from a straight road to a curvature within the road.)
and control traveling of the moving object in accordance with the generated path and the generated speed plan, (Oikawa, see at least [0013] wherein a vehicle speed is controlled as it enters a curve of a road, so that the vehicle does not deviate from the traveling lane.)
Oikawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor that further executes the instructions to, when a predetermined road shape having an entrance section and an exit section accompanied by a course change is recognized, gradually switch the speed plan to be generated based on the recognition situation result and the recognition accuracy of the entrance section and the exit section from among the predetermined road shape and direction indication information.
However, Ichinokawa is directed to a technique for managing vehicle velocity associated with a driving environment of a vehicle in which discloses wherein the at least one processor that further executes the instructions to, when a predetermined road shape having an enter section and an exit section accompanied by a course change is recognized, (Ichinokawa, see at least [0043] wherein the determination component ([0057 where the term component may be a process running on a processor) can generate a determination to acceleration/decelerate based on upcoming side streets or intersections. Also see at least Fig. 4 in which shows the vehicle traveling along a route and in which shows an enter section and an exit section, which shows a course change ** Examiner interprets that the type of lane could include through lanes, auxiliary lanes, and more.) gradually switch the speed plan to be generated based on a recognition situation of the entrance section and the exit section from among the predetermined road shape and direction indication information. (Ichinokawa, see at least [0043] in which discloses if a vehicle is set to cruise at 45 mph, and the vehicle is approaching an intersection with a stop sign, the vehicle may decelerate as the vehicle is approaching.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oikawa to include the capability of determining acceleration or deceleration data for a vehicle based on a upcoming intersection as taught by Ichinokawa with reasonable expectation that this would allow a speed plan to be utilized based on a recognized road situation, and therefore improve vehicle safety.
Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa does not explicity disclose generate a speed plan of the moving object, based on the generated path and a recognition situation of the road shape, a recognition result of the road shape, a recognition accuracy indication, and an accuracy of the recognition result; (Examiner notes that Oikawa does discloses generating a speed plan of the moving object based on the generated path and a recognition situation of the road shape, however does not disclose the accuracy of the recognition result)
However, Nakada discloses generate a speed plan of the moving object, based on the generated path and a recognition situation of the road shape, a recognition result of the road shape, a recognition accuracy indication, and an accuracy of the recognition result; (Nakada, see at least [0027] wherein a curve recognizing unit determines that there is a curve based on the acquired shape of the road and also see [0032] wherein the curve recognizing unit specifies from map information stored, sensor signals, and GPS signals to determine the shape of the road ahead and determine if there is or is not a curve. Also see [0040-0044] wherein the driving assist unit corrects the deceleration value of the vehicle based on the vehicle’s traveling direction and the information on visibility ahead of the vehicle. The speed of the vehicle is adjusted based on visibility ** road shape is being determined based on sensor data, map information and GPS signals, and then visibility is a critical factor in ensuring accuracy, as weather conditions can affect the determination of recognizing a road’s shape using captured image data.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oikawa to include the capability of generate a speed plan of a vehicle based on the vehicle’s path, a road shape, recognizing the road has a curve, and an accuracy of the recognized road shape as taught by Nakada with reasonable expectation that this would allow for a vehicle’s speed to be generated based the accuracy of a recognized road shape, and therefore improve vehicle safety.
Regarding Claim 2, Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: (see rejection above)
upon acquisition of the direction indication information accompanied by a course change, generate the speed plan to start deceleration of the moving object. (Oikawa, see at least [0011] “the curve information obtaining unit detects the start position of the curve in the captured image two or more times while the vehicle is moving, and calculates the distance to the start position.” And see at least [0012-0013] wherein the calculating unit calculates the first maximum speed based on the calculated radius of the curvature. And the vehicle is controls the vehicle’s speed to be close or equal to the first maximum speed. The vehicle is decelerated so the vehicle does not deviate from the traveling lane when the vehicle enters the curve.)
Regarding Claim 3, Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: (see rejection above)
determine, when the road shape including the entrance section, a deceleration value of the moving object in accordance with a distance from a current position of the moving object to the entrance section. (Oikawa, see at least [0011] “the curve information obtaining unit detects the start position of the curve in the captured image two or more times while the vehicle is moving, and calculates the distance to the start position.” And see at least [0012-0013] wherein the calculating unit calculates the first maximum speed based on the calculated radius of the curvature. And the vehicle is controls the vehicle’s speed to be close or equal to the first maximum speed. The vehicle is decelerated so the vehicle does not deviate from the traveling lane when the vehicle enters the curve.)
Regarding Claim 4, Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: (see rejection above)
Oikawa does not explicitly disclose determine the deceleration value to the entrance section to decelerate a speed of the moving object to a target speed corresponding to each course change direction.
However, Nakada discloses determine the deceleration value to the entrance section to decelerate a speed of the moving object to a target speed corresponding to each course change direction. (Nakada, see at least [0043-0045] and Fig. 2 in which showcases an a maximum deceleration value in a straight road before a curve, wherein the vehicle’s speed is controlled to coincide with the target entering speed at the curves starting point. [0050] and Fig. 4A)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oikawa to include the capability of changing the deceleration value as taught by Nakada with reasonable expectation that this would allow a vehicle to determine a deceleration value to an entrance of a section in which there is a curve ahead, and therefore would allow for the vehicle to slow down at the entrance and then proceed to decelerate as the vehicle is going through a curve.
Regarding Claim 5, Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 4, (see rejection above)
wherein the target speed is further determined in accordance with a curvature of the path generated. (Oikawa, see at least Fig. 5 in which shows that curvature information of the road is obtained, [0011] the vehicle’s pathway lane is captured through images and a center line of a lane is determined through the curve information obtaining unit, and also shown in Fig. 5 is a target speed being calculated.)
Regarding Claim 6, Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 4, (see rejection above)
wherein the target speed is a predetermined value. (Oikawa, see at least [0012] wherein the vehicle control apparatus can control a vehicle speed to the first maximum speed.)
Regarding Claim 7, Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: (see rejection above)
Oikawa does not explicitly disclose select the deceleration value from a plurality of discontinuous candidate values.
However, Nakada discloses select the deceleration value from a plurality of discontinuous candidate values. (Nakada, see at least [0034] wherein the number of maximum values of deceleration is stored is equal to or more than a predetermined number, the learning unit can then calculate the average of maximum, in which is used as the target deceleration value. Then the calculated target deceleration value to be used by the driving assist unit. ** the discontinuous change at which the cutoff point in which deceleration values are stored in order to calculate the average)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oikawa to include the capability of changing the deceleration value as taught by Nakada with reasonable expectation that this would allow for a number of candidate values to be used in determining a deceleration value, and therefore would allow for a more accurate deceleration value to be determined.
Regarding Claim 8, Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: (see rejection above)
Oikawa does not explicitly disclose change the deceleration value with a hysteresis.
However, Nakada discloses change the deceleration value with a hysteresis. (Nakada, see at least Fig. 4A-4C wherein the deceleration value is changed due to a variable)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oikawa to include the capability of changing the deceleration value as taught by Nakada with reasonable expectation that this would allow for certain variables to be taken into consideration when determining a change in deceleration value, and therefore would improve safety of the vehicle when a situation occurs in which the vehicle may need a lower deceleration value than previously calculated.
Regarding Claim 9, Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: (see rejection above)
Oikawa does not explicitly disclose change the deceleration value in accordance with the recognition accuracy of the road shape.
However, Nakada discloses change the deceleration value in accordance with the recognition accuracy of the road shape. (Nakada, see at least [0041] wherein the target deceleration value can be corrected to a lower value when it is determined that the visibility of the road is not desirable. ** Since the visibility is not desirable, this impacts in the accuracy of how sensors/cameras are able to correctly pick up on a road’s shape.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oikawa to include the capability of changing the deceleration value with accordance with the road shape’s accuracy as taught by Nakada with reasonable expectation that this would allow for the vehicle to slow down at a quicker pace and allow for the vehicle to decelerate as it is going through an area of the road where the road’s shape is not as accurate due to weather instances such as fog, and therefore would improve safety.
Regarding Claim 10, Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 9, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: (see rejection above)
Oikawa does not explicitly disclose decrease the deceleration value, as the recognition accuracy of the road shape increases, and increase the deceleration value, as the recognition accuracy of the road shape decreases.
However, Nakada discloses decrease the deceleration value, as the recognition accuracy of the road shape increases, (Nakada, see at least [0038-0041] wherein the curve of the road is used to control the decelerator of the vehicle so that the maximum value of is not exceeded. The vehicle will slow down gradually as its entering the start of the curve and continues to decrease as it goes through the curve of the road based on the acquired curvature. ** since there would not be an obstacle or undesirable visibility, the road shape accuracy would be higher than it would be with an undesirable visibility.)
and increase the deceleration value, as the recognition accuracy of the road shape decreases. (Nakada, see at least [0041-0042] wherein when it is determined that the visibility is not desirable for driving (such as fog), the distance/time to keep the maximum deceleration is reduced to keep the maximum deceleration, therefore would increase the deceleration value as the vehicle is trying to slow down as quickly as possible and correct the target deceleration value to have a smaller value. ** Since the visibility is not desirable due to fog, this impacts in the accuracy of how sensors/cameras are able to correctly pick up on a road’s shape.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oikawa to include the capability of changing the deceleration value with accordance with the road shape’s accuracy as taught by Nakada with reasonable expectation that this would allow for the vehicle to slow down at a quicker pace and allow for the vehicle to decelerate as it is going through an area of the road where the road’s shape is not as accurate due to weather instances such as fog or would allow for the , and therefore would improve safety.
Regarding Claim 11, Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: (see rejection above)
Oikawa does not explicitly disclose change the speed of the moving object in accordance with a generation situation of the path.
However, Nakada discloses change the speed of the moving object in accordance with a generation situation of the path. (Nakada, see at least [0041] wherein the vehicle’s speed is corrected based on a determined weather condition or visibility issue ahead of the vehicle.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oikawa to include the capability of changing the speed of the vehicle in accordance with a situation of the path as taught by Nakada with reasonable expectation that this would allow for the vehicle to slow down at a quicker pace and allow for the vehicle to decelerate as it is going through an area of the road when there is a weather condition, and therefore would improve safety.
Regarding Claim 12, Oikawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 11, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: (see rejection above)
Oikawa does not explicitly disclose increase the speed of the moving object, as the generated path increases in distance.
However, Nakada discloses increase the speed of the moving object, as the generated path increases in distance. (Nakada, see at least Fig. 3 in which the speed of the vehicle is increasing as the road section increases in distance)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oikawa to include the capability of determining when the road shape is recognized (like a straight path) and allowing for an increase in vehicle speed as taught by Nakada with reasonable expectation that this would allow for system to better understand that there is a straight path ahead and no longer has to slow down due to a curve, and can increase the speed, and therefore improve vehicle safety wherein the vehicle is not slowing down when it should be going at a certain speed limit.
Regarding Claim 13, Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor further executes instructions in the storage device to: (see rejection above)
Oikawa does not explicitly disclose receive the direction indication information about the movement destination of the moving object.
However, Nakada discloses receive the direction indication information about the movement destination of the moving object. (Nakada, see at least [0025] “and an azimuth sensor 116 that senses the azimuth of the host vehicle in the traveling direction, and controls a decelerator 120 including a brake to decelerate the host vehicle.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oikawa to include the technique of utilizing an azimuth sensor as taught by Nakada with reasonable expectation that this would allow for the sensor to sense the traveling direction of a vehicle in which would improve vehicle safety to better direct a vehicle in acquiring the shape of a road ahead of the vehicle in the traveling direction.
As per claim 15, the claim is directed towards A control method of a moving object control system that recites similar limitations performed by the moving object control system of claim 1. The cited portions of Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa in further view of Nakada used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 16, the claim is directed towards A non-transitory storage medium storing a program that recites similar limitations performed by the moving object control system of claim 1. The cited portions of Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa in further view of Nakada used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 17, the claim is directed towards a moving object that recites similar limitations performed by the moving object control system of claim 1. The cited portions of Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa in further view of Nakada used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same system limitations of claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (US 20170057355) in view of Ichinokawa (US 20150197247) in further view of Nakada (US 20170080942) in even further view of Zhang (US 20190235516).
Regarding Claim 14, Oikawa in view of Ichinokawa discloses The moving object control system according to claim 3,
Oikawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined road shape including the entrance section and at least one exit section accompanied by the course change is any of an intersection, a T junction, and a travel area including an entrance to a facility along a road.
However, Zhang discloses wherein the predetermined road shape including the entrance section and at least one exit section accompanied by the course change is any of an intersection, a T junction, and a travel area including an entrance to a facility along a road. (Zhang, see at least [0036] “if the object is a vehicle at an opposing direction and the current driving environment includes an intersection, prediction module 303 will predict whether the vehicle will likely move straight forward or make a turn.”)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Oikawa to include the technique of utilizing an azimuth sensor as taught by Zhang with reasonable expectation that this would of a course change to be taken into consideration such as before entering an intersection, wherein the system in Nakada would assist the vehicle in navigating the route without sudden deceleration, which would avoid causing harm to passengers within the vehicle.
Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210024065 – An automatic driving assist apparatus for a vehicle includes: a map information storage unit; an own vehicle position estimator; a route information input unit; a traveling route setting unit; a target path setting unit configured to set a target path to a center of a traveling lane; a road condition acquirer; and an automatic driving controller. The automatic driving controller further includes a branch lane determiner and a target path lateral position change amount calculator. The target path setting unit corrects the target path with a lateral position change amount calculated by the target path lateral position change amount calculator, to set a new target path.
US 20200189586– The present disclosure relates to a driver assistance apparatus and a method for operating the same. The driver assistance apparatus includes a navigation device that provides a guide route and road information, a detector that measures information regarding surroundings of a vehicle, and a processor that performs a deceleration control for entrance to an exit ramp, based on the information obtained through the navigation device and the detector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI whose telephone number is (571) 272-2052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday, 8AM-5PM.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/NADA MAHYOOB ALQADERI/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/RACHID BENDIDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664