DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This office action is in response to application number 18/406,761 filed on 01/08/2024, in
which the amendments and arguments filed on 08/28/2025.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12, and 14-16 has been amended.
No claims have been added.
Claims 3-4, 11, and 13 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 14-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
3. 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.DE102021117424.4, filed on
07/06/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/03/2024 and 11/04/2025 has been received and considered.
Response to Amendment
5. Applicant' s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/02/2025. Applicants arguments, see page 7-12 filed on 08/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-16 under 35 USC 103 are persuasive. Furthermore, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15 under 35 USC 112(d) and all objections have been persuasive. Therefore, a new grounds for rejection is made under 35 USC 103 as necessitated by amendment as being unpatentable over Huelsen (US 9378643 B2) in view of Wernecke (DE 102020205727 A1) further in view of Hahne (US 20150022378 A1) and further in view of Armand (US 20170316272 A1).
Claim Objections
6. Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 states “based on the at least the input signal,” but should read “based on at least the input signal”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
7. Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 10, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huelsen (US 9378643 B2) in view of Wernecke (DE 102020205727 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Huelsen discloses A method to control a vehicle, the vehicle comprising at least one sensor and at least one actuator, a control device, and a processing unit, the method comprising: (Huelsen Column 4, line number 39-43: “In another specific embodiment, the evaluator is integrated into the linker. A processor may be provided into which the evaluator and/or the linker and/or the filter is/are integrated. A processor maybe provided into which the evaluator and/or the linker and/or the filter is/are integrated in software.”) (Huelsen Column 5, line number 43-54: “FIG. 2 shows a flow chart of a method for operating a driver assistance system of a vehicle. In a step 201, the vehicle surroundings are detected, in particular using sensors. In a step 203, a vehicle position is detected or determined relative to the detected vehicle surroundings. In a step 205, the corresponding data of the detected vehicle surroundings and the relative vehicle position are then linked to an ontological data structure, having implemented traffic rules, so that a linked data structure is formed.”) (Huelsen Column 6, line number 25-33: “Driver assistance system 101 includes the intersection situation shown in FIG. 4 and is able, due to the linkage with the ontological data structure having the implemented traffic rules, to make statements as to which vehicle must yield to which vehicle, for example. Depending on the statement, a warning or an accident-preventing action may, for example, be carried out, for example, the vehicle may be braked autonomously if the driver does not respond to a corresponding warning signal.”) providing, via the at least one sensor, at least one sensor signal to the control device; providing, via an input, an input signal to the control device; (Huelsen Column 5, line number 10-12: “Driver assistance system 101 is thus advantageously able to detect an instantaneous or actual vehicle situation, in particular using sensors,”) providing, via the control device, at least one output signal to the at least one actuator, the at least one output signal being determined and provided based on the input signal and the at least one sensor signal, taking an ontology into account, the ontology being based on traffic regulations or traffic laws; (Huelsen Column 1, line number 47- 63: “The driver assistance system includes a detection device for detecting the vehicle surroundings and a position determination device for determining a vehicle position relative to the vehicle surroundings. Furthermore, a database is provided which has an ontological data structure having implemented traffic rules.”) (Huelsen Column 6, line number 25-33: “Driver assistance system 101 includes the intersection situation shown in FIG. 4 and is able, due to the linkage with the ontological data structure having the implemented traffic rules, to make statements as to which vehicle must yield to which vehicle, for example. Depending on the statement, a warning or an accident-preventing action may, for example, be carried out, for example, the vehicle may be braked autonomously if the driver does not respond to a corresponding warning signal.”) and determining, based on the ontology, whether the at least one output signal is to be provided to the at least one actuator, or, when the at least one actuator includes multiple actuators, determining, based on the ontology, to which particular actuator of the multiple actuators the at least one output signal is to be provided, (Huelsen Column 2, line number 14-16: “In this way, a linked data structure is advantageously formed which images the real situation within the scope of its ontological data structure.”) (Huelsen Column 4, line number 9-13: “According to another specific embodiment, it may be provided that an action is carried out as a function of the evaluated linked data structure. In particular, it may be provided that the vehicle is braked or accelerated and/or steered autonomously.”)
Huelsen does not disclose […] wherein the ontology is stored, at least in part, on a decentralized server, the control device being at least temporarily data-linked to the decentralized server, and wherein the ontology includes the traffic regulations or the traffic laws.
However, Wernecke does teach […] wherein the ontology is stored, at least in part, on a decentralized server, (Wernecke Paragraph 0028: “With read access to the blockchain database, for example, an authorized institution can be given the opportunity to access the information stored in the blockchain database about compliance with current traffic regulations.”) (Wernecke Paragraph 0028: “Once information is stored in the blockchain database, it can no longer be changed and / or falsified due to the structure of blockchain databases. The blockchain database thus offers verified or verifiable information on compliance with the current traffic rules with regard to its correctness. A major advantage of blockchain databases over, for example, server-based standard databases, is that there is no need for a permanent connection to the database.”) the control device being at least temporarily data-linked to the decentralized server, and wherein the ontology includes the traffic regulations or the traffic laws. (Wernecke Paragraph 0034: “The device 30th further comprises a control module 34”) (Wernecke Paragraph 0034: “Also shows 3 an optional with the vehicle 100 or the device 30th connected distributed ledger database 40 , on the basis of which information about current traffic rules can be verified and / or compliance with the current traffic rules can be stored in the information.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huelsen to include […] wherein the ontology is stored, at least in part, on a decentralized server, the control device being at least temporarily data-linked to the decentralized server, and wherein the ontology includes the traffic regulations or the traffic laws taught by Wernecke. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method, a computer program, a vehicle, a network component and a device for generating and / or storing information about compliance with current traffic rules, in particular, but not exclusively, to a concept in which a distributed ledger Technique for verifying current traffic rules is used. [Wernecke Paragraph 0001]
Regarding claim 2, Huelsen discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the ontology is stored in a memory in the vehicle. (Huelsen Column 1, line number 46-52: “According to one aspect, a driver assistance system for a vehicle is provided. The driver assistance system includes a detection device for detecting the vehicle surroundings and a position determination device for determining a vehicle position relative to the vehicle surroundings. Furthermore, a database is provided which has an ontological data structure having implemented traffic rules.”) (Huelsen Column 5, line number 55-58: “FIG. 3 shows a memory device 301 in which a database 303 is stored. Database 303 includes an ontological data structure having implemented axioms and/or rules, in particular traffic rules.”)
Regarding claim 6, Huelsen discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein in order to determine whether the at least one output signal is to be provided, determining, based on the ontology, whether or not the at least one actuator or the particular actuator is allowed to carry out an action by use of the control device, where the action to be carried out is specified in the input signal. (Huelsen Column 4, line number 29-38: “According to the detection device, a vehicle is, for example, supposed to be present in a lane which is drivable only in the opposite direction. Linking the vehicle to the lane drivable in the opposite direction is, however, defined as not being possible or as erroneous according to the ontological data structure. A detection or position determination may thus be repeated, for example, or an error message of the sensors may be generated, for example, or a corresponding action of the driver assistance systems may be carried out, for example.”) (Huelsen Column 6, line number 25-33: “Driver assistance system 101 includes the intersection situation shown in FIG. 4 and is able, due to the linkage with the ontological data structure having the implemented traffic rules, to make statements as to which vehicle must yield to which vehicle, for example. Depending on the statement, a warning or an accident-preventing action may, for example, be carried out, for example, the vehicle may be braked autonomously if the driver does not respond to a corresponding warning signal.”)
Regarding claim 7, Huelsen discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein, when the at least one actuator includes a first actuator and a second actuator, determining based on the ontology and based on the at least the input signal, whether the at least one output signal is provided for the first actuator and/or for the second actuator. (Huelsen Column 4, line number 9-13: “According to another specific embodiment, it may be provided that an action is carried out as a function of the evaluated linked data structure. In particular, it may be provided that the vehicle is braked or accelerated and/or steered autonomously.”) (Huelsen Column 6, line number 25-33: “due to the linkage with the ontological data structure having the implemented traffic rules, to make statements as to which vehicle must yield to which vehicle, for example. Depending on the statement, a warning or an accident-preventing action may, for example, be carried out, for example, the vehicle may be braked autonomously if the driver does not respond to a corresponding warning signal.”)
Regarding claim 8, Huelsen discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is designed to provide GPS data to the control device. (Huelsen Column 3, line number 57-58: “In another specific embodiment, the detection device includes a GPS sensor.”) (Huelsen Column 4, line number 29-38: “According to the detection device, a vehicle is, for example, supposed to be present in a lane which is drivable only in the opposite direction. Linking the vehicle to the lane drivable in the opposite direction is, however, defined as not being possible or as erroneous according to the ontological data structure. A detection or position determination may thus be repeated, for example, or an error message of the sensors may be generated, for example, or a corresponding action of the driver assistance systems may be carried out, for example.”)
Regarding claim 10, Huelsen discloses A control device to control a vehicle, the control device comprising: at least one input that receives at least one sensor signal of a sensor; at least one input that receives at least one input signal of an input device; at least one output that outputs at least one output signal for an actuator; and a processing unit, (Huelsen Column 4, line number 39-43: “In another specific embodiment, the evaluator is integrated into the linker. A processor may be provided into which the evaluator and/or the linker and/or the filter is/are integrated. A processor maybe provided into which the evaluator and/or the linker and/or the filter is/are integrated in software.”) (Huelsen Column 5, line number 43-54: “FIG. 2 shows a flow chart of a method for operating a driver assistance system of a vehicle. In a step 201, the vehicle surroundings are detected, in particular using sensors. In a step 203, a vehicle position is detected or determined relative to the detected vehicle surroundings. In a step 205, the corresponding data of the detected vehicle surroundings and the relative vehicle position are then linked to an ontological data structure, having implemented traffic rules, so that a linked data structure is formed.”) (Huelsen Column 6, line number 25-33: “Driver assistance system 101 includes the intersection situation shown in FIG. 4 and is able, due to the linkage with the ontological data structure having the implemented traffic rules, to make statements as to which vehicle must yield to which vehicle, for example. Depending on the statement, a warning or an accident-preventing action may, for example, be carried out, for example, the vehicle may be braked autonomously if the driver does not respond to a corresponding warning signal.”) wherein the control device, with the aid of the processing unit, is designed to check the at least one input signal based on an ontology, the check being provided based on the at least one sensor signal, and the control device being provided to supply the at least one output signal to the actuator, (Huelsen Column 1, line number 47- 63: “The driver assistance system includes a detection device for detecting the vehicle surroundings and a position determination device for determining a vehicle position relative to the vehicle surroundings. Furthermore, a database is provided which has an ontological data structure having implemented traffic rules.”) (Huelsen Column 5, line number 10-12: “Driver assistance system 101 is thus advantageously able to detect an instantaneous or actual vehicle situation, in particular using sensors,”) (Huelsen Column 6, line number 25-33: “Driver assistance system 101 includes the intersection situation shown in FIG. 4 and is able, due to the linkage with the ontological data structure having the implemented traffic rules, to make statements as to which vehicle must yield to which vehicle, for example. Depending on the statement, a warning or an accident-preventing action may, for example, be carried out, for example, the vehicle may be braked autonomously if the driver does not respond to a corresponding warning signal.”) wherein the at least one output signal is supplied based on the check of the at least one input signal using the ontology and taking into account the at least one sensor signal, wherein the ontologv includes or is based on traffic regulations or traffic laws, (Huelsen Column 1, line number 47- 63: “The driver assistance system includes a detection device for detecting the vehicle surroundings and a position determination device for determining a vehicle position relative to the vehicle surroundings. Furthermore, a database is provided which has an ontological data structure having implemented traffic rules.”) (Huelsen Column 5, line number 30-40: “In a not illustrated specific embodiment, it maybe provided that a filter is formed between detection device 103 and linker 109 which filters out certain elements from the data corresponding to the detected vehicle surroundings. Only the filtered data are then linked to the ontological data structure. Filtering has the advantage, in particular, that only data relevant to a certain vehicle situation are used for the linkage. In the traffic rules, there are, for example, elements of vehicle surroundings, such as roadways and/or lanes which have no further connection to the vehicles, and which are not relevant for an evaluation of a possible collision.”) (Note: Filtering checks if certain elements are applicable and needed)
Huelsen does not disclose […] wherein the control device further comprises a technical data link to an external server, and wherein the external server is configured to provide the ontologv to the processing unit.
However, Wernecke does teach […] wherein the control device further comprises a technical data link to an external server, (Wernecke Paragraph 0028: “Once information is stored in the blockchain database, it can no longer be changed and / or falsified due to the structure of blockchain databases. The blockchain database thus offers verified or verifiable information on compliance with the current traffic rules with regard to its correctness. A major advantage of blockchain databases over, for example, server-based standard databases, is that there is no need for a permanent connection to the database.”) (Wernecke Paragraph 0034: “The device 30th further comprises a control module 34”) (Wernecke Paragraph 0034: “Also shows 3 an optional with the vehicle 100 or the device 30th connected distributed ledger database 40 , on the basis of which information about current traffic rules can be verified and / or compliance with the current traffic rules can be stored in the information.”) and wherein the external server is configured to provide the ontologv to the processing unit. (Wernecke Paragraph 0034: “3 shows a block diagram of an exemplary embodiment of a vehicle / network component 100 and an embodiment of an apparatus 30th for generating or storing information about compliance with current traffic rules.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
240
405
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huelsen to include […] wherein the control device further comprises a technical data link to an external server, and wherein the external server is configured to provide the ontologv to the processing unit taught by Wernecke. This would have been for the benefit to provide a method, a computer program, a vehicle, a network component and a device for generating and / or storing information about compliance with current traffic rules, in particular, but not exclusively, to a concept in which a distributed ledger Technique for verifying current traffic rules is used. [Wernecke Paragraph 0001]
Regarding claim 12, Huelsen discloses The control device according to claim 10, wherein the processing unit includes a memory, the memory storing the ontology, at least in part. (Huelsen Column 5, line number 55-58: “FIG. 3 shows a memory device 301 in which a database 303 is stored. Database 303 includes an ontological data structure having implemented axioms and/or rules, in particular traffic rules.”)
Regarding claim 15, Huelsen discloses A vehicle comprising; a sensor; an input device; an actuator; and the control device according to claim 10. (Huelsen Column 4, line number 39-43: “In another specific embodiment, the evaluator is integrated into the linker. A processor may be provided into which the evaluator and/or the linker and/or the filter is/are integrated. A processor maybe provided into which the evaluator and/or the linker and/or the filter is/are integrated in software.”) (Huelsen Column 5, line number 43-54: “FIG. 2 shows a flow chart of a method for operating a driver assistance system of a vehicle. In a step 201, the vehicle surroundings are detected, in particular using sensors. In a step 203, a vehicle position is detected or determined relative to the detected vehicle surroundings. In a step 205, the corresponding data of the detected vehicle surroundings and the relative vehicle position are then linked to an ontological data structure, having implemented traffic rules, so that a linked data structure is formed.”) (Huelsen Column 6, line number 25-33: “Driver assistance system 101 includes the intersection situation shown in FIG. 4 and is able, due to the linkage with the ontological data structure having the implemented traffic rules, to make statements as to which vehicle must yield to which vehicle, for example. Depending on the statement, a warning or an accident-preventing action may, for example, be carried out, for example, the vehicle may be braked autonomously if the driver does not respond to a corresponding warning signal.”)
8. Claim(s) 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huelsen (US 9378643 B2) in view of Wernecke (DE 102020205727 A1) and further in view of (US 20150022378 A1) to Hahne et al. (hereinafter Hahne).
Regarding claim 5, Huelsen discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the ontology includes the traffic regulations or the traffic laws of a particular region that includes a country or a state, (Huelsen Column 1, line number 50-55: “Furthermore, a database is provided which has an ontological data structure having implemented traffic rules. Moreover, a linker is provided which links the detected vehicle surroundings and the vehicle position to the ontological data structure, so that a linked data structure is formed,”) (Note: Because the vehicles surroundings are detected it is possible to determine what region it is and the traffic rules corresponding to the region) (Huelsen Column 2, line number 2-3: “ontological data structure in which traffic rules are implemented”) (Huelsen Column 2, line number 39-40: “In Germany, for example, the traffic rules in particular include the highway code [Straβenverkehrsordnung (StVO)].”)
Huelsen in view of Wernecke does not teach […] and wherein a selection of the traffic regulations or the traffic laws takes place based on a particular location of the vehicle in the particular region.
However, Hahne does teach […] and wherein a selection of the traffic regulations or the traffic laws takes place based on a particular location of the vehicle in the particular region. (Hahne Paragraph 0017: “In a further embodiment of the computer program product, the determining of the traffic regulations which are applicable in a region of the current surroundings of the vehicle includes determining of country-specific regulations applicable in the region of the current surroundings of the vehicle. By means of this, the driver of the vehicle can be advantageously provided with information regarding country-specific traffic regulations, i.e. traffic regulation the validity of which can change from country to country, and with which the driver of the vehicle if applicable is therefore not familiar.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huelsen in view of Wernecke to include […] and wherein a selection of the traffic regulations or the traffic laws takes place based on a particular location of the vehicle in the particular region taught by Hahne. This would have been for the benefit to provide a computer program product, a driver assistance system for a vehicle and a computer-readable medium, which make possible a further improvement of driving safety. [Hahne Paragraph 0004]
Regarding claim 14, Huelsen in view of Wernecke teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Huelsen in view of Wernecke does not teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program thereon that, when executed on a processing unit, causes the processing unit to carry out the method according to claim 1.
However, Hahne does teach A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program thereon that, when executed on a processing unit, causes the processing unit to carry out the method according to claim 1. (Hahne Paragraph 0163: “The driver assistance system 14 in the shown embodiment comprises a computer unit 1 in addition to the sensors 10, 11 and 17 shown in the FIGS. 4A and 4B. The computer unit 1 comprises a computer-readable medium 13 and a processing unit 24. The processing unit 24 can for example be designed as an electronic processor, in particular as a microprocessor”) (Note: The Hahne reference mentions the computer readable medium as being non-transitory)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huelsen in view of Wernecke to include A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program thereon that, when executed on a processing unit, causes the processing unit to carry out the method according to claim 1 taught by Hahne. This would have been for the benefit to provide a computer program product, a driver assistance system for a vehicle and a computer-readable medium, which make possible a further improvement of driving safety. [Hahne Paragraph 0004]
9. Claim(s) 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huelsen (US 9378643 B2) in view of Wernecke (DE 102020205727 A1) and further in view of (US 20170316272 A1) to Armand et al. (hereinafter Armand).
Regarding claim 9, Huelsen in view of Wernecke teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Huelsen in view of Wernecke does not teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the ontology is present in the form of a decision logic or a formal language, or a UML code.
However, Armand does teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the ontology is present in the form of a decision logic or a formal language, or a UML code. (Armand Paragraph 0037: “The ontology is, for example, written in the format known as OWL (for “Ontology Web Language)”) (Note: OWL is a formal language)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huelsen in view of Wernecke to include The method according to claim 1, wherein the ontology is present in the form of a decision logic or a formal language, or a UML code taught by Armand. This would have been for the benefit to include a driving assistance system comprising at least one receiving module designed to receive perception data on a driving environment and a control module designed to control an on-board system, characterized by a conversion module designed to generate, on the basis of the perception data, a plurality of instances of classes of an ontology stored by the driving assistance system and defining relations between classes, and a reasoning tool designed to deduce, on the basis of the ontology, at least one property of an instance of said plurality, wherein the control module is designed to control the on-board system on the basis of the deduced property. [Armand Paragraph 0007]
Regarding claim 16, Huelsen in view of Wernecke teaches claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated above.
Huelsen in view of Wernecke does not teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a motor vehicle or a rail vehicle.
However, Armand does teach The method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a motor vehicle or a rail vehicle. (Armand Paragraph 0001: “driving assistance for motor vehicles.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Huelsen in view of Wernecke to include The method according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle is a motor vehicle or a rail vehicle taught by Armand. This would have been for the benefit to include a driving assistance system comprising at least one receiving module designed to receive perception data on a driving environment and a control module designed to control an on-board system, characterized by a conversion module designed to generate, on the basis of the perception data, a plurality of instances of classes of an ontology stored by the driving assistance system and defining relations between classes, and a reasoning tool designed to deduce, on the basis of the ontology, at least one property of an instance of said plurality, wherein the control module is designed to control the on-board system on the basis of the deduced property. [Armand Paragraph 0007]
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN J HARVEY whose telephone number is 571-272-5327. The examiner can normally be reached 7:16AM-4:46PM M, 6:30AM-5:00PM T-W, 7:30AM-5:00PM Th, 8:00AM-4:00PM F.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 571-270-3921. 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.
/K.J.H./Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights