DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment and Argument
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to pending claims 1-3, 5, 12-14, 16 and 23-26 filed on July 30, 2025 have been fully considered. Examiners response to the applicant’s argument follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendment of the independent claims 1, 9, 12 and 20, the rejection under 35 USC § 112(b) of the pending claims is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Sung does not teach the feature of “replacing the first image feed on the first CMS display with an image feed from a backup camera that is separate from the first CMS camera and the second CMS camera;
displaying an image feed from the backup camera on a backup camera display while the commercial vehicle is moving forward, wherein the backup camera is disposed behind the commercial vehicle and is separate from the first CMS camera and the second CMS camera, and wherein the backup camera display is separate from the first CMS display and the second CMS display,” because Sung does not disclose the backup camera display feature of the claim.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 requires based on detection of a fault condition in the CMS perform a remedial action, wherein the remedial action comprises one or more of the following: replacing the first image feed on the first CMS display with an image feed from a backup camera that is separate from the first CMS camera and the second CMS camera;
displaying an image feed from the backup camera on a backup camera display while the commercial vehicle is moving forward, wherein the backup camera is disposed behind the commercial vehicle and is separate from the first CMS camera and the second CMS camera, and wherein the backup camera display is separate from the first CMS display and the second CMS display.
Sung at ¶0040 discloses the head unit display 145 provides images deriving from the top view cameras including top view left camera 121, top view right camera 122, top view front camera 123, and top view rear camera 124 mounted on the vehicle. The vehicle may be buses, trucks, various commercial vehicles etc. ¶0030. Sung further discloses when the outside cameras 131 and 132, the outside displays 141 and 142, and the like fail, other cameras and displays which are normally operated are utilized, thereby making it possible to maintain a monitoring function. For instance, at the time of the failure of any one of the outside cameras 131 and 132, image derived from normally functioning outside cameras (e.g., 132 of FIG. 5A and 131 of FIG. 5B) or image derived from the top view left and right cameras 121 and 122 to the corresponding normally functioning displays 141, 142 or 145 is provided. The disclosed operation performed during “the driving or a reverse of the vehicle”. ¶0043, 0045, 0053-0054. See Figures 1-5A-5D.
Although Sung does not explicitly identify the top view rear camera 124 as a “backup camera”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the rear camera as a backup camera in case of one or more of the cameras fail or displaying an image feed from the backup camera on a backup display, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). As noted above, Sung discloses using alternate cameras (top-view left/right) as substitutes in the event of failure state of one of the outside cameras. Moreover, Sung discloses a multiple displays left display 141, right display 142 and a head unit display 145, and providing alternate camera images to the head unit display during failure events. Substituting the rear top view camera 124 for the same purpose would have been a predictable use of the prior art elements according to their known established functions. Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 USC § 103 over Sung.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 3, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 depended upon claim 1. Claim 1 recites the subject matter of “wherein the remedial action comprises: replacing the first image feed on the first CMS display with an image feed from a backup camera that is separate from the first CMS camera and the second CMS camera”, and claim 2 recites the subject matter of “wherein the remedial action comprises replacing the first image feed on the first CMS display with the image feed from the backup camera.” Claim 2 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim 1 upon which it depends.
Claim 3 depended upon claim 1. Claim 1 recites the subject matter of “displaying an image feed from the backup camera on a backup camera display while the commercial vehicle is moving forward, wherein the backup camera display is separate from the first CMS display and the second CMS display”, and claim 3 recites the subject matter of “wherein the remedial action comprises displaying the image feed from the backup camera on the backup camera display while the commercial vehicle is moving forward.” Claim 3 fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim 1 upon which it depends.
Similarly, claims 13 and 14 fail to further limit the subject matter of claim 12
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 12-14, 16, 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US 20170161566 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sung teaches the limitation of the claim as follows: a method for a camera monitor system (CMS), comprising: obtaining, at a CMS electronic control unit (ECU), images of an environment surrounding a commercial vehicle from a first CMS camera and a second CMS camera, wherein the first CMS camera and the second CMS camera are disposed on opposing sides of the commercial vehicle (Figs. 1-5A-5D: ¶0030, 0034, 37: left camera 131, right camera 132, top view left, right, front and rear cameras 121-124, providing images to a controller 110); displaying a first image feed from the first CMS camera on a first CMS display; displaying a second image feed from the second CMS camera on a second CMS display that is separate from the first CMS display (Figs. 5A-5D: displays 141, 141 and 145 displaying image received from the cameras 131, 132, 121-124); and based on detection of a fault condition in the CMS performing a remedial action, wherein the remedial action comprises one or more of the following: replacing the first image feed on the first CMS display with an image feed from a top view left, right, front or rear cameras 121-124] that is separate from the first CMS camera and the second CMS camera (Figs. 5A-5D, ¶0043: the controller 110 may provide the image deriving from the top view left and right cameras 121 and 122 instead of the corresponding failure camera at the time of the failure of the outside cameras 131 and 132, and may provide the image to the head unit display 145. ¶0053-0055: in the case in which any one of the outside left camera 131 and the outside right camera 132, and any one of the outside left display 141 and the outside right display 142 fail (e.g., see FIGS. 5A and 5B), the controller 110 may provide image data deriving from normally functioning outside cameras (e.g., 132 of FIG. 5A and 131 of FIG. 5B) to the corresponding normally functioning display (e.g., 141 of FIG. 5B) of the outside left display 141 and the outside right display 142, or may provide the image data deriving from the normally functioning outside cameras to a division screen of the corresponding direction of the head unit display 145 when there is no the corresponding normally functioning display (e.g., see FIG. 5A));
displaying an image feed from the backup camera on a backup camera display camera (Figs. 5A-5D, ¶0043: the controller 110 may provide the image deriving from the top view left and right cameras 121 and 122 instead of the corresponding failure camera at the time of the failure of the outside cameras 131 and 132, and may provide the image to the head unit display 145. ¶0053-0055: in the case in which any one of the outside left camera 131 and the outside right camera 132, and any one of the outside left display 141 and the outside right display 142 fail (e.g., see FIGS. 5A and 5B), the controller 110 may provide image data deriving from normally functioning outside cameras (e.g., 132 of FIG. 5A and 131 of FIG. 5B) to the corresponding normally functioning display (e.g., 141 of FIG. 5B) of the outside left display 141 and the outside right display 142, or may provide the image data deriving from the normally functioning outside cameras to a division screen of the corresponding direction of the head unit display 145 when there is no the corresponding normally functioning display (e.g., see FIG. 5A)) while the commercial vehicle is moving forward (¶0045: “driving or a reverse of the vehicle”), wherein the top view rear camera 124], and
wherein the the head unit display 145] is separate from the first CMS display and the second CMS display (¶0042, 0053-0055: the controller 110 may provide image data deriving from normally functioning outside cameras (e.g., 132 of FIG. 5A and 131 of FIG. 5B) to the corresponding normally functioning display (e.g., 141 of FIG. 5B) of the outside left display 141 and the outside right display 142, or may provide the image data deriving from the normally functioning outside cameras to a division screen of the corresponding direction of the head unit display 145 when there is no the corresponding normally functioning display (e.g., see FIG. 5A)).
Although Sung does not explicitly identify the top view rear camera 124 as a “backup camera”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the rear camera as a backup camera in case of one or more of the cameras fail or displaying an image feed from the backup camera on a backup display, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). As noted above, Sung discloses using alternate cameras (top-view left/right) as substitutes in the event of failure state of one of the outside cameras. Moreover, Sung discloses multiple displays left display 141, right display 142 and a head unit display 145, and providing alternate camera images to the head unit display during failure events. Substituting the rear top view camera 124 for the same purpose would have been a predictable use of the prior art elements according to their known established functions.
Regarding claim 2, Sung discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the remedial action comprises replacing the first image feed on the first CMS display with the image feed from the backup camera (Figs. 5A-5D, ¶0053-0055: in the case in which any one of the outside left camera 131 and the outside right camera 132, and any one of the outside left display 141 and the outside right display 142 fail (e.g., see FIGS. 5A and 5B), the controller 110 may provide image data deriving from normally functioning outside cameras (e.g., 132 of FIG. 5A and 131 of FIG. 5B) to the corresponding normally functioning display (e.g., 141 of FIG. 5B) of the outside left display 141 and the outside right display 142, or may provide the image data deriving from the normally functioning outside cameras to a division screen of the corresponding direction of the head unit display 145 when there is no the corresponding normally functioning display (e.g., see FIG. 5A)).
Regarding claim 3, Sung discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the remedial action comprises displaying the image feed from the backup camera on the backup camera display while the commercial vehicle is moving forward (¶0042, Figs. 5A-5D, images displayed on displays 141-142, 145).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is drawn to a camera monitor system claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is drawn to a camera monitor system claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 2, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is drawn to a camera monitor system claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 3, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is drawn to a camera monitor system claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 5, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 23, Sung teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the fault condition is one in which the CMS ECU stops receiving the first image feed from the first CMS camera (¶0052-0053: FIGS. 5A to 5D illustrate a display state depending on a failure occurrence of any one or more of the outside cameras 131 and 132. Note that the controller 110 does not obtain image from the cameras 131 or 132 in the failed state).
Regarding claim 24, the claim is drawn to a system claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 23, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 23.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US 20170161566 A1) in view of Oba et al. (US 20200317213 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sung discloses a method for a camera monitor system (CMS), comprising: obtaining, at a CMS electronic control unit (ECU), images of an environment surrounding a commercial vehicle from a first CMS camera and a second CMS camera (¶0034, 0037, Figs. 1-5: cameras 121-124, 131, 132), wherein the first CMS camera and second CMS camera are disposed on opposing sides of the commercial vehicle (left camera 131, right camera 132, top view left cameras 121-124- left, right, front and rear cameras); displaying a first image feed from the first CMS camera on a first CMS display; displaying a second image feed from the second CMS camera on a second CMS display that is separate from the first CMS display (Figs. 5A-5D: displays 141, 141 and 145 displaying image received from the cameras 131, 132, 121-124); and based on detection of a fault condition in which the first CMS display cannot display the first image feed, initiating display of the first image feed on (Figs. 5A-5D, ¶0050, 0053-0055: in the case in which any one of the outside left camera 131 and the outside right camera 132, and any one of the outside left display 141 and the outside right display 142 fail (e.g., see FIGS. 5A and 5B), the controller 110 may provide image data deriving from normally functioning outside cameras (e.g., 132 of FIG. 5A and 131 of FIG. 5B) to the corresponding normally functioning display (e.g., 141 of FIG. 5B) of the outside left display 141 and the outside right display 142, or may provide the image data deriving from the normally functioning outside cameras to a division screen of the corresponding direction of the head unit display 145 when there is no the corresponding normally functioning display (e.g., see FIG. 5A)).
Sung does not explicitly teach a display that is behind a steering wheel of the vehicle.
However, Oba teaches a display that is behind a steering wheel of the vehicle (¶0102-0105: abnormality detection section 31 is also capable of detecting the abnormality of any of the plurality of monitors 21, 22, and 23 …the normal mode M1 in which the images acquired by the plurality of cameras 11, 12, and 13 are displayed on the plurality of monitors 21, 22, and 23, respectively, is switched to the abnormality detection mode M2 in which the images are displayed on any of monitors (any of the navigation monitor 24, the center console monitor 25, and the meter panel 26) other than the plurality of monitors 21, 22, and 23).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sung by incorporating the teaching of Oba in order to obtain multiple different alternative of displaying image captured by the vehicle camera in the case of the occurrence of an abnormality in any one or more of the vehicle displays (Oba: ¶0111-0114).
Claim(s) 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US 20170161566 A1) in view of Corrodi et al. (US 20220292841 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Sung teaches the limitation of the claim as follows:
A method for a camera monitor system (CMS), comprising: obtaining, at a CMS electronic control unit (ECU), images of an environment surrounding a commercial vehicle from a first CMS camera and a second CMS camera, wherein the first CMS camera is disposed on a first side of the commercial vehicle, and the second CMS camera is disposed on a second side, opposite the first side, of the commercial vehicle (Figs. 1-5A-5D: ¶0030, 0034, 37: left camera 131, right camera 132, top view left, right, front and rear cameras 121-124, providing images to a controller 110);displaying a first image feed from the first CMS camera on a first CMS display that is mounted to an (Figs. 5A-5D: displays 141, 141 and 145 displaying image received from the cameras 131, 132, 121-124). ¶0034: a left display 141 and a right display 142 configured to be each installed at a left position and a right position, respectively, around a dash board inside of the vehicle. See Fig. 3); and based on detection of a fault condition in which the first CMS display cannot display the first image feed on the first CMS display, initiating display of the first image feed on the head unit display 145], such that the head unit display 145] displays the first image feed and the second image feed (Figs. 4, 5A-5D, ¶0050, 0053-0055: the controller 110 may determine that the corresponding display fails. For example, when the outside left display 141 fails, the controller 110 provides image data deriving from the outside left camera 131 to the head unit display 145, thereby making it possible to display the image data on a left division screen. Further, when the outside right display 142 fails, the controller 110 provides image data deriving from the outside right camera 132 to the head unit display 145, thereby making it possible to display the image data on a right division screen. In addition, when both the outside left display 141 and the outside right display 142 fail, the controller 110 may each provide the image data deriving from the outside left camera 131 and the outside right camera 132 to the head unit display 145, thereby making it possible to display the image data on the left and right division screens).
Although Sung does not expressly disclose the second CMS display displays the first image feed and the second image feed during a fault condition of the first CMS display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , initiating display of the first image feed on the second CMS display, such that the second CMS display displays the first image feed and the second image feed in the event of the fault condition of the first display, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). As noted above, Sung discloses using alternate cameras (top-view left/right) as substitutes in the event of failure state of the outside cameras. Moreover, Sung discloses multiple displays left display 141, right display 142 and a head unit display 145, and in the case of in which one of the left display 141 and right display 142 fail, providing image data deriving from normally functioning outside cameras to a corresponding normally functioning display of the left display 141 and right display 142, or to a division screen of the head unit display 145.See Fig. 4 illustrating a division screen in the event of a camera or display failure. Therefore, routing the rear camera’s feed to any one of normally functioning display units on a division screen as remedial measure would have been a predictable use of the prior art elements according to their known established functions.
Sung does not explicitly disclose a display that is mounted to an A-pillar of the vehicle.
However, Corrodi discloses a display that is mounted to an A-pillar of the vehicle (¶0054: displays 18a, 18b are arranged on each of the driver and passenger sides within the vehicle cabin 22 on or near the A-pillars).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sung by incorporating the teaching of Corrodi as noted above, in order to display Class II and Class IV views on its respective side of the vehicle (Corrodi: ¶0054).
Regarding claim 26, Sung teaches the following limitation of the claim:
A camera monitor system (CMS), comprising: a first CMS camera mounted to a first side of the commercial vehicle; a second CMS camera mounted to a second side, opposite the first side, of the commercial vehicle (Figs. 1-5A-5D: ¶0030, 0034, 37: left camera 131, right camera 132, top view left, right, front and rear cameras 121-124, providing images to a controller 110); a first CMS display mounted on vehicle; a second CMS display mounted on an (¶0034: a left display 141 and a right display 142 configured to be each installed at a left position and a right position, respectively, around a dash board inside of the vehicle. See Fig. 3); and a CMS electronic control unit (ECU) configured to: obtain images of an environment surrounding the commercial vehicle from the first CMS camera and the second CMS camera (Figs. 1-5A-5D: ¶0030, 0034, 37: left camera 131, right camera 132, top view left, right, front and rear cameras 121-124, providing images to a controller 110); display a first image feed from the first CMS camera on the first CMS; display a second image feed from the second CMS camera on the second CMS display (Figs. 5A-5D: displays 141, 141 and 145 displaying image received from the cameras 131, 132, 121-124). ¶0034: a left display 141 and a right display 142 configured to be each installed at a left position and a right position, respectively, around a dash board inside of the vehicle. See Fig. 3); and based on detection of a fault condition in which the first CMS display cannot display the first image feed on the first CMS display, initiate display of the first image feed on the head unit display 145], such that the head unit display 145] displays the first image feed and the second image feed (Figs. 4, 5A-5D, ¶0050, 0053-0055: the controller 110 may determine that the corresponding display fails. For example, when the outside left display 141 fails, the controller 110 provides image data deriving from the outside left camera 131 to the head unit display 145, thereby making it possible to display the image data on a left division screen. Further, when the outside right display 142 fails, the controller 110 provides image data deriving from the outside right camera 132 to the head unit display 145, thereby making it possible to display the image data on a right division screen. In addition, when both the outside left display 141 and the outside right display 142 fail, the controller 110 may each provide the image data deriving from the outside left camera 131 and the outside right camera 132 to the head unit display 145, thereby making it possible to display the image data on the left and right division screens).
Although Sung does not expressly disclose the second CMS display (mounted on an A-pillar of the second side) displays the first image feed and the second image feed during a fault condition of the first CMS display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , initiating display of the first image feed on the second CMS display, such that the second CMS display displays the first image feed and the second image feed in the event of the fault condition of the first display, since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). As noted above, Sung discloses using alternate cameras (top-view left/right) as substitutes in the event of failure state of the outside cameras. Moreover, Sung discloses multiple displays left display 141, right display 142 and a head unit display 145, and in the case of in which one of the left display 141 and right display 142 fail, providing image data deriving from normally functioning outside cameras to a corresponding normally functioning display of the left display 141 and right display 142, or to a division screen of the head unit display 145.See Fig. 4 illustrating a division screen in the event of a camera or display failure. Therefore, routing the rear camera’s feed to any one of normally functioning display units on a division screen as remedial measure would have been a predictable use of the prior art elements according to their known established functions.
Sung does not explicitly disclose a display that is mounted to an A-pillar of the vehicle.
However, Corrodi discloses a display that is mounted to an A-pillar of the vehicle (¶0054: displays 18a, 18b are arranged on each of the driver and passenger sides within the vehicle cabin 22 on or near the A-pillars).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sung by incorporating the teaching of Corrodi as noted above, in order to display Class II and Class IV views on its respective side of the vehicle (Corrodi: ¶0054).
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 NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights