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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 2/09/2024. Claims 1–24 are pending and are examined below.
PRIORITY
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of foreign priority to SG10202300348V, filed on 2/10/2023.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18 and 23 are objected to because of claim informalities.
As to claims 1, 9 and 17, in claim limitation “determining whether the first plane is perpendicular to ground,” the word ground is missing an article. Examiner suggests amending to: “perpendicular to the ground.”
As to claims 2, 10 and 18, claim element “the difference” lacks antecedent basis.
As to claims 7, 15 and 23, claim element “the environment” lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “receiving, from a first scanning device, data” in claims 1, 9 and 17 (with respective dependent claims 2–8, 10–16 and 18–24) and “receiving, from a second scanning device, a plurality of side points” in claims 2, 10 and 18 (with respective dependent claims 3–8, 11–16 and 19–24).
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes: LiDAR (See at least ¶¶ 20, 28.)
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2–6, 10–14 and 18–22 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.
As to claims 2, 10 and 18, the recitation “based on the difference being less than a third predetermined threshold” is vague and indefinite. Namely, it is unclear what “difference” is being calculated. At best, the specification discusses determining a radian difference between planes at PGPUB para. [0038]. However, as the claim does not discuss calculating angles between planes, it unclear whether this is Applicant’s intention. In light of the above, it is unclear what is being claimed in light of Applicant’s original disclosure.
Claims 3–6 depend from claim 2. Claims 11–14 depend from claim 10. Claims 19–22 depend from claim 18.
Therefore, claims 2–6, 10–14 and 18–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, 17 and 24 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20210382174A1; “Chen”) in view of Jin et al. (US20210356261A1; “Jin”) and in view of Han et al. (US20200132835A1; “Han”).
As to claim 1, Chen discloses: a method for detecting location aspects of an autonomous vehicle to avoid collisions, the method comprising:
receiving, from a first scanning device, data comprising a plurality of points characterizing a trailer of an autonomous vehicle (“Lidar point clouds” may be obtained from a “trailer” – see at least ¶ 60 and FIGS. 7A, B.);
defining a first plane associated with the trailer (“In one scenario, the technique may only include the points on the same plane as the major face, which is described by a major point and its surface normal.” ¶ 63.);
determining whether the first plane is normal to the first scanning device (“The major face may be considered the face for which the system computes the surface normal.” ¶ 61.);
based on the first plane being normal to the first scanning device, determining an orientation of the trailer based on the first plane (“The orientation of the trailer is estimated based on the point cloud data.” Abstract; see also FIG. 10 and associated discussion.); and
controlling maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle through one or more commands based on the orientation (“And at block 1008, the system sets a driving operation in the autonomous driving mode according to the determined pose of the articulating unit.” ¶ 71 and FIG. 10.).
Chen fails to explicitly disclose: defining a first plane associated with the trailer based on the plurality of points exceeding a first predetermined threshold.
Nevertheless, Jin teaches: defining a first plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a first predetermined threshold (“If the number of points in the laser point cloud of the longest straight line segment is smaller than the predetermined number threshold, it means that the longest line segment is fitted using a relatively small number of laser point clouds. If the longest straight line segment is fitted using only few laser point clouds, the obtained initial trailer angle may be highly inaccurate and should be discarded.” ¶ 64. Examiner Note: That is, upon determining that a plurality of points exceeds a predetermined threshold, a straight line segment representing a plane of a trailer face may be subsequently determined.).
Chen discloses: determining an orientation of a trailer based on a first plane determined from a plurality of points, wherein the first plane is normal to the first scanning device; and controlling maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle through one or more commands based on the orientation. Jin teaches: defining a first plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a first predetermined threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chen to include the feature of: defining a first plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a first predetermined threshold, as taught by Jin, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for obtaining an accurate portrayal of a trailer’s orientation (See Jin, ¶ 64.).
The combination of Chen and Jin fails to explicitly disclose: determining whether the first plane is perpendicular to the ground.
Nevertheless, Han teaches: determining whether a first plane is perpendicular to the ground (To detect a trailer, ultrasonic sensors may be mounted “in a plane that is perpendicular to the axis between the tractor and the trailer …. Placing the ultrasonic sensors in a pattern can avoid objects between the tow vehicle and trailer and can avoid surfaces that are not normal to the ultrasonic sensor.” ¶ 20 and FIG. 2. Examiner Note: Given that the sensors are mounted in a manner wherein the sensors capture a plane parallel to the ground, it follows from ordinary understanding of plane geometry that a plane which is normal to the sensors will necessarily be perpendicular to the ground.).
Chen discloses: determining an orientation of a trailer based on a first plane determined from a plurality of points, wherein the first plane is normal to the first scanning device; and controlling maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle through one or more commands based on the orientation. Jin teaches: defining a first plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a first predetermined threshold. Han teaches: determining whether a first plane is perpendicular to the ground.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen and Jin to include the feature of: determining whether a first plane is perpendicular to the ground, as taught by Han, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately capturing the orientation of a trailer. (See at least Han, ¶ 20.) And as mentioned above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given Han’s mounting of a scanning device(s), Chen’s determination of a first plane being normal to a first scanning device would especially ensure that the captured plane is perpendicular to the ground given the ordinary understanding of plane geometry.
Independent claims 9 and 17 are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite similar subject matter but for minor differences.
As to claims 8, 16 and 24, the combination of Chen and Jin fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the first scanning device is mounted in a perpendicular manner on the autonomous vehicle.
Nevertheless, Han teaches: wherein a first scanning device is mounted in a perpendicular manner on an autonomous vehicle (To detect a trailer, ultrasonic sensors may be mounted “in a plane that is perpendicular to the axis between the tractor and the trailer …. Placing the ultrasonic sensors in a pattern can avoid objects between the tow vehicle and trailer and can avoid surfaces that are not normal to the ultrasonic sensor.” ¶ 20 and FIG. 2.).
Chen discloses: determining an orientation of a trailer based on a first plane determined from a plurality of points, wherein the first plane is normal to the first scanning device; and controlling maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle through one or more commands based on the orientation. Jin teaches: defining a first plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a first predetermined threshold. Han teaches: determining whether a first plane is perpendicular to the ground; and wherein a first scanning device is mounted in a perpendicular manner on an autonomous vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen and Jin to include the feature of: wherein a first scanning device is mounted in a perpendicular manner on an autonomous vehicle, as taught by Han, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately capturing the orientation of a trailer. (See at least Han, ¶ 20.)
Claims 2, 4–6, 10, 12–14, 18, and 20–22 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jin and in view of Han as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Wang et al. (US20210291902A1; “Wang”).
As to claims 2, 10 and 18, Chen discloses:
receiving, from a second scanning device, a plurality of side points characterizing a side of the trailer (“One or more Lidar units may be located in rooftop sensor housing 302.” ¶ 51. “Another aspect involves determining whether the Lidar point cloud (or other sensor information) is returned primarily from the front face of the trailer or more predominantly from either the left side face or right side face of the trailer.” ¶ 58.);
defining a second plane associated with a side of the trailer based on the plurality of side points (“The stateless approach determines which part of the trailer (e.g., front, left side or right side) is the “major” face being returned as part of the Lidar point cloud.” ¶ 61.);
determining whether the second plane is normal to the second scanning device (“The major face may be considered the face for which the system computes the surface normal.” ¶ 61.);
adjusting, based on the second plane being normal to the second scanning device, the orientation of the trailer to include aspects of the first plane (“If the system determines that there are two sides shot by the laser device (receiving laser returns from two sides), the system may use the amount of planarity or other criteria to select the better (e.g., more planar) side as the major face.” ¶ 61. Examiner Note: That is, at least first and second planes representing respective trailer faces may be determined and included in an overall determined orientation of the trailer.).
Chen fails to explicitly disclose: defining a second plane associated with a side of the trailer based on the plurality of side points exceeding a second predetermined threshold.
Nevertheless, Jin teaches: defining a plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a predetermined threshold (“If the number of points in the laser point cloud of the longest straight line segment is smaller than the predetermined number threshold, it means that the longest line segment is fitted using a relatively small number of laser point clouds. If the longest straight line segment is fitted using only few laser point clouds, the obtained initial trailer angle may be highly inaccurate and should be discarded.” ¶ 64. Examiner Note: That is, upon determining that a plurality of points exceeds a predetermined threshold, a straight line segment representing a plane of a trailer face may be subsequently determined.).
Chen discloses: determining an orientation of a trailer based on a first plane and a second plane determined from a respective plurality of points, wherein the first and second planes are normal to the first scanning device; and controlling maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle through one or more commands based on the orientation. Jin teaches: defining a plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a predetermined threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chen to include the feature of: defining a plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a predetermined threshold, as taught by Jin, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for obtaining an accurate portrayal of a trailer’s orientation (See Jin, ¶ 64.).
The combination of Chen and Jin fails to explicitly disclose: determining whether the second plane is perpendicular to the ground.
Nevertheless, Han teaches: determining whether a plane is perpendicular to the ground (To detect a trailer, ultrasonic sensors may be mounted “in a plane that is perpendicular to the axis between the tractor and the trailer …. Placing the ultrasonic sensors in a pattern can avoid objects between the tow vehicle and trailer and can avoid surfaces that are not normal to the ultrasonic sensor.” ¶ 20 and FIG. 2. Examiner Note: Given that the sensors are mounted in a manner wherein the sensors capture a plane parallel to the ground, it follows from ordinary understanding of plane geometry that a plane which is normal to the sensors will necessarily be perpendicular to the ground.).
Chen discloses: determining an orientation of a trailer based on a first plane and a second plane determined from a respective plurality of points, wherein the first and second planes are normal to the first scanning device; and controlling maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle through one or more commands based on the orientation. Jin teaches: defining a plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a predetermined threshold. Han teaches: determining whether a plane is perpendicular to the ground.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen and Jin to include the feature of: determining whether a plane is perpendicular to the ground, as taught by Han, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for accurately capturing the orientation of a trailer. (See at least Han, ¶ 20.) And as mentioned above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given Han’s mounting of a scanning device(s), Chen’s determination of a first plane being normal to a first scanning device would especially ensure that the captured plane is perpendicular to the ground given the ordinary understanding of plane geometry.
The combination of Chen, Jin and Han fails to explicitly disclose: adjusting, based on the second plane being perpendicular to the ground, the orientation of the trailer to include aspects of the first plane based on the difference being less than a third predetermined threshold.
Nevertheless, Wang teaches: adjusting the orientation of the trailer to include aspects of a first plane based on a difference being less than a predetermined threshold (“At step 402, it is determined whether the initial trailer angle is greater than a predetermined angle threshold.” ¶ 57. “When the initial trailer angle is smaller than or equal to the predetermined angle threshold, the method proceeds with step 403.” ¶ 59 and FIG. 8. “At step 403, it is determined to use the single-beam lidar for trailer angle measurement, the single-beam lidar is controlled to emit laser light, and a laser point cloud reflected by the laser reflection plate is received.” ¶ 61 and FIG. 8. Examiner Note: That is, upon an angle difference being less than a predetermined threshold, lidar is controlled to capture aspects of a first plane associated with a trailer to adjust the orientation of a trailer.).
Chen discloses: determining an orientation of a trailer based on a first plane and a second plane determined from a respective plurality of points, wherein the first and second planes are normal to the first scanning device; and controlling maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle through one or more commands based on the orientation. Jin teaches: defining a plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a predetermined threshold. Han teaches: determining whether a plane is perpendicular to the ground. Wang teaches: adjusting the orientation of the trailer to include aspects of a first plane based on a difference being less than a predetermined threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen, Jin and Han to include the feature of: adjusting the orientation of the trailer to include aspects of a first plane based on a difference being less than a predetermined threshold, as taught by Wang, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful to “implement fast and accurate measurement of a trailer angle [i.e., orientation].” (Wang, ¶ 4.)
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Wang teaches that normal processing is carried out as long as a difference of trailer angle to a towing vehicle is less than a threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Chen with this continue its processing of including aspects of a trailer – including of a first plane – into the determination of an orientation of a trailer as long as the difference is less than a threshold as such ensures successful operation with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claims 4, 12 and 20, Chen discloses: wherein the second scanning device is mounted on a right side of a front bumper of the autonomous vehicle or on a left side of the front bumper (“Sensor units may also be located along other regions of the cab 106, such as along the front bumper.” ¶ 31.).
As to claims 5, 13 and 21, Chen fails to explicitly disclose: wherein at least one of the first plane or the second plane is determined using a random sample consensus model.
Nevertheless, Jin teaches: wherein a plane is determined using a random sample consensus mode (“A Random Sample Consensus (RANSAC) algorithm is applied to the noise filtered laser point cloud corresponding to each of the LiDARs to obtain one or more straight line segments formed by laser point clouds corresponding to the LiDAR, and a longest straight line segment corresponding to the LiDAR is determined from the one or more straight line segments formed by laser point clouds.” ¶ 53 and FIG. 8.).
Chen discloses: determining an orientation of a trailer based on a first plane and a second plane determined from a respective plurality of points, wherein the first and second planes are normal to the first scanning device; and controlling maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle through one or more commands based on the orientation. Jin teaches: defining a plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a predetermined threshold; and wherein a plane is determined using a random sample consensus mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chen to include the feature of: wherein a plane is determined using a random sample consensus mode, as taught by Jin, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for optimizing and filtering LIDAR point cloud data. (See at least Jin, ¶ 53.)
As to claims 6, 14 and 22, Chen discloses: wherein at least one of the first scanning device or the second scanning device is a light and detection ranging (LiDAR) device and the plurality of points or the plurality of side points comprises a plurality of LiDAR points (“One or more Lidar units may be located in rooftop sensor housing 302.” ¶ 51. “Another aspect involves determining whether the Lidar point cloud (or other sensor information) is returned primarily from the front face of the trailer or more predominantly from either the left side face or right side face of the trailer.” ¶ 58.).
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jin, in view of Han and in view of Wang as applied to claim 2 – further in view of website article “Semi Trailer Types and Dimensions”1 (“Dimensions”)
As to claims 3, 11 and 19, the combination of Chen, Jin, Han and Wang fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the second predetermined threshold is at least four times larger than the first predetermined threshold.
Nevertheless, Dimensions teaches: wherein the dimensions of a side of a trailer are at least four times larger than the dimensions of a front of a trailer (“The standard dimensions of semi-trailers are: Length: 48 - 53 feet (576 - 636 inches) … Width: 8.5 feet (102 inches).” p. 1.).
Chen discloses: determining an orientation of a trailer based on a first plane and a second plane determined from a respective plurality of points, wherein the first and second planes are normal to the first scanning device; and controlling maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle through one or more commands based on the orientation. Jin teaches: defining a plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a predetermined threshold. Han teaches: determining whether a plane is perpendicular to the ground. Wang teaches: adjusting the orientation of the trailer to include aspects of a first plane based on a difference being less than a predetermined threshold. Dimensions teaches: wherein the dimensions of a side of a trailer are at least four times larger than the dimensions of a front of a trailer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen, Jin, Han and Wang to include the feature of: wherein the dimensions of a side of a trailer are at least four times larger than the dimensions of a front of a trailer, as taught by Dimensions, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because the standard dimensions of a trailer are well-known in the art.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that in the context of the claimed invention, the second predetermined threshold of a plurality of points would correspond to the side of the trailer while the first predetermined threshold of a plurality of points would correspond to the front of the trailer. Such would at least follow FIG. 7B of Chen which illustrates that a larger amount of a plurality of points is required to define a side of a trailer than a front of a trailer. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success through routine optimization of adjusting Jin’s predetermined thresholds to conform to the well-known dimensions of standard trailers.
Examiner finally notes that the specification does not establish the criticality of the second predetermined threshold being four times larger than the first predetermined threshold. Such provides further credence to one of ordinary skill in the art arriving at the claimed invention as the predetermined thresholds are ultimately arbitrary in respect to standard trailer dimensions.
Claims 7, 15 and 23 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Jin and in view of Han as applied to claim 1 – further in view of Schreibmueller et al. (US20210094616A1; “Schreibmueller”).
As to claims 7, 15 and 23, Chen discloses: wherein the autonomous vehicle is an autonomous prime mover (“The technology described herein provides systems and methods for tracking the pose of a trailer or other articulated element of a vehicle that can operate in a fully or partially autonomous driving mode.” ¶ 3.).
The combination of Chen, Jin and Han fails to explicitly disclose: the environment is a shipping port environment.
Nevertheless, Schreibmueller teaches: the environment is a shipping port environment (“The trailer may hereby be located in a region of a port.” ¶ 14.).
Chen discloses: determining an orientation of a trailer based on a first plane determined from a plurality of points, wherein the first plane is normal to the first scanning device; and controlling maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle through one or more commands based on the orientation. Jin teaches: defining a first plane associated with a trailer based on a plurality of points exceeding a first predetermined threshold. Han teaches: determining whether a first plane is perpendicular to the ground. Schreibmueller teaches: the environment is a shipping port environment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chen, Jin, and Han to include the feature of: the environment is a shipping port environment, as taught by Schreibmueller, to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because it is well-known in the art that trailers may operate in a shipping port environment.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
1 https://web.archive.org/web/20210805143753/https://streamlogistics.com/trailer-dimensions/ (Effective publishing date: 2021)