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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/3/2025 has been entered.
Priority
In Applicants Remarks filed 11/3/2025, applicant requested confirmation of the applicant’s claim to foreign priority. Applicant’s claimed national stage priority as a continuation of PCT/US2021/018614 as detailed in the Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed 8/16/2023 has been received and confirmed. All claims as of this Office Action are and were analyzed in view of this priority. No foreign priority on record exists for this application. If applicant intended to claim foreign priority, examiner recommends filing a corrected ADS and appropriate foreign priority documents.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claims 5 and 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The limitation “the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal include different polarizations of the electromagnetic sensor signal” of claim 5 is a substantial duplicate of the limitation “the multiple modalities comprising… polarization angles” albeit for slightly different wording.
Further, the limitation “the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal include different frequencies of the electromagnetic sensor signal” of claim 6 is a substantial duplicate of the limitation “the multiple modalities comprising different frequencies” of claim 1 albeit for slightly different wording. Examiner recommends cancellation of claims 5 and 6 as they are already covered by the independent claims and do not further narrow the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-2, 4-16, and 18-20 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.
Claims 1, 15, and 18 contain the following limitation: “the multiple modalities comprising different frequencies or polarization angles each activated and controlled in a self-enclosed system comprising a local offline random number generator that controls which angles are active during the period of time”. As written, it is clear that the multiple modalities are the frequencies or polarization angles, but it is unclear if the random number generator (RNG) is used to activate and control whichever modality is selected or if only polarization angles are controlled with the RNG if polarization angles are selected. The utilization of “each” seems to indicate that whichever set of modalities is selected will be activated and controlled, but the detail that the RNG “controls which angles are active” provides confusion as the frequencies are frequencies, not angles. Paragraph 0084 of the specification appears to provide details about controlling either frequencies or polarization angles with the RNG, but previous paragraph 0083 contains the same confusing wording as detailed in the claim, so it is unclear even in consideration of the specification what the metes and bounds for the RNG based control are meant to be. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the RNG will be interpreted as activating and controlling either frequencies or polarization angles wherein the phrase “controls which angles are active” is only applicable to if polarization angles are selected.
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 and 4-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al. EP 1400816 A2 (hereinafter Matsubara) in view of Tsai et al. US 12054164 B2 (hereinafter Tsai), Davis US 12276734 B1 (hereinafter Davis), and Bruneau et al. US 20210367755 A1 (hereinafter Bruneau).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Matsubara teaches a vehicle (Figure 11 depicts the invention being used in a vehicle) comprising:
a sensor system including a transmitter configured to emit multiple modalities of an electromagnetic sensor signal over a period of time during which the vehicle is in operation (paragraph 0007 discloses a radar which emits waves at shifting frequencies during vehicle operation; radar emission requires a transmitter) and a receiver configured to sense the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal over the period of time (paragraph 0007 discloses receiving reflected radio waves; radar reception requires a receiver); and
one or more processing circuits connected to the sensor system (paragraph 0007 discloses a signal processing unit; since it receives data from the sensor it is connected) and configured to:
receive, from the sensor system, the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal as sensed over the period of time (Abstract discloses detecting objects with radar which implies sensing the returning signal), the multiple modalities comprising different frequencies (Abstract discloses multiple frequencies of the signal);
generate, from the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal as sensed over the period of time, an intermediate output for each of the modalities for a plurality of sub-intervals of the period (paragraph 0007 discloses processing sensor data to obtain position information of a vehicle ahead);
for each of the plurality of sub-intervals, compare the intermediate outputs of different ones of the multiple modalities (paragraph 0007 discloses comparing the position information to determine if there is jamming) including performing a majority voting between the different ones of the multiple modalities for each of the plurality of sub-intervals (Abstract discloses comparisons are done with majority voting); and
for each of the modalities, compare the intermediate outputs for the plurality of sub-intervals (paragraph 0012 discloses comparing the waveforms of the received signals and determining if there is jamming) including performing a majority voting between the modalities of the intermediate outputs for the plurality of sub-intervals (Abstract discloses comparisons are done with majority voting).
Matsubara doesn’t teach an autonomous vehicle, comprising: an electro-mechanical control system configured to receive control inputs and control operation of the autonomous vehicle in response thereto; the processing circuit further connected to the electro-mechanical control system is further configured to: based on a combination of the majority voting between the different ones of the multiple modalities for each of the plurality of sub-intervals and the majority voting between the each of modalities of the intermediate outputs for the plurality of sub-intervals, generate and provide the control inputs to the electro-mechanical control system.
Tsai teaches an autonomous vehicle (column 3 lines 5-7 recite that fault detection occurs on an autonomous vehicle), comprising:
an electro-mechanical control system configured to receive control inputs and control operation of the autonomous vehicle in response thereto (Figure 4C discloses various electro-mechanical control systems, such as a propulsion system 450; column 8 lines 4-27 disclose a controller controlling the vehicle);
the processing circuit further connected to the electro-mechanical control system (Figure 4C 418 shows a CPU connected to the propulsion system 450 and steering system 454) is further configured to:
based on a detected fault, generate and provide the control inputs to the electro-mechanical control system (column 44 lines 50-57 disclose controlling the vehicle in response to a detected hardware fault).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Tsai such that, upon detection of a fault by the teachings of Matsubara, the vehicle can be appropriately controlled by the teachings of Tsai with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of vehicle operation.
Matsubara does not teach the multiple modalities further comprising polarization angles each activated and controlled in a self-enclosed system comprising a local offline random number generator that controls which angles are active during the period of time.
Davis teaches the multiple modalities further comprising polarization angles (column 2 line 41 to column 3 line 9 discloses polarization of LIDAR pulses) each activated and controlled in a self-enclosed system comprising a local random number generator that controls which angles are active during the period of time (column 2 line 41 to column 3 line 9 discloses a deterministic random bit generator (DRBG) generates a pseudorandom key sequence that is encoded in LIDAR pulse's polarization and/or frequency; claim 1 discloses that the DRBG is comprised within the vehicle, i.e. local).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Davis such that the radar of can be controlled by a DRBG that provides a pseudorandom key sequence which is encoded within the sensor’s polarization angles and/or frequencies as taught by Davis. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate vulnerabilities to spoofing and interference of conventional sensor systems as disclosed in Davis (column 2 lines 21-25).
Matsubara does not teach that the random number generator is offline.
Bruneau teaches that the random number generator is offline (paragraph 0083 discloses cryptographic keys can be generated online or offline by a random number generator).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Bruneau such that DRBG of Davis can be utilized offline as taught by Bruneau. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow greater flexibility of number generation and reduce reliance on an internet connection to perform the method.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above. Matsubara further teaches that the comparing of the intermediate outputs of different ones of the multiple modalities for each of the plurality of sub-intervals and comparing of each of modalities of the intermediate outputs for the plurality of sub-intervals are performed in a single processor of the one or more processing circuits (paragraph 0007 discloses a signal processing unit which appears to be a solitary unit).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not teach that the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal include different polarizations of the electromagnetic sensor signal.
Davis further teaches that that the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal include different polarizations of the electromagnetic sensor signal (column 2 line 41 to column 3 line 9 discloses DRBG generates a pseudorandom key sequence that is encoded in LIDAR pulses' polarization; repetition of the encoding generation process in Figure 5 indicates a plurality of random polarizations are generated).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Davis such that the radar of can be provided with randomized polarization as taught by Davis. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate vulnerabilities to spoofing and interference of conventional sensor systems as disclosed in Davis (column 2 lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above. Matsubara further teaches that the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal include different frequencies of the electromagnetic sensor signal (Abstract discloses multiple frequencies of the signal).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not teach that the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal include different encodings of the electromagnetic sensor signal.
Davis further teaches that the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal include different encodings of the electromagnetic sensor signal (column 2 line 41 to column 3 line 9 discloses DRBG generates a pseudorandom key sequence that is encoded in LIDAR pulses; repetition of the encoding generation process in Figure 5 indicates a plurality of random encodings are generated).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Davis such that the radar of can be provided with randomized encodings as taught by Davis. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate vulnerabilities to spoofing and interference of conventional sensor systems as disclosed in Davis (column 2 lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not teach that the electromagnetic sensor signal is a lidar signal.
Tsai further teaches that the electromagnetic sensor signal is a lidar signal (Figure 4A 464 discloses lidar).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Tsai. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the lidar of Tsai for the radar of the Matsubara. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of producing signals which map out the environment by emitting and receiving back a signal renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above. Matsubara further teaches that the electromagnetic sensor signal is a radar signal (Abstract discloses radar).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not teach that the sensor system includes a visual spectrum camera system.
Tsai further teaches that the sensor system includes a visual spectrum camera system (Figure 4A 468, 470, and 474 disclose various camera systems).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the further teachings of Tsai with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety and reliability of self-driving.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above. Matsubara further teaches that the sensor system is configured to emit multiple modalities (paragraph 0007 discloses a radar which emits waves at shifting frequencies).
Matsubara does not teach a sonar signal.
Tsai further teaches a sonar signal (Figure 4A 462 discloses ultrasonic sensors).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the further teachings of Tsai. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function, but in the very combination itself, that is in the substitution of the ultrasonic sensors of Tsai for the radar of the Matsubara. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result of producing signals which map out the environment by emitting and receiving back a signal renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 11 as disclosed above. Tsai teaches a sonar signal (Figure 4A 462 discloses ultrasonic sensors) as disclosed and combined to teach claim 11 above. Matsubara further teaches that the multiple modalities include different frequencies (Abstract discloses multiple frequencies of the signal).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not teach that the electro-mechanical control system includes a steering control system for the autonomous vehicle.
Tsai further teaches that the electro-mechanical control system includes a steering control system for the autonomous vehicle (Figure 4C 454 discloses a steering system for autonomous vehicle control).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the further teachings of Tsai with a reasonable expectation of success to improve reliability of the autonomous driving.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 1 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not teach that the electro-mechanical control system includes a speed control system for the autonomous vehicle.
Tsai further teaches that the electro-mechanical control system includes a speed control system for the autonomous vehicle (Figure 4C 450 discloses a propulsion system including throttler/accelerator 452 which would inherently control speed within the autonomous vehicle).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the further teachings of Tsai with a reasonable expectation of success to improve reliability of the autonomous driving.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara in view of Tsai, Davis, Bruneau, and Liu et al. CN 109061577 A (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 18, Matsubara teaches one or more processing circuits (paragraph 0007 discloses a signal processing unit) configured to:
receive, from a sensor system having a receiver, multiple modalities of each of a plurality of sensor signals as sensed over a period of time (Abstract discloses detecting objects with radar which implies sensing the returning signal; a receiver is required to receive radar signals), the multiple modalities comprising different frequencies (Abstract discloses multiple frequencies of the signal);
perform, for each of the corresponding multiple modalities of the corresponding sensor signals as sensed over the period of time, majority voting between the multiple modalities for each of a plurality of sub-intervals of the period (paragraph 0012 discloses comparing the waveforms of the received signals and determining if there is jamming; Abstract discloses comparisons are done with majority voting).
Matsubara does not teach a control system for autonomously operable equipment, comprising: one or more processing circuits further configured to: perform, for each of the corresponding multiple modalities of the corresponding sensor signals as sensed over the period of time, majority voting for each of the multiple modalities between different times of the period; and based on a combination of the majority voting between the multiple modalities for each of the sub-intervals and the majority voting for each of the multiple modalities between different times of the period for each of the corresponding sensor signal voting, generate and provide control inputs for an electro-mechanical control system for the autonomously operable equipment.
Liu teaches performing, for each of the corresponding multiple modalities the corresponding sensor signals as sensed over the period of time, majority voting for each of the multiple modalities between different times of the period (translated page 2 last paragraph discloses a known method of extracting statistical parameters based on frequency of occurrence from a histogram of a signal's amplitude and phase which examiner considers additional modalities; examiner considers an analysis of a histogram in this manner to have an equivalent function to majority voting with historical data).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Liu with a reasonable expectation of success to improve filtering of noise and interference modalities when the signal to noise/interference ratio is high.
The modified Matsubara reference still does not teach a control system for autonomously operable equipment, comprising: one or more processing circuits further configured to: based on a combination of the majority voting between the multiple modalities for each of the sub-intervals and the majority voting for each of the multiple modalities between differ times of the period for each of the corresponding sensor signal voting, generate and provide control inputs for an electro-mechanical control system for the autonomously operable equipment.
Tsai teaches a control system for autonomously operable equipment (column 3 lines 5-7 recites a fault detection system on an autonomous vehicle; column 8 lines 4-27 disclose a controller controlling the vehicle), comprising: one or more processing circuits further (Figure 4C 418 shows a CPU) configured to:
based on a detected fault, generate and provide control inputs for an electro-mechanical control system for the autonomously operable equipment (column 44 lines 50-57 disclose controlling the vehicle in response to a detected hardware fault).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Tsai such that, upon detection of a fault by the teachings of Matsubara, the vehicle can be appropriately controlled with a reasonable expectation of success to improve safety of vehicle operation.
Matsubara does not teach the multiple modalities further comprising polarization angles each activated and controlled in a self-enclosed system comprising a local offline random number generator that controls which angles are active during the period of time.
Davis teaches the multiple modalities further comprising polarization angles (column 2 line 41 to column 3 line 9 discloses polarization of LIDAR pulses) each activated and controlled in a self-enclosed system comprising a local random number generator that controls which angles are active during the period of time (column 2 line 41 to column 3 line 9 discloses DRBG generates a pseudorandom key sequence that is encoded in LIDAR pulse's polarization and/or frequency; claim 1 discloses that the DRBG is comprised within the vehicle, i.e. local).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Davis such that the radar of can be controlled by a DRBG that provides a pseudorandom key sequence which is encoded within the sensor’s polarization angles and/or frequencies as taught by Davis. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to mitigate vulnerabilities to spoofing and interference of conventional sensor systems as disclosed in Davis (column 2 lines 21-25).
Matsubara does not teach that the random number generator is offline.
Bruneau teaches that the random number generator is offline (paragraph 0083 discloses cryptographic keys can be generated online or offline by a random number generator).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Bruneau such that DRBG of Davis can be utilized offline as taught by Bruneau. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to allow greater flexibility of number generation and reduce reliance on an internet connection to perform the method.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claim 18 as disclosed above. Matsubara further teaches that the sensor system is configured to emit the multiple modalities of the sensor signals over the period of time during which the autonomously operable equipment is in operation (paragraph 0007 discloses a radar which emits waves at shifting frequencies; it is implied that object detection with radar would occur during vehicle operation) and to sense the multiple modalities the sensor signals over the period of time (paragraph 0007 discloses receiving reflected radio waves).
Claim(s) 2, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara as modified by Tsai, Davis, and Bruneau as applied to claims 1 and 15 above and Matsubara as modified by Tsai, Davis, Bruneau, and Liu as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of non-patent literature "The Radar Equation" by Radartutorial (hereinafter Radartutorial).
Regarding claims 2, 16, and 20; the modified Matsubara reference teaches all of claims 1, 15, and 20 as disclosed above.
Matsubara does not explicitly teach determining the emitted modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal based on the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal as sensed over the period of time.
Radartutorial teaches determining the emitted modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal based on the multiple modalities of the electromagnetic sensor signal as sensed over the period of time (equation 3 shows an equation regarding reflected power, transmitted power, range, radar cross section, and gain; it is rudimentary math to reorder the equation to determine the transmitted power, provided all other variables are known, based on the reflected power; examiner considers radar signal power applicable to a modality).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have further modified Matsubara to incorporate the teachings of Radartutorial with a reasonable expectation of success to accurately determine emitted power.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pages 8-9, applicant argues that Matsubara does not address the limitation of multiple modalities. Examiner respectfully argues that it is factually incorrect to claim Matsubara does not teach multiple modalities. See at least the cited abstract of Matsubara:
“The invention relates to an automotive radio wave radar (50) located at a vehicle (100) wherein, a center frequency of a transmitted wave is shifted at a certain cycle, and position information of an obstacle (X) detected at three or more center frequencies is subjected to decision by majority to determine whether detection results of the obstacle are erroneous with the occurrence of jamming.”
Here, the multiple modalities are three or more center frequencies. Use of different frequencies as the multiple modalities is reasonable in light of at least amended claim 1: “the multiple modalities comprising different frequencies”.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10, filed 11/3/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the argument that the prior art of record does not teach the entire following amended limitation is persuasive: “the multiple modalities comprising different frequencies or polarization angles each activated and controlled in a self-enclosed system comprising a local offline random number generator that controls which angles are active during the period of time.” (See 112(b) rejection section regarding interpretation of the random number generator.) Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Matsubara as modified by Tsai, Davis, and Bruneau as detailed above. All further arguments (pages 10-12) pertain to the same limitation.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frick et al. US 20180252797 A1 discloses pseudo-randomly generating radar frequencies.
Suzuki et al. US 20200371202 A1 discloses a random number generator controlling radar frequency.
Szajnowski US 20100245154 A1 discloses selecting a radar frequency based on an RNG output compared to predetermined thresholds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 5:00 am - 3:30 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669