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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/15/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4-6 recite “at least one first environment detection sensor and at least one second environment detection sensor” which Examiner suggests amending to “the at least one first environment detection sensor and the at least one second environment detection sensor”. Line 12 recites “the at least one second environment detection sensors” which Examiner suggests amending to “the at least one second environment detection sensor”. Line 23 recites “creating…a lane model” which Examiner suggests amending to “creating…the lane model”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3-4 recite “an ego-vehicle” which Examiner suggests amending to “the ego-vehicle”. Line 6-7 recite “the at least one second environment detection sensors” which Examiner suggests amending to “the at least one second environment detection sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3-4 recite “an ego-vehicle” which Examiner suggests amending to “the ego-vehicle”. 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.
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.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is: “evaluation unit” in claims 1 and 4.
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is 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 this 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 being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claim limitation “evaluation unit” in claims 1 and 4 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification is devoid of any corresponding structures that perform the function of the evaluation unit in the claims. Claims 2-3 are dependent on claim 1 and claims 5-7 are dependent on claim 4 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor" in Lines 19-20 and “the sensor data of the at least one second environment detection sensor” in Line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor or sensor data of the at least one second environment detection sensor, only sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor and the at least one second environment detection sensor. Examiner suggests amending to "sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor” (deleting “the” before “sensor data”) and “sensor data of the at least one second environment detection sensor” (deleting “the” before “sensor data”), respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claims 2 and 3 depend on claim 1 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor and the at least one second environment detection sensor” in Lines 5-6, "the sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor" in Lines 15-16 and “the sensor data of the at least one second environment detection sensor” in Lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor and the at least one second environment detection sensor, sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor, or sensor data of the at least one second environment detection sensor. Examiner suggests amending to "sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor and the at least one second environment detection sensor” (deleting “the” before “sensor data”), "sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor” (deleting “the” before “sensor data”), and “sensor data of the at least one second environment detection sensor” (deleting “the” before “sensor data”), respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claims 5-7 depend on claim 4 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor" in Lines 9-10 and “the sensor data of the at least one second environment detection sensor” in Lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor or sensor data of the at least one second environment detection sensor. Examiner suggests amending to "sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor” (deleting “the” before “sensor data”) and “sensor data of the at least one second environment detection sensor” (deleting “the” before “sensor data”), respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8 and thus is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 10 recites a system claim but is dependent on claim 1, which is a method claim. Thus, it is unclear as to whether the limitations of claim 10 is part of a system claim or a method claim. Examiner suggests amending claim 10 to be dependent on claim 8 instead and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim limitation “evaluation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraphs [0025] and [0031] of Applicant’s specification only recite the corresponding structure of the arithmetic unit to be an ECU or ADCU and there is no mention as to what the corresponding structure is for the evaluation unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted the corresponding structure of the evaluation unit to be the same as the arithmetic unit.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cen et al. (CN 106096525, see translated version) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2022/0343637).
With regards to claim 1, Cen et al. discloses a method for creating a lane model by at least one first environment detection sensor and at least one second environment detection sensor of an ego-vehicle, the method comprising:
- recording an environment of the ego-vehicle with at least one first environment detection sensor and at least one second environment detection sensor (Para. 0029 lines 1-6, "radar" "cameras");
- evaluating, by an evaluation unit having at least one first input connected to an output of the at least one first environment detection sensor, at least one second input connected to an output of the at least one second environment detection sensor, and an output, sensor data from the recording of the at least one first environment detection sensor and the at least one second environment detection sensors (Para. 0009 lines 3-7, 0029 lines 4-8, 0032 lines 1-4, "data acquisition module", where the data acquisition module takes camera and radar images - output from the cameras and radar - as inputs and outputs information such as lane markings, lane boundaries, lead vehicles, and guardrails);
- determining, by an arithmetic unit having an input connected to the output of the evaluation unit, a roadway from the sensor data (Para. 0029 lines 9-12, 0033 lines 1-3, "lane boundary position");
- extracting, by the arithmetic unit, detections of the at least one first environment detection sensor, which are assigned to the roadway (Para. 0029 lines 6-7 and 9-12, 0033 lines 1-3, "lane boundaries" "guardrails");
- estimating , by the arithmetic unit, at least one of a ground plane or a ground curvature based on the sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor (Para. 0034 lines 1-2, 0070 lines 3-8, "calculate" "center curve");
- providing , by the arithmetic unit, the estimation of the at least one of the ground plane or the ground curvature (Para. 0034 lines 1-2, 0070 lines 6-8, "center curve", where the center curve is used to establish the lane model and thus is provided); and
- creating , by the arithmetic unit, a lane model, wherein the estimation of the at least one of the ground plane or the ground curvature as well as the sensor data of the at least one second environment detection sensor are fused to produce the lane model (Para. 0029 lines 13-15, 0034 lines 1-4, 0070 lines 6-8, "lane model").
Cen et al. does not explicitly teach the evaluation unit (see 112(b) rejection for the interpretation of the corresponding structure of the evaluation unit) and arithmetic unit including a central controller.
However, Zhou et al. discloses a processor to receive radar and camera sensor data and perform processing on the radar and camera sensor data to produce a lane line model and traffic flow-based lane line model in order to more efficiently produce the lane line model, where since the processing on the radar and camera sensor data is not performed manually but by a processor, it necessarily is more efficient than if the processing were performed manually (Para. 0061 lines 1-5, 0062 lines 1-7, 0066 lines 1-4, 0068 lines 1-6, 0107 lines 1-6, "processor"). Thus, the method of Cen et al. would be modified to perform the processes of the evaluation unit and arithmetic unit using a processor.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the technique of a processor to receive radar and camera sensor data and perform processing on the radar and camera sensor data to produce a lane line model and traffic flow-based lane line model as taught by Zhou et al. into the method of Cen et al. The motivation for this would be to more efficiently perform the processes of the evaluation unit and the arithmetic unit.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Cen et al. and Zhou et al. discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the estimation of the at least one of the ground plane or the ground curvature is carried out based on sensor data of a radar sensor, the at least one first environment detection sensor comprising the radar sensor, wherein an elevation measurement is carried out by the radar sensor (Cen et al.: Para. 0033 lines 1-3, 0052 lines 1-5, 0070 lines 3-8, "center curve", "radar" "z").
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Cen et al. and Zhou et al. discloses the method according to Claim 1, wherein the extracted detections of the at least one first environment detection sensor comprise at least one of objects on the roadway or at an edge of the roadway (Cen et al.: Para. 0029 lines 6-7 and 9-12, 0033 lines 1-3, "lane boundaries" "guardrails").
With regards to claim 4, Cen et al. discloses a system for creating a lane model in an ego-vehicle, comprising:
at least one first environment detection sensor and at least one second environment detection sensor for recording an environment of an ego-vehicle (Para. 0029 lines 1-6, "radar" "cameras"),
an evaluation unit for evaluating the sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor and the at least one second environment detection sensors, the evaluation unit having at least one first input connected to an output of the at least one first environment detection sensor, having at least one second input connected to an output of the at least one second environment detection sensor, and having an output (Para. 0009 lines 3-7, 0029 lines 4-8, 0032 lines 1-4, "data acquisition module", where the data acquisition module takes camera and radar images - output from the cameras and radar - as inputs and outputs information such as lane markings, lane boundaries, lead vehicles, and guardrails); and
an arithmetic unit having an input connected to the output of the evaluation unit (Para. 0029 lines 9-12, where the input is information output from the data acquisition module), the arithmetic unit configured for determining a roadway (Para. 0029 lines 9-12, 0033 lines 1-3, "lane boundary position"), for extracting detections of the at least one first environment detection sensor, which are assigned to the roadway (Para. 0029 lines 6-7 and 9-12, 0033 lines 1-3, "lane boundaries" "guardrails"), for estimating at least one ground plane or ground curvature based on the sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor (Para. 0034 lines 1-2, 0070 lines 3-8, "calculate" "center curve"), for providing the estimation as well as for creating the lane model by fusing the estimation of the at least one of the ground plane or the ground curvature and the sensor data of the at least one second environment detection sensor (Para. 0029 lines 13-15, 0034 lines 1-4, 0070 lines 6-8, "lane model").
Cen et al. does not explicitly teach the evaluation unit (see 112(b) rejection for the interpretation of the corresponding structure of the evaluation unit) and arithmetic unit including a central controller.
However, Zhou et al. discloses a processor to receive radar and camera sensor data and perform processing on the radar and camera sensor data to produce a lane line model and traffic flow-based lane line model in order to more efficiently produce the lane line model, where since the processing on the radar and camera sensor data is not performed manually but by a processor, it necessarily is more efficient than if the processing were performed manually (Para. 0061 lines 1-5, 0062 lines 1-7, 0066 lines 1-4, 0068 lines 1-6, 0107 lines 1-6, "processor").
Thus, the system of Cen et al. would be modified to perform the processes of the evaluation unit and arithmetic unit using a processor. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the technique of a processor to receive radar and camera sensor data and perform processing on the radar and camera sensor data to produce a lane line model and traffic flow-based lane line model as taught by Zhou et al. into the system of Cen et al. The motivation for this would be to more efficiently perform the processes of the evaluation unit and the arithmetic unit.
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Cen et al. and Zhou et al. discloses the system according to Claim 4, wherein the at least one first environment detection sensor comprises a radar sensor (Cen et al.: Para. 0029 lines 1-6, "radar").
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Cen et al. and Zhou et al. discloses the system according to Claim 5, wherein the radar sensor is configured such that an elevation measurement is carried out (Cen et al.: Para. 0052 lines 1-5, "radar" "z").
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Cen et al. and Zhou et al. discloses the system according to Claim 4, wherein the at least one second environment detection sensor comprises a camera sensor (Cen et al.: Para. 0029 lines 1-6, "cameras").
With regards to claim 8, Cen et al. discloses a system for creating a lane model in an ego-vehicle, comprising:
at least one first environment detection sensor and at least one second environment detection sensor for recording an environment of an ego-vehicle (Para. 0029 lines 1-6, "radar" "cameras"), and
an arithmetic unit (Para. 0029 lines 9-12, “information fusion module”), the arithmetic unit configured for determining a roadway (Para. 0029 lines 9-12, 0033 lines 1-3, "lane boundary position"), for extracting detections of the at least one first environment detection sensor, which are assigned to the roadway (Para. 0029 lines 6-7 and 9-12, 0033 lines 1-3, "lane boundaries" "guardrails"), for estimating at least one ground plane or ground curvature based on the sensor data of the at least one first environment detection sensor (Para. 0034 lines 1-2, 0070 lines 3-8, "calculate" "center curve"), for providing the estimation as well as for creating the lane model by fusing the estimation of the at least one of the ground plane or the ground curvature and the sensor data of the at least one second environment detection sensor (Para. 0029 lines 13-15, 0034 lines 1-4, 0070 lines 6-8, "lane model").
Cen et al. does not explicitly teach the arithmetic unit comprising a central controller.
However, Zhou et al. discloses a processor to receive radar and camera sensor data and perform processing on the radar and camera sensor data to produce a lane line model and traffic flow-based lane line model in order to more efficiently produce the lane line model, where since the processing on the radar and camera sensor data is not performed manually but by a processor, it necessarily is more efficient than if the processing were performed manually (Para. 0061 lines 1-5, 0062 lines 1-7, 0066 lines 1-4, 0068 lines 1-6, 0107 lines 1-6, "processor"). Thus, the system of Cen et al. would be modified to perform the processes of the arithmetic unit using a processor.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the technique of a processor to receive radar and camera sensor data and perform processing on the radar and camera sensor data to produce a lane line model and traffic flow-based lane line model as taught by Zhou et al. into the method of Cen et al. The motivation for this would be to more efficiently perform the processes of the arithmetic unit.
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Cen et al. and Zhou et al. discloses the system according to Claim 8, wherein the estimation of the at least one of the ground plane or the ground curvature is carried out based on sensor data of a radar sensor, the at least one first environment detection sensor comprising the radar sensor, wherein an elevation measurement is carried out by the radar sensor (Cen et al.: Para. 0033 lines 1-3, 0052 lines 1-5, 0070 lines 3-8, "center curve", "radar" "z").
With regards to claim 10, the combination of Cen et al. and Zhou et al. discloses the system according to Claim 8 (see 112(b) rejection above on interpretation of the limitation), wherein the extracted detections of the at least one first environment detection sensor comprise at least one of objects on the roadway or at an edge of the roadway (Cen et al.: Para. 0029 lines 6-7 and 9-12, 0033 lines 1-3, "lane boundaries" "guardrails").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672