DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to RCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application JP2021-053970 filed on 03/26/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Paschall (US11994874) in view of Brugman (US20200160722) and Newman (US20180188726).
Regarding claim 1, Paschall teaches a processing method executed by a processor to perform processing related to driving of a host moving object, the processing method comprising (col. 29-30 disclosing the processor for driving of a host vehicle):
monitoring an envelope violation that is a violation of a safety envelope in which safety of intended functionality is set in the host moving object with respect to another road user other than the target moving object (col.5 lines 30-67 disclosing a safety zone “envelope” that is monitored by the vehicle if an object other than a second AMR “target vehicle” enters the zone, the intended functionality being monitoring danger intended for other than a target followed vehicle); and
Paschall does not teach generating, when the envelope violation is recognized in the host moving object, warning information for warning of the envelope violation that is to be transmitted to the target moving object. receiving, from the target moving object, feedback information for giving feedback regarding acquisition of the warning information from the target moving object. Set a constraint on a driving operation of the host moving object upon determining that the feedback information is not received, wherein the host moving object is controlled based on the constraint on the driving operation
Brugman teaches that is configured to communicate with a target moving object ,generating, when the envelope violation is recognized in the host moving object, warning information for warning of the envelope violation ([0053]-[0054] disclosing a first vehicle monitors the front of the vehicle “safety envelope” and transmits a message to a second vehicle “target vehicle” when a hazard is detected in front of the first vehicle. [0054] also disclosing the second vehicle can transmit a warning to the first vehicle when another vehicle is in a blind spot of the first vehicle).
Transmitting the warning information to the target moving object ([0053]-[0054] disclosing a first vehicle monitors the front of the vehicle “safety envelope” and transmits a message to a second vehicle “target vehicle” when a hazard is detected in front of the first vehicle. [0054] also disclosing the second vehicle can transmit a warning to the first vehicle when another vehicle is in a blind spot of the first vehicle).
Paschall teaches the monitoring of areas by different vehicles for improved safety wherein each vehicle monitors a predefined envelope for objects other than targets that are the convoy vehicles, and stops the movement of vehicles that follow based on a detected object, thus the combination to incorporate the teaching of Brugman of generating, when the envelope violation is recognized in the host moving object, warning information for warning of the envelope violation that is to be transmitted to the target moving object in order to alert another vehicle of a danger and avoid a collision as taught by Brugman [0053]-[0054]. The combination is obvious to improve driving safety and enhance cooperation between vehicles thus improving safety.
Newman teaches determining whether to receive, from the target moving object, feedback information for giving feedback regarding acquisition of the warning information from the target moving object ([0112]-[0113], [0117]-[0126] disclosing receiving feedback regarding acquisition of warning information from a host vehicle. see specifically, [0119] disclosing the target vehicle that received the warning sending a confirmation and a confirmation of a formation of a rollback, wherein the host vehicle based on confirmation that the other vehicles received the warning, can do operations such as open a door where there is no traffic. The feedback including the indication of the received broadcasted signal).
Set a constraint on a driving operation of the host moving object upon determining that the feedback information is not received, wherein the host moving object is controlled based on the constraint on the driving operation ([0117]-[0126] disclosing when no feedback has been received the vehicle is controlled based on a stop path “constraint of the driving operation”, however, further in [0126] the vehicle is controlled on a safer path when the feedback is received, note the not receiving feedback as claimed is not correlated with the claim limitation of determining whether to receive the feedback).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Paschall as modified by Brugman to incorporate the teaching of Newman of acquiring feedback information for giving feedback regarding acquisition of the warning information from the target moving object in order to allow the vehicle to navigate along its trajectory with confidence while ensuring safety and avoiding collision with other vehicles. The combination is obvious to avoid collisions yielding predictable results of improving cooperation between vehicles and allowing the vehicle to select the safest path based on the received feedback of vehicles indicative of their cooperation with the vehicle thus improving safety.
Regarding claim 2, Paschall as modified by Brugman and Newman teaches the processing method according to claim 1, wherein
monitoring the envelope violation further includes monitoring the envelope violation with respect to a model envelope as the safety envelope (Paschall col. 3 last paragraph to col.4 first paragraph disclosing the safety is based on factors such as the capability, type, weight and load and characteristics of the environment, i.e., model envelope), and
the model envelope is based on a safety model that is defined by modeling the safety of the intended functionality (Paschall col. 3 last paragraph to col.4 first paragraph further disclosing the model envelope is based on a the determined that the AMR will be stopping without colliding with an object, i.e., a safety model by modeling safety of the intended functionality being driving safely or simply the intended functionality is driving in the environment).
Regarding claim 3, Paschall as modified by Brugman and Newman teaches the processing method according to claim 1, wherein
monitoring the envelope violation further includes monitoring the envelope violation with respect to an extended envelope (Paschall col.5 line 30-col. 6 lines 35 disclosing monitoring an extended envelope and a muted envelope of safety), and
the extended envelope is defined by adding a physics-based margin to the safety envelope(Paschall col. 5 line 30- col.6 line 35 disclosing the extended envelope which is includes an added margin to a safety envelope defined based on the distance when conveying to be able to stop without colliding with a forward vehicle that is followed, see col.3 last paragraph to col.4 first paragraph as disclosed above defining the safety envelope based on the modeled safety of the intended functionality).
Regarding claim 4, Paschall as modified by Brugman and Newman further discloses the processing method according to claim 1, wherein generating the warning information further includes generating the warning information for pushing notification about the envelope violation to the target moving object.
Brugman teaches wherein generating the warning information further includes generating the warning information for pushing notification about the envelope violation to the target moving object ([0053] disclosing a first vehicle monitors the front of the vehicle “safety envelope” and transmits a message to a second vehicle “target vehicle” when a hazard is detected in front of the first vehicle. [0054] also disclosing the second vehicle can transmit a warning to the first vehicle when another vehicle is in a blind spot of the first vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Paschall to incorporate the teaching of Brugman of wherein generating the warning information further includes generating the warning information for pushing notification about the envelope violation to the target moving object in order to alert another vehicle of a danger and avoid a collision as taught by Brugman [0053]-[0054].
Regarding claim 6, Paschall as modified by Brugman and Newman further teaches the processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: storing the generated warning information.
Specifically, Brugman teaches storing the generated warning information ([0053]-[0054] disclosing transmitting the warning of a hazard to another vehicle, i.e., it is interpreted that the information is stored, it is also interpreted that the instruction of the generated warning information is saved for the vehicle to send the warning information ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Paschall as modified by Brugman to incorporate the teaching of Brugman of storing the generated warning information which is an obvious matter of design choice to allow the vehicle to send specific information and in order to warn other vehicles based on the stored warning.
Regarding claim 7, Paschall as modified by Brugman teaches the processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
Paschall as modified by Brugman does not teach acquiring feedback information for giving feedback regarding acquisition of the warning information from the target moving object.
Newman teaches acquiring feedback information for giving feedback regarding acquisition of the warning information from the target moving object ([0112]-[0113], [0117]-[0126] disclosing receiving feedback regarding acquisition of warning information from a host vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Paschall as modified by Brugman to incorporate the teaching of Newman of acquiring feedback information for giving feedback regarding acquisition of the warning information from the target moving object in order to allow the vehicle to navigate along its trajectory with confidence while ensuring safety and avoiding collision with other vehicles.
Regarding claim 8, Paschall as modified by Brugman and Newman teaches the processing method according to claim 7, further comprising:
setting a constraint or restriction on the host moving object when the feedback information is not acquired (Paschall col. 5 line 30- col.6 line 35 disclosing the extended envelope which is includes an added margin to a safety envelope defined based on the distance when conveying to be able to stop without colliding with a forward vehicle that is followed, see col.3 last paragraph to col.4 first paragraph as disclosed above defining the safety envelope based on the modeled safety of the intended functionality. It is interpreted that these safety distance from another vehicle in the instance of convoying is a restriction for the vehicle and no feedback is acquired. Herein the claim does not require the feedback to be received in response to the vehicle sending a request to receive it, thus not receiving a request is interpreted as a regular situation when the vehicle is being controlled without receiving any feedbacks).
Claims 9, 10 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection, Paschall teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium and system
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Paschall (US11994874) in view of Brugman (US20200160722) and Newman (US20180188726) and Sun (US20220292975).
Regarding claim 5, Paschall as modified by Brugman and Newman teaches the processing method according to claim 1. Paschall as modified by Brugman and Newman does not teach wherein generating the warning information further includes generating the warning information to which envelope information related to the safety envelope set in the host moving object is added.
Sun teaches wherein generating the warning information further includes generating the warning information to which envelope information related to the safety envelope set in the host moving object is added ([0017]-[0020] disclosing sending information about the safety zone to other vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Paschall as modified by Brugman and Newman to incorporate the teaching of Sun of wherein generating the warning information further includes generating the warning information to which envelope information related to the safety envelope set in the host moving object is added in order to prevent another vehicle from approaching the safety zone of the first vehicle as taught by Sun [0017]-[0020].
Claims 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Brugman (US20200160722) in view of Bremkens (US20180244275) and Newman (US20180188726).
Regarding claim 11, Brugman teaches processing method executed by a processor to perform processing related to driving of a host moving object that is configured to communicate with a target moving object, the processing method comprising ([0010]-[0020] disclosing the processor and communication devices
acquiring, from the target moving object, warning information for warning of an envelope violation that is a violation of a safety envelope in which safety of intended functionality is set in the target moving object with respect to another road user other than the host moving object ([0053]-[0055] disclosing the front vehicle “target vehicle” warns the rear vehicle “host vehicle” about a vehicle that has violated the safety of the front vehicle by being within its camera field of view in the front of the vehicle, i.e., the safety envelope herein is all the field of view of the camera in the front of the front vehicle and the violation is an existence of traffic “other road users” or accident in the front, when the rear vehicle “host vehicle: receives the warning thus it is determined that the safety envelope is violated. [0053]-[0054] disclosing acquiring warning information to warn the front vehicle about an object in a blind spot of the forward object in a monitoring zone “safety envelope”).
Determining by the processor of the host moving vehicle whether the envelope violation with respect to the other road user occurs in response to acquiring the warning information ([0010]-[0020] disclosing the processor of the vehicle for navigation and determination. [0053]-[0054] disclosing the vehicle that receives the warning information makes informed decision about lane change using the monitoring information and hazard indication received from the other vehicle, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret that the computer of the host vehicle determines that the envelope violation that is received is an envelope violation when determining the informed lane change, the claim does not require the computer of the host vehicle to do anything other than determine a violation based on received information, thus the computer determines the violation based on receiving a violation warning);
While Brugman teaches the processor of the host vehicle determining the envelope violation, it would be obvious to try to solve the problem of determining the violation using the computer of the host vehicle with reasonable expectation of success.
Brugman does not teach Setting a constraint on a driving operation of the host moving object in response to the envelope violation with respect to the other road user occurring; Wherein the host moving object is controlled based on the constraint on the driving operation; generating and transmitting feedback information for giving feedback regarding acquisition of the warning information to the target moving object.
Bremkens teaches Setting a constraint on a driving operation of the host moving object in response to the envelope violation with respect to the other road user occurring ([0081]-[0083] disclosing the other vehicle interpreted as the host vehicle sets constraint on speed based on the warning of the collision violation of the host vehicle “target vehicle”),
Wherein the host moving object is controlled based on the constraint on the driving operation ([0081] disclosing the other vehicle interpreted as the host vehicle sets constraint on speed based on the warning of the collision violation of the host vehicle “target vehicle”),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Brugman to incorporate the teaching of Bremkens of Setting a constraint on a driving operation of the host moving object in response to the envelope violation with respect to the other road user occurring and controlling the vehicle based on the constraint in order to allow the target vehicle to change lanes and avoid collision as taught by Bremkens thus improving driving safety and multiple collisions. It is obvious to combine the teaching of Bremkens with the teaching of Brugman, since Brugman already teaches the acquiring of a warning from another vehicle, incorporating the teaching of Bremkens of the information being a violation with respect to the other vehicle is obvious in order to increase safety by allowing space for the other vehicle to avoid the collision and improve safety. It is also obvious to apply the method of Bremkens on the host vehicle of Brugman and target vehicle yielding predictable results.
Newman teaches generating and transmitting feedback information for giving feedback regarding acquisition of the warning information to the target moving object ([0112]-[0113], [0117]-[0126] disclosing receiving feedback regarding acquisition of warning information from a host vehicle. see specifically, [0119] disclosing the target vehicle that received the warning sending a confirmation and a confirmation of a formation of a rollback, wherein the host vehicle based on confirmation that the other vehicles received the warning, can do operations such as open a door where there is no traffic. The feedback including the indication of the received broadcasted signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Paschall as modified by Brugman to incorporate the teaching of Newman of acquiring feedback information for giving feedback regarding acquisition of the warning information from the target moving object in order to allow the vehicle to navigate along its trajectory with confidence while ensuring safety and avoiding collision with other vehicles. The combination is obvious to avoid collisions yielding predictable results of improving cooperation between vehicles and allowing the vehicle to select the safest path based on the received feedback of vehicles indicative of their cooperation with the vehicle thus improving safety.
Regarding claim 14, Brugman as modified by Bremkens and Newman further teaches the processing method according to claim 11, wherein determining whether the envelope violation occurs further includes determining whether the envelope violation with respect to the other road user occurs in response to acquiring the warning information when the other road user is not detected in the host moving object (Brugman [0053] disclosing a first vehicle monitors the front of the vehicle “safety envelope” and transmits a message to a second vehicle “target vehicle” when a hazard is detected in front of the first vehicle. [0054] also disclosing the second vehicle can transmit a warning to the first vehicle when another vehicle “other road user” is in a blind spot of the first vehicle, i.e., first vehicle does not detect the other road user).
Regarding claim 15, Brugman as modified by Bremkens and Newman teaches the processing method according to claim 11, wherein acquiring the warning information further includes acquiring, from the target moving object, the warning information for pushing notification about the envelope violation (Brugman [0053]-[0054] disclosing sending alert to another vehicle pushing the notification to another vehicle, Note for pushing notification is considered intended use).
Regarding claim 17, Brugman as modified by Bremkens and Newman further teaches the processing method according to claim 1, further comprising: storing the generated warning information (Brugman [0053]-[0054] disclosing transmitting the warning of a hazard to another vehicle, i.e., it is interpreted that the information is stored, it is also interpreted that the instruction of the generated warning information is saved for the vehicle to send the warning information ).
Regarding claim 18, Brugman as modified by Bremkens and Newman teaches the processing method according to claim 1, further comprising:
Newman teaches acquiring feedback information for giving feedback regarding acquisition of the warning information from the target moving object ([0112]-[0113], [0117]-[0120] disclosing receiving feedback regarding acquisition of warning information from a host vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Paschall as modified by Brugman to incorporate the teaching of Newman of acquiring feedback information for giving feedback regarding acquisition of the warning information from the target moving object in order to allow the vehicle to navigate along its trajectory with confidence while ensuring safety and avoiding collision with other vehicles. The combination is obvious to avoid collisions yielding predictable results of improving cooperation between vehicles and allowing the vehicle to select the safest path based on the received feedback of vehicles indicative of their cooperation with the vehicle thus improving safety.
Claims 19-20 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 11, see above rejection. Brugman teaches non transitory medium and a system [0010]-[0020].
Claims 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Brugman (US20200160722) in view of Bremkens (US20180244275) and Newman (US20180188726) and Paschall (US11994874).
Regarding claim 12, Brugman as modified by Bremkens and Newman teaches the processing method according to claim 11, Brugman as modified by Bremkens and Newman does not teach wherein determining whether the envelope violation occurs further includes determining whether the envelope violation with respect to a model envelope as the safety envelope occurs, and the model envelope is based on a safety model that is defined by modeling the safety of the intended functionality.
Paschall teaches determining whether the envelope violation with respect to a model envelope as the safety envelope occurs (Paschall col. 3 last paragraph to col.4 first paragraph disclosing the safety is based on factors such as the capability, type, weight and load and characteristics of the environment, i.e., model envelope), and
the model envelope is based on a safety model that is defined by modeling the safety of the intended functionality (Paschall col. 3 last paragraph to col.4 first paragraph further disclosing the model envelope is based on a the determined that the AMR will be stopping without colliding with an object, i.e., a safety model by modeling safety of the intended functionality being driving safely or simply the intended functionality is driving in the environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Brugman as modified by Bremkens and Newman to incorporate the teaching of Paschall of determining whether the envelope violation with respect to a model envelope as the safety envelope occurs, and the model envelope is based on a safety model that is defined by modeling the safety of the intended functionality in order to ensure safe stopping of the vehicle in case of emergency as taught by Paschall cols 3-6.
Regarding claim 13, Brugman as modified by Bremkens and Newman does not teach the processing method according to claim 11, wherein determining whether the envelope violation occurs further includes determining whether the envelope violation with respect to an extended envelope occurs; the extended envelope is defined by adding a physics based margin to the safety envelope. the safety envelope that is based on a safety model defined by modeling the safety of the intended functionality.
Paschall teaches wherein determining whether the envelope violation occurs further includes determining whether the envelope violation with respect to an extended envelope occurs ((Paschall col.5 line 30-col. 6 lines 35 disclosing monitoring an extended envelope)
the extended envelope is defined by adding a physics-based margin to the safety envelope ((Paschall col. 5 line 30- col.6 line 35 disclosing the extended envelope which is includes an added margin to a safety envelope defined based on the distance when conveying to be able to stop without colliding with a forward vehicle that is followed, see col.3 last paragraph to col.4 first paragraph as disclosed above defining the safety envelope based on the modeled safety of the intended functionality).
the safety envelope that is based on a safety model defined by modeling the safety of the intended functionality (Paschall col. 3 last paragraph to col.4 first paragraph further disclosing the model envelope is based on a the determined that the AMR will be stopping without colliding with an object, i.e., a safety model by modeling safety of the intended functionality being driving safely or simply the intended functionality is driving in the environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Brugman as modified by Bremkens and Newman to incorporate the teaching of Paschall of the safety envelope that is based on a safety model defined by modeling the safety of the intended functionality in order to ensure safe stopping of the vehicle in case of emergency as taught by Paschall cols 3-6.
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Brugman (US20200160722) in view of Bremkens (US20180244275) and Newman (US20180188726) and Sun (US20220292975).
Regarding claim 16, Brugman as modified by Bremkens and Newman teaches the processing method according to claim 11, Brugman as modified by Bremkens and Newman does not teach wherein acquiring the warning information further includes acquiring the warning information to which envelope information related to the safety envelope set in the target moving object is added.
Sun teaches wherein acquiring the warning information further includes acquiring the warning information to which envelope information related to the safety envelope set in the target moving object is added ([0017]-[0020] disclosing sending information about the safety zone to other vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Brugman as modified by Bremkens and Newman to incorporate the teaching of Sun of wherein generating the warning information further includes generating the warning information to which envelope information related to the safety envelope set in the host moving object is added in order to prevent another vehicle from approaching the safety zone of the first vehicle as taught by Sun [0017]-[0020].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1, that Paschall does not teach the constraint on the drive when determining feedback information not received, the limitation is taught by Newman, see rejection above [0117]-[0126], Newman teaches a navigation of the vehicle to a stop location which is a constraint when no feedback is received, and the updating of the navigation control of the vehicle when a feedback is received to be a safer stop, thus the combination is obvious to improve safety and cooperation of vehicles. Note that the feedback not acquired is not related to the determination whether to receive feedback in the claim language.
While the applicant argues that Paschall does not teach two way communication, this is not required by the claim language, the feedback can be determined based on sensor data or other data, however, Newman teaches the two way communication receiving and sending data of warnings and feedback.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Newman does not teach receiving from the target moving object feedback information indicating acquisition of the warning information by the target moving object, Newman teaches amongst the feedback acquired are the confirmation by the vehicle of reception of the broadcast signal. The confirmation of the reception of the broadcast signal is the indication of the warning acquisition by the target moving object since the broadcast is a warning signal to avoid the area.
The combination of Paschall with the teaching of Brugman and Newman is obvious since Paschall as modified by Brugman teaches the informing of the host vehicle of the violation, and thus the combination of Newman teaching of receiving a confirmation of the warning reception is obvious in order to cooperate between the vehicles allowing the vehicles to determine a safe stop path without causing a secondary collision thus improving driving safety.
With respect to applicant’s arguments regarding claim 11, Brugman teaches the host vehicle computer to determine a lane changing decision based on receiving a warning from another vehicle about a violation in a blind spot, the reception of the violation by the host vehicle to make decision on its own is a determination by the own computer of the host vehicle that a danger exists. Since the vehicle processor is the brain of the vehicle, thus one of ordinary skill in the art realizes that receiving a warning by a processor means the processor determines the warning exists. The claim does not require the processor to determine the violation based on any other information other than the received warning object information. furthermore there is need to process the information in determining an informed lane change.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US9550528 disclosing communicating a lane change intent and receiving feedback permitting or denying. The permission based on speed requires the received confirmation of the speed and thus interpreted as not receiving feedback of permission.
US20130099911 disclosing the permission for a lane change received.
US20210389138 disclosing host vehicle sends yield request and received confirmation the other vehicle yielded accepted.
US20170162054 disclosing warning driver of another vehicle of entering the vehicle safety zone.
US20210171034 discloses a rear vehicle informing a forward vehicle to stop changing lane because another vehicle is approaching, i.e., in envelope.
US20190206254 discloses informing a rear vehicle that is blocked by the front vehicle about an obstacle that is in front of the front vehicle.
US20200200855 disclosing cooperation between vehicles so that the forward vehicle moves forward from a host vehicle and a rearward vehicle applies brakes to avoid colliding with the host vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3658B