DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 8, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-4, 11-12 and 18-19 are noted as amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome all previous objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 29, 2025 and all objections therein have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "the level of the attribute" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due to Applicant’s amendment of claim 19.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 recites “change a feedback type of driver-training feedback from a first type of driver-training feedback to a second type of driver-training feedback, based on a comparison of the operating conditions to a set of performance criteria”. Claim 19 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 18 upon which it depends as it recites the limitation near-verbatim excluding only the “from a first type…to a second type”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Araki et al. (US PGPub 20240034335), hereinafter referred to as Araki.
With regard to claim 11, Araki teaches a vehicle (Abstract; Paragraphs 0023, 0033; “vehicle”), comprising:
a steering wheel (Paragraph 0062; “steering wheel”);
an accelerator pedal and a brake pedal (Paragraph 0062; “gas/brake/clutch pedals”);
a feedback circuit (Paragraph 0044 teaches the system includes a driver feedback circuit as part of the driver training system);
one or more sensors (Paragraph 0038; “a plurality of sensors”); and
one or more processors communicably coupled to memory (Paragraphs 0037, 0076, 0087-0088 teach the system includes one or more processors which communicate with the memory and storage devices) and configured to execute instructions stored in the memory (Paragraphs 0076, 0088) to:
control the feedback circuit (Paragraph 0044 teaches the system includes a driver feedback circuit as part of the driver training system) to provide a first type of driver-training feedback to a driver of the vehicle to induce successful performance of a first iteration of the maneuver (Paragraphs 0044, 0061 teach the system can provide audible feedback via speakers and/or visual feedback via a display to correct/induce successful driver performance either in real-time, thereby improving user performance on a current/first iteration, or storing the feedback for a later report to improve subsequent performance), the first type of driver-training feedback comprising at least one of audio or visual feedback (Paragraphs 0044, 0061 teach the system can provide visual and audible feedback);
obtain, from the one or more sensors on the vehicle (Paragraph 0038, “sensors 112”), sensor data corresponding to vehicle states of the vehicle during performance of the first iteration of the maneuver (Paragraphs 0038-0040 teach the system includes a plurality of sensors for gathering signals/data on vehicle conditions or characteristics and external conditions), the maneuver comprising one or more performance criteria indicative of successful performance of the maneuver (Paragraphs 0043, 0045, 0057 teach the system includes benchmarks and parameters (one or more performance criteria) which the user performance is compared to);
determining whether the first iteration of the maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on the sensor data obtained during performance of the first iteration and the one or more performance criteria (Paragraphs 0045, 0057, 0072, 0083 teach the driver training circuit can evaluate driver performance based on the information received from the various vehicle sensors compared to the parameters and benchmarks in real-time thereby including a first lap/iteration); and
during performance of a second iteration of the maneuver and responsive to a determination that the first iteration of the maneuver was not successfully performed (Paragraphs 0043-0045, 0067-0068 teach the system can infer the driver’s skill level based on driver performance in real-time and adjust the feedback and training such that a driver’s second and subsequent laps would be based on the first/previous performance including a negative or not successful performance which would result in a lower skill level), control the feedback circuit to provide a second type of driver-training feedback to induce successful performance of the second iteration of the maneuver (Paragraphs 0024, 0026, 0044, 0068, 0070 teach the system can evaluate the driver in real-time and in an ongoing and continuous manner including reminding a driver of previous feedback and providing feedback on a per lap basis such that subsequent laps (second and subsequent iterations) are evaluated and the feedback is continually adjusted), the second type of driver-training feedback comprising applying a counterforce to at least one of the steering wheel, the accelerator pedal, or the brake pedal (Paragraphs 0062, 0067 teach the system can provide haptic feedback to the steering wheel or pedals including resistance or friction (counterforce) to the driver’s action to correct the driver and provide feedback).
With regard to claim 13, Araki further teaches wherein the second type of driver-training feedback further comprises at least one of audio or visual feedback (Paragraphs 0044, 0061 teach the system can provide feedback in real-time and can provide audible and/or visual feedback).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki et al. (US PGPub 20240034335), hereinafter referred to as Araki, in view of Curtis et al. (US PGPub 20170072850), hereinafter referred to as Curtis, and further evidenced by Wrigg (US PGPub 20180015345).
With regard to claim 1, Araki teaches a method for adaptive driver-training feedback (Abstract; Paragraphs 0023; methods of an automated driver training system), the method comprising:
a feedback circuit (Paragraph 0044 teaches the system includes a driver feedback circuit as part of the driver training system) controlling at least one of a speaker or a display on a vehicle to provide a first type of driver-training feedback to a driver of the vehicle to induce successful performance of a first iteration of the maneuver (Paragraphs 0044, 0061 teach the system can provide audible feedback via speakers and/or visual feedback via a display to correct/induce successful driver performance either in real-time, thereby improving user performance on a current/first iteration, or storing the feedback for a later report to improve subsequent performance);
obtaining, from one or more sensors on the vehicle (Paragraph 0038, “sensors 112”), sensor data corresponding to vehicle states of the vehicle during performance of the maneuver (Paragraphs 0038-0040 teach the system includes a plurality of sensors for gathering signals/data on vehicle conditions or characteristics and external conditions), the maneuver comprising one or more performance criteria indicative of successful performance of the maneuver (Paragraphs 0043, 0045, 0057 teach the system includes benchmarks and parameters (one or more performance criteria) which the user performance is compared to);
comparing the sensor data to the one or more performance criteria (Paragraphs 0057, 0072, 0083 teach the driver training circuit can evaluate driver performance based on the information received from the various vehicle sensors compared to the parameters and benchmarks);
changing a feedback type of driver-training feedback based on the comparison (Paragraphs 0044, 0047-0048, 0059, 0065, 0067-0068 teach the system can adjust the curriculum and feedback based on user performance and inferred skill level and confidence including adjusting the type of feedback and providing feedback dynamically and in real-time based on the evaluation which is based on the sensor data, benchmarks, and parameters wherein the inferred skill level can be determine throughout a lap and compared to previous and subsequent laps thereby adjusting feedback from lap to lap with regard to a same maneuver or area of the lap); and
during performance of a second iteration of the maneuver, controlling the feedback circuit to provide driver-training feedback to the driver according to the second feedback type of driver-training feedback (Paragraphs 0024, 0026, 0044, 0068, 0070 teach the system can evaluate the driver in real-time and in an ongoing and continuous manner including reminding a driver of previous feedback and providing feedback on a per lap basis such that subsequent laps (second and subsequent iterations) are evaluated and the feedback is continually adjusted compared to previous performance/laps), the second type of driver-training feedback comprising applying a counterforce to at least one of a steering wheel, an accelerator pedal, or a brake pedal of the vehicle (Paragraphs 0062, 0067 teach the system can provide haptic feedback to the steering wheel or pedals including resistance or friction (counterforce) to the driver’s action to correct the driver and provide feedback).
Araki may not explicitly teach changing a feedback type of driver-training feedback based on the comparison from the first type of driver-training feedback to a second type of driver-training feedback. However, Curtis teaches a method for dynamic notification generation for a driver of a vehicle wherein the notification parameter including the notification type, such as haptic, visual, or auditory notifications, can be adjusted based on driver performance such that a first notification with first parameters is determined to be effective if the user successfully performs the action on a second event and the second notification can be subtler but if the driver is unsuccessful in avoiding the first driving event, the second notification can be more prominent with altered parameters (Curtis Paragraphs 0031, 0056, 0059, 0082-0083) and Wrigg teaches a system and method for delivery of content based on user performance including adapting feedback as part of a curriculum in part to promote “frustration mitigation” by adapting feedback when a user repeats a mistake such that different feedback is provided to try promoting a successful change (Wrigg Paragraphs 0224, 0227, 0455).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki to incorporate the teachings of Curtis by applying the technique of changing notification parameters including type based on subsequent driver/user performance as taught by Curtis for the feedback of Araki, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki by coding the system to provide a first notification of an auditory or visual notification/alert on a first lap or performance of an action or maneuver and changing the notification/alert to a haptic/tactile feedback (more prominent) if the user/driver unsuccessfully performs an action or maneuver or has an issue in a previous lap. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki would include changing a feedback type of driver-training feedback based on the comparison from the first type of driver-training feedback to a second type of driver-training feedback. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Curtis with Araki’s system and method in order to promote frustration mitigation (Wrigg Paragraph 0455) and promote successful user/driver performance and skill improvement.
With regard to claim 4, Araki further teaches wherein the second type of driver-training feedback further comprises at least one of audio or visual feedback in addition to the counterforce (Paragraphs 0044, 0061-0062 teach the system can provide feedback in real-time and can provide the audible and/or visual feedback as well (in addition to) the haptic feedback including the resistance (counterforce) to driver input).
With regard to claim 18, Araki teaches a driver training system (Abstract; Paragraph 0020), the driver training system comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive sensor data from sensors on a vehicle (Abstract; Paragraph 0072 teach the system includes sensors and vehicle systems which communicate with the driver training circuit via a communication interface), the sensor data indicative of operating conditions of the vehicle executing a vehicular maneuver (Paragraphs 0038-0040 teach the system includes a plurality of sensors for gathering signals/data on vehicle conditions or characteristics and external conditions); and
a driver training circuit (Paragraph 0046 teaches the system includes a driver training circuit) configured to: change a feedback type of driver-training feedback based on a comparison of the operating conditions to a set of performance criteria associated with the vehicular maneuver (Paragraphs 0044, 0047, 0059, 0065, 0067-0068 teach the system can adjust the curriculum and feedback based on user performance and inferred skill level and confidence including adjusting the type of feedback and providing feedback in dynamically and in real-time based on the evaluation which is based on the sensor data, benchmarks, and parameters), wherein the set of performance criteria are representative of a successful execution of the vehicular maneuver (Paragraphs 0043, 0045, 0057 teach the system includes benchmarks and parameters (one or more performance criteria) which the user performance is compared to); and
control a feedback circuity (Paragraph 0044 teaches the system includes a driver feedback circuit) to provide either the first type of driver-training feedback or the second type of driver-training feedback to a driver of the vehicle according to the changed feedback type of the driver-training feedback (Paragraphs 0044, 0061-0062 teach the system can provide audible feedback via speakers and/or visual feedback via a display and/or haptic feedback to correct/induce successful driver performance either in real-time), and the second type of driver-training feedback comprising applying a counterforce to at least one of a steering wheel, an accelerator pedal, or a brake pedal of the vehicle (Paragraphs 0062, 0067 teach the system can provide haptic feedback to the steering wheel or pedals including resistance or friction (counterforce) to the driver’s action to correct the driver and provide feedback).
Araki may not explicitly teach change a feedback type of driver-training feedback from a first type of driver-training feedback to a second type of driver-training feedback. However, Curtis teaches a method for dynamic notification generation for a driver of a vehicle wherein the notification parameter including the notification type, such as haptic, visual, or auditory notifications, can be adjusted based on driver performance such that a first notification with first parameters is determined to be effective if the user successfully performs the action on a second event and the second notification can be subtler but if the driver is unsuccessful in avoiding the first driving event, the second notification can be more prominent with altered parameters (Curtis Paragraphs 0031, 0056, 0059, 0082-0083) and Wrigg teaches a system and method for delivery of content based on user performance including adapting feedback as part of a curriculum in part to promote “frustration mitigation” by adapting feedback when a user repeats a mistake such that different feedback is provided to try promoting a successful change (Wrigg Paragraphs 0224, 0227, 0455).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki to incorporate the teachings of Curtis by applying the technique of changing notification parameters including type based on subsequent driver/user performance as taught by Curtis for the feedback of Araki, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki by coding the system to provide a first notification of an auditory or visual notification/alert on a first lap or performance of an action or maneuver and changing the notification/alert to a haptic/tactile feedback (more prominent) if the user/driver unsuccessfully performs an action or maneuver or has an issue in a previous lap. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki would include change a feedback type of driver-training feedback from a first type of driver-training feedback to a second type of driver-training feedback. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Curtis with Araki’s system and method in order to promote frustration mitigation (Wrigg Paragraph 0455) and promote successful user/driver performance and skill improvement.
With regard to claim 19, Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg teaches wherein the driver training circuit is further configured to: change types of driver training feedback based on the comparison of the operating conditions to the set of performance criteria (see prior art rejection of claim 18 above).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trehan (US PGPub 20230395062).
With regard to claim 2, Araki further teaches determining whether the first iteration of the maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on the sensor data obtained during performance of the first iteration and the one or more performance criteria (Paragraphs 0045, 0057, 0072, 0083 teach the driver training circuit can evaluate driver performance based on the information received from the various vehicle sensors compared to the parameters and benchmarks in real-time thereby including a first lap/iteration), but Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg may not explicitly teach changing an intensity of subsequent driver-training feedback based on a determination of whether the second iteration of the maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria. However, Trehan teaches a system and method for providing adaptive feedback to users including for an operator of a vehicle wherein the feedback can be haptic feedback provided to the user via haptic devices wherein the intensity of the feedback may be increased (adjusted) for subsequent repetition of the same feedback if a user fails to adhere to the feedback or the feedback can include changing the tone and loudness (intensity) of audio feedback (Paragraphs 0025, 0032, 0045, 0047).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg to incorporate the teachings of Trehan by including adapting the intensity of audio feedback or adapting the haptic feedback intensity as taught by Trehan for the feedback of Araki, as the references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg by adapting the audible feedback by modifying the tone and/or loudness (intensity) of the feedback as part of the feedback adjustment based on user performance or adapting the haptic feedback to the user wherein the intensity of the feedback can be changed based on a user’s success or failure to adjust and/or adhere to the feedback. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg would include changing an intensity of subsequent driver-training feedback based on a determination of whether the second iteration of the maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Trehan with Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg’s system and method in order to provide more comprehensive feedback and ensure a user’s attention is grabbed (Trehan paragraph 0047).
Claim(s) 3, 5-10, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg, as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Chauncey et al. (US PGPub 20120221216), hereinafter referred to as Chauncey.
With regard to claim 3, Araki further teaches a determination of whether the second iteration of the maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria (Paragraphs 0024, 0026, 0044, 0068, 0070 teach the system can evaluate the driver in real-time and in an ongoing and continuous manner based on the sensor data and providing feedback on a per lap basis such that subsequent laps (second and subsequent iterations) are evaluated based on the parameters and benchmarks such that if a user achieves the parameters the performance is successful), but Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg may not explicitly teach further comprising increasing a frequency of subsequent driver-training feedback based on the determination. However, Chauncey teaches further comprising increasing a frequency of subsequent driver-training feedback based on the determination (Paragraphs 0033, 0045-0047 teach the system can generate coaching/feedback events and dynamically adjust the thresholds for the feedback such that more successful behaviors are needed to trigger a subsequent feedback event thereby decreasing/changing the frequency of the feedback).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including adjusting the thresholds for feedback based on user success as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg by coding the system to adjust the thresholds for feedback based on driver performance thereby changing the frequency of subsequent feedback such as decreasing frequency upon consecutive successful performances. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg would include further comprising increasing a frequency of subsequent driver-training feedback based on the determination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
With regard to claim 5, Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg may not explicitly teach further comprising: responsive to a determination that the second iteration of the maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria, decreasing a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback. However, Chauncey teaches further comprising: responsive to a determination that the second iteration of the maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria, decreasing a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback (Paragraph 0047 teaches that the system can increase the quantity of successful performances to trigger subsequent feedback thereby decreasing the frequency of feedback based on successful performance).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including adjusting the thresholds for feedback based on user success as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg by coding the system to adjust the thresholds for feedback based on driver performance thereby changing the frequency of subsequent feedback such as decreasing frequency upon consecutive successful performances based on the sensor data, benchmarks, and parameters of Araki thereby decreasing a frequency (attribute) of feedback on subsequent laps/evaluations. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg would include further comprising: responsive to a determination that the second iteration of the maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria, decreasing a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
With regard to claim 6, Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg may not explicitly teach further comprising: iteratively decreasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for each iteration of successful performance of the maneuver until the maneuver is not performed successfully. However, Chauncey teaches further comprising: iteratively decreasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for each iteration of successful performance of the maneuver until the maneuver is not performed successfully (Paragraphs 0045-0046 teach the feedback thresholds and parameters can be incrementally modified based on a predetermined training regimen or dynamically based on the assessment of operator behaviors and actions such that iterative successful performance would continuously/iteratively decrease the frequency of feedback by incrementally increasing the feedback threshold and unsuccessful performance would stop or reverse the threshold changes).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including adjusting the thresholds for feedback based on user success as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg by coding the system to adjust the thresholds for feedback based on driver performance thereby changing the frequency of subsequent feedback such as decreasing frequency upon consecutive successful performances based on the sensor data, benchmarks, and parameters of Araki thereby decreasing a frequency (attribute) of feedback on subsequent laps/evaluations. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg would include further comprising: iteratively decreasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for each iteration of successful performance of the maneuver until the maneuver is not performed successfully. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
With regard to claim 7, Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg may not explicitly teach further comprising: responsive to a determination that the second iteration of the maneuver was not successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria, increasing a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback. However, Chauncey teaches further comprising: responsive to a determination that the second iteration of the maneuver was not successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria, increasing a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback (Paragraphs 0033, 0046, 0058, 0061-0062 teach the system can dynamically adjust feedback thresholds including thresholds for negative events and results wherein a user fails to correct or improve and more negative (increase frequency) feedback is given to the user including potentially sending an alert to a supervisor if the operator fails to abide by the feedback and successfully perform the behavior).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including adjusting the thresholds for feedback based on driver behavior as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg by coding the system to adjust the thresholds for feedback based on driver performance thereby changing the frequency of subsequent feedback such as increasing frequency upon consecutive unsuccessful/negative performances based on the sensor data, benchmarks, and parameters of Araki thereby increasing a frequency (attribute) of feedback on subsequent laps/evaluations. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg would include further comprising: responsive to a determination that the second iteration of the maneuver was not successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria, increasing a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
With regard to claim 8, Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg may not explicitly teach further comprising: iteratively increasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for each iteration in which the maneuver was not performed successfully until the maneuver is performed successfully. However, Chauncey further teaches further comprising: iteratively increasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for each iteration in which the maneuver was not performed successfully until the maneuver is performed successfully (Paragraphs 0045-0046 teach the feedback thresholds and parameters can be incrementally modified based on a predetermined training regimen or dynamically based on the assessment of operator behaviors and actions such that iterative unsuccessful performance would continuously/iteratively increase the frequency of feedback by incrementally decreasing the feedback threshold).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including adjusting the thresholds for feedback based on driver behavior as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg by coding the system to adjust the thresholds for feedback based on driver performance thereby changing the frequency of subsequent feedback such as increasing frequency upon consecutive unsuccessful/negative performances based on the sensor data, benchmarks, and parameters of Araki thereby increasing a frequency (attribute) of feedback on subsequent laps/evaluations until a user successfully performs the parameter or benchmark and then maintaining or decreasing the frequency. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg would include further comprising: iteratively increasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for each iteration in which the maneuver was not performed successfully until the maneuver is performed successfully. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
With regard to claim 9, Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg may not explicitly teach further comprising: maintaining a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback for a plurality of sequential iterations of successful performance of the maneuver. However, Chauncey further teaches further comprising: maintaining a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback for a plurality of sequential iterations of successful performance of the maneuver (Paragraphs 0046-0047 teaches that the parameter and feedback threshold can be maintained for a plurality of sequential iterations of a successful performance such as proper braking behavior).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including maintaining the thresholds for feedback for a series of sequential iterations as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg by coding the system to maintain the thresholds for feedback based on driver performance for a plurality of sequential iterations of a successful performance such as proper braking or other benchmarks and parameters of Araki. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg would include further comprising: maintaining a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback for a plurality of sequential iterations of successful performance of the maneuver. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
With regard to claim 10, Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg may not explicitly teach further comprising: decreasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for a next iteration of successful performance of the maneuver that follows the plurality of sequential iterations. Chauncey further teaches further comprising: decreasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for a next iteration of successful performance of the maneuver that follows the plurality of sequential iterations (Paragraphs 0046-0047 teaches that the parameter and feedback threshold can be maintained for a plurality of sequential iterations of a successful performance such as proper braking behavior until a number of occurrences occurs wherein after the occurrences (i.e., five braking behaviors sequentially) the threshold and/or parameters for feedback are modified including decreasing the frequency of feedback by increasing the threshold).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including increasing a feedback threshold to reduce feedback frequency after maintaining the threshold for feedback for a series of sequential successful iterations as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg by coding the system to monitor user performance over a series of sequential laps or performances and increasing the threshold for feedback, thereby decreasing the frequency of feedback, after a number of success, sequential performances of a benchmark or parameter. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg would include further comprising: decreasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for a next iteration of successful performance of the maneuver that follows the plurality of sequential iterations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
With regard to claim 20, Araki further teaches determine whether the vehicular maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on the sensor data and the performance criteria (Paragraphs 0045, 0057, 0072, 0083 teach the driver training circuit can evaluate driver performance based on the information received from the various vehicle sensors compared to the parameters and benchmarks in real-time and determine if a driver properly performed maneuvers such as proper braking), but Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg may not explicitly teach wherein the driver training circuit is further configured to: based on a determination that the vehicular maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle, decreasing the level of the attribute of the driver-training feedback; and based on a determination that the vehicular maneuver was not successfully performed by the vehicle, increasing the level of the attribute of the driver-training feedback. However, Chauncey further teaches wherein the driver training circuit is further configured to: based on a determination that the vehicular maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle, decreasing the level of the attribute of the driver-training feedback (Paragraph 0047 teaches that the system can increase the quantity of successful performances to trigger subsequent feedback thereby decreasing the frequency of feedback based on successful performance); and based on a determination that the vehicular maneuver was not successfully performed by the vehicle, increasing the level of the attribute of the driver-training feedback (Paragraphs 0033, 0046, 0058, 0061-0062 teach the system can dynamically adjust feedback thresholds including thresholds for negative events and results wherein a user fails to correct or improve and more negative (increase frequency) feedback is given to the user including potentially sending an alert to a supervisor if the operator fails to abide by the feedback and successfully perform the behavior).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including adjusting the thresholds for feedback based on user behavior as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg by coding the system to adjust the thresholds for feedback based on driver performance based on the sensor data compared to the benchmarks and parameters thereby changing the frequency (attribute) of subsequent feedback such as decreasing frequency by increasing thresholds upon successful performances or increasing frequency by decreasing thresholds upon unsuccessful/negative performances. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg would include wherein the driver training circuit is further configured to: based on a determination that the vehicular maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle, decreasing the level of the attribute of the driver-training feedback; and based on a determination that the vehicular maneuver was not successfully performed by the vehicle, increasing the level of the attribute of the driver-training feedback. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki in view of Curtis and Wrigg’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
Claim(s) 12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Araki in view of Chauncey et al. (US PGPub 20120221216), hereinafter referred to as Chauncey.
With regard to claim 12, Araki further teaches a determination of whether the second iteration of the maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria (Paragraphs 0024, 0026, 0044, 0068, 0070 teach the system can evaluate the driver in real-time and in an ongoing and continuous manner based on the sensor data and providing feedback on a per lap basis such that subsequent laps (second and subsequent iterations) are evaluated based on the parameters and benchmarks such that if a user achieves the parameters the performance is successful) but may not explicitly teach increase a frequency of subsequent driver-training feedback based on the determination. However, Chauncey teaches increase a frequency of subsequent driver-training feedback based on the determination (Paragraphs 0033, 0045-0047 teach the system can generate coaching/feedback events and dynamically adjust the thresholds for the feedback such that more successful behaviors are needed to trigger a subsequent feedback event thereby decreasing/changing the frequency of the feedback).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including adjusting the thresholds for feedback based on user success as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki by coding the system to adjust the thresholds for feedback based on driver performance thereby changing the frequency of subsequent feedback such as decreasing frequency upon consecutive successful performances. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki would include increase a frequency of subsequent driver-training feedback based on the determination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
With regard to claim 14, Araki may not explicitly teach further comprising: responsive to a determination that the second iteration of the maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria, decreasing a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback. However, Chauncey teaches further comprising: responsive to a determination that the second iteration of the maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria, decreasing a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback (Paragraph 0047 teaches that the system can increase the quantity of successful performances to trigger subsequent feedback thereby decreasing the frequency of feedback based on successful performance).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including adjusting the thresholds for feedback based on user success as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki by coding the system to adjust the thresholds for feedback based on driver performance thereby changing the frequency of subsequent feedback such as decreasing frequency upon consecutive successful performances based on the sensor data, benchmarks, and parameters of Araki thereby decreasing a frequency (attribute) of feedback on subsequent laps/evaluations. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki would include further comprising: responsive to a determination that the second iteration of the maneuver was successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria, decreasing a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
With regard to claim 15, Araki may not explicitly teach further comprising: iteratively decreasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for each iteration of successful performance of the maneuver until the maneuver is not performed successfully. However, Chauncey teaches further comprising: iteratively decreasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for each iteration of successful performance of the maneuver until the maneuver is not performed successfully (Paragraphs 0045-0046 teach the feedback thresholds and parameters can be incrementally modified based on a predetermined training regimen or dynamically based on the assessment of operator behaviors and actions such that iterative successful performance would continuously/iteratively decrease the frequency of feedback by incrementally increasing the feedback threshold and unsuccessful performance would stop or reverse the threshold changes).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including adjusting the thresholds for feedback based on user success as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki by coding the system to adjust the thresholds for feedback based on driver performance thereby changing the frequency of subsequent feedback such as decreasing frequency upon consecutive successful performances based on the sensor data, benchmarks, and parameters of Araki thereby decreasing a frequency (attribute) of feedback on subsequent laps/evaluations. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki would include further comprising: iteratively decreasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for each iteration of successful performance of the maneuver until the maneuver is not performed successfully. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
With regard to claim 16, Araki may not explicitly teach further comprising: responsive to a determination that the second iteration of the maneuver was not successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria, increasing a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback. However, Chauncey teaches further comprising: responsive to a determination that the second iteration of the maneuver was not successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria, increasing a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback (Paragraphs 0033, 0046, 0058, 0061-0062 teach the system can dynamically adjust feedback thresholds including thresholds for negative events and results wherein a user fails to correct or improve and more negative (increase frequency) feedback is given to the user including potentially sending an alert to a supervisor if the operator fails to abide by the feedback and successfully perform the behavior).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including adjusting the thresholds for feedback based on driver behavior as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki by coding the system to adjust the thresholds for feedback based on driver performance thereby changing the frequency of subsequent feedback such as increasing frequency upon consecutive unsuccessful/negative performances based on the sensor data, benchmarks, and parameters of Araki thereby increasing a frequency (attribute) of feedback on subsequent laps/evaluations. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki would include further comprising: responsive to a determination that the second iteration of the maneuver was not successfully performed by the vehicle based on sensor data obtained during performance of the second iteration and the one or more performance criteria, increasing a level of an attribute of subsequent driver-training feedback. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
With regard to claim 17, Araki may not explicitly teach further comprising: iteratively increasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for each iteration in which the maneuver was not performed successfully until the maneuver is performed successfully. However, Chauncey further teaches further comprising: iteratively increasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for each iteration in which the maneuver was not performed successfully until the maneuver is performed successfully (Paragraphs 0045-0046 teach the feedback thresholds and parameters can be incrementally modified based on a predetermined training regimen or dynamically based on the assessment of operator behaviors and actions such that iterative unsuccessful performance would continuously/iteratively increase the frequency of feedback by incrementally decreasing the feedback threshold).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Araki to incorporate the teachings of Chauncey by including adjusting the thresholds for feedback based on driver behavior as taught by Chauncey for the feedback of Araki, as both references and the claimed invention are directed to adaptive feedback systems for a user of a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would modify Araki by coding the system to adjust the thresholds for feedback based on driver performance thereby changing the frequency of subsequent feedback such as increasing frequency upon consecutive unsuccessful/negative performances based on the sensor data, benchmarks, and parameters of Araki thereby increasing a frequency (attribute) of feedback on subsequent laps/evaluations until a user successfully performs the parameter or benchmark and then maintaining or decreasing the frequency. Upon such modification, the method and system of Araki would include further comprising: iteratively increasing the level of the attribute of the subsequent driver-training feedback for each iteration in which the maneuver was not performed successfully until the maneuver is performed successfully. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate these teachings from Chauncey with Araki’s system and method in order to provide more adaptive feedback and improve user driving behavior.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed January 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-10 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive by virtue of Applicant’s amendments to the claims. Specifically, Examiner agrees with Applicant that Araki does not explicitly teach changing the feedback from a first type to a second type. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the newly cited combination of prior art discussed above. Examiner notes that the instant claims are not fully commensurate with Applicant’s arguments as there is no explicit or implicit recitation of “performance-criteria-driven assessment of whether the prior feedback achieved its intended effect” as claims 1 and 18 do not recite changing the feedback type if the comparison shows unsuccessful performance, just changing the type based on the comparison such that even successful performance could constitute a change, and claim 18 recites providing either the first or second type of feedback so the “change” is fairly irrelevant and disconnected from the provided feedback. Further, it is noted that Applicant’s argument with regard to claim 2 is rendered moot as the Trehan reference is no longer used in view of the newly cited combination of prior art. Finally, Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments with regard to claims 3, 5-10, 12, 14-17, and 19-20 are not commensurate with the claim limitations for two reasons: 1) Applicant’s arguments are directed to applying the teachings of Chauncey to Araki’s haptic feedback but the feedback types of claims 3, 5-10, 12, 14-17, and 19-20 is not claimed as the feedback is merely “subsequent feedback”, and 2) even assuming the feedback is only the haptic feedback, the “attributes” are not explicitly defined in the claims and can be a frequency of the feedback per the instant specification which Chauncey does teach (adjusting a frequency of notification) and such teaching would be obvious to apply to any type of feedback including the haptic feedback of Araki as discussed above.
Examiner recommends amending claims 1 and 18 to more explicitly define how and why the changing a feedback type from the first type to the second type occurs such as during unsuccessful performance and a threshold for such a change, amending claim 18 to recite the iterative nature of claim 1, and amending claim 19 to its previous recitation to avoid the 112(d) and 112(b) issues discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed January 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s arguments are directed to claim 1 with a passing mention of claim 11 reciting likewise the first iteration, the determination, and then the second iteration having the second type of feedback. Examiner finds that claim 11’s recitation is not commensurate with Applicant’s arguments for claim 1 as claim 11 does not recite a specific step of changing the first type of feedback to a second type of feedback as claim 11 merely recites providing the first type during a first iteration and presenting a second type during the second iteration wherein Araki recites providing the various types of feedback during continuous monitoring and subsequent performances and recites the feedback can be a combination of audio, visual, and haptic. This is further evidenced by claim 13 of the instant application reciting the second type of feedback can further comprise at least one of audio or visual feedback. Therefore, Araki’s teaching of the combination of feedback types does teach on providing different feedback types on different performances.
Examiner recommends amending claim 11 to more explicitly align with the recitation of changing feedback types of claims 1 and 18 and making the further amendments recommended above.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected.
Examiner recommends Applicant reach out to schedule an interview to discuss the merits of the case and furthering prosecution of the application.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORRELL T FRENCH whose telephone number is (571)272-8162. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5pm; Alt Fri 7:30am-4pm EST.
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, Kang Hu can be reached on (571)270-1344. 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.
/CORRELL T FRENCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/KANG HU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights