Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. Applicant’s argument filed April 30, 2026, regarding rejection of claims 1 and 11-12 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
3. Applicant argues that Yamaguchi (US 20210016793A1) and Ikeda (US 20200086890A1) do not teach the amended independent claim 1 as Yamaguchi merely describes a lane change with an object of passing a stopped vehicle in front, Ikeda does not disclose or suggest distinguishing between different purposes of lane changes (i.e. passing vs. non-passing) and controlling the display mode and varying graphical attributes of the planned travel route based on such determination, and that Ikeda does not provide time sequential control of determining the purpose of the lane change, displaying information based on the determination, and then starting the lane change.
However, examiner argues that amended independent claim 1 requires further search and consideration, and that previous Office Action rejected previous claim 1 over Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda, not Ikeda nor Yamaguchi alone. Therefore, after further search and consideration, examiner has found that Yamaguchi still teaches the amended independent claim 1.
First, Yamaguchi at paragraph [0146] specifically states that a travel path moves into opposing lane and overpasses a vehicle and returns to the original lane “because the other vehicle stops in front” of the vehicle. The vehicle in front stops, not already stopped, to show that a driving vehicle is slowing down, i.e. driving slower or decelerating movement of a vehicle, rather than being in an already complete stop position. Even if paragraph [0146] were to state an already stopped vehicle, it is not Yamaguchi’s only disclosure. Examiner argues that, as stated in previous Office Action, paragraphs [0142], [0097] and Fig. 11 shows a vehicle stopping, not already stopped, which is driving slower, on a road or the road shoulder and a new path to bypass through changing lane and returning are generated. A vehicle stopping is not the same as stopped, but rather the vehicle is traveling or driving while decelerating, in which Yamaguchi determines to initiate a lane change in response to a vehicle driving in front that is slowing down considerably. In addition, Yamaguchi paragraph [0079] and Fig. 5 also teaches detecting own vehicle will turn left and based on that information, generates and displays guidance marks indicating a planned path to enter the left lane, i.e. object of lane change other than passing a vehicle driving in front. Hence, Yamaguchi teaches to determine whether an object of a lane change is passing a vehicle driving in front, whether driving slower or decelerating, or is other than passing a vehicle in front.
Also, examiner argues that amended independent claim 1 does not specifically state that the graphical attributes must be varied between the first and second modes, nor does the claim recite performing a comparison between passing and non-passing purposes. However, even with such narrow interpretation, Yamaguchi still teaches different graphical presentations of a planned travel route in different vehicle lane change circumstances, i.e. varied graphical attributes between first and second modes. In Fig. 5 and [0079]-[0080], Yamaguchi teaches a lane change to enter a left lane for an upcoming left turn, with guidance marks formed by a plurality of circles, i.e. second mode when the object of the lane change is other than passing a vehicle in front. In Fig. 11 and [0096]-[0100], Yamaguchi teaches a changed path to bypass another vehicle using new guidance marks formed by a plurality of circles, cross marks to show prior path, and an auxiliary image including a triangle stop plate, i.e. first mode when the object of the lane change is passing a vehicle driving in front. With new guidance marks and addition of cross marks and auxiliary image, Yamaguchi shows different graphical attributes that includes at least one of shape or pattern. Further, in [0142]-[0148], [0152], Figs 18A-18C and 19A-19C, Yamaguchi also teaches a passing maneuver to avoid obstacles such as other vehicles that are stopping in front in which the travel path includes changing to the opposing lane and overpasses a vehicle and returns to the original lane and uses arrow shaped graphical object and triangular graphical object. Therefore, Yamaguchi teaches first and second mode for passing and non-passing lane change with different graphical attributes that include different shapes and patterns.
Finally, examiner found that Yamaguchi still teaches the amended independent claim 1 language of “start the lane change after displaying the information”. In [0147], Yamaguchi teaches that in a situation where a temporary lane change is to be performed, the display control unit displays an object indicating a travel path at a timing before electronic control is performed to change the autonomous steering when and accelerator, etc. by a control unit, i.e. displaying information before starting a lane change. Note also in [0103] that a vehicle changes a lane in accordance with the guidance marks. Therefore, Yamaguchi teaches amended independent claim 1 language of “start the lane change after displaying the information.”
Therefore, applicant’s argument regarding rejection of amended independent claim 1 under 35 USC 103 are unpersuasive.
4. Applicant argues that amended independent claims 11-12 recites similar features with respect to amended independent claim 1, and patentably define over the cited references for at least the same reasons of amended independent claim 1.
However, amended independent claim 1 is fully rejected under 35 USC 103. Thus, the amended independent claims 11-12 are rejected due to its similarity to amended independent claim 1 and applicant’s argument regarding rejection of amended independent claims 11-12 is unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
5. Claims 1, 4, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi et al. (US20210016793A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi teaches a vehicle display control device (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general.) comprising;
a processor (see Yamaguchi [0058] and Fig 2 where display apparatus 1 includes optical apparatus 10 and control apparatus 20, which includes a central processing unit 202, i.e. a processor.) configured to,
determines whether or not a lane change is necessary based on at least one of a planned travel route or area conditions (see Yamaguchi [0079] and Fig. 5 where display apparatus 1 illustrates the guidance marks 41 to change lane on a two-lane road based on information from navigation device 400; see also Yamaguchi [0101]-[0104] and Fig. 12 where an image control unit 250 put guidance marks 41, on a planned path, for a route change lanes to the right at a predetermined timing based on information acquired from vehicle navigation device, and speed and position of the vehicle.), and
in a case in which a lane change is necessary, determine whether an object of the lane change is passing a vehicle driving in front or is other than passing a vehicle driving in front, before starting the lane change (see [0142], [0097] and Fig. 11 where a control unit determines a vehicle stopping, not already stopped, which is driving slower, on a road or the road shoulder and a new path to bypass through changing lane and returning are generated, i.e. a vehicle stopping, stopped, but the vehicle traveling or driving while decelerating, in which it is used to determine a lane change in response to a vehicle driving in front that is slowing down considerably. Note also [0079] and Fig. 5 where it shows detecting own vehicle will turn left and based on that information, generates and displays guidance marks indicating a planned path to enter the left lane, i.e. object of lane change other than passing a vehicle driving in front.),
displays information relating to the lane change in a display area in a vicinity of a driver's seat (see Yamaguchi [0050]-[0052] and Figs 1A and 1B where display apparatus 1 is an in-vehicle head-up display (HUD) and images are projected onto a projection area 311 of windshield 310. The display apparatus 1 shows change lane guidance marks 41 as said above and the windshield 310 is in vicinity of a driver’s seat as can be seen on Figs 1A+1B.),
the information including graphical attributes of the planned travel route of the vehicle, in a first mode when the object of the lane change is passing a vehicle driving in front and in a second mode when the object of the lane change is other than passing a vehicle driving in front, the graphical attributes including at least one of shape or pattern (see Fig. 11 and [0096]-[0100] where a display shows a changed path to bypass another vehicle using new guidance marks formed by a plurality of circles, cross marks to show prior path, and an auxiliary image including a triangle stop plate, i.e. first mode when the object of the lane change is passing a vehicle driving in front with graphical attributes that includes at least one of shape or pattern that is different than second mode, which includes cross marks and auxiliary image. Note Fig. 5 and [0079]-[0080] also shows a lane change to enter a left lane for an upcoming left turn with guidance marks formed by a plurality of circles, i.e. second mode when the object of the lane change is other than passing a vehicle in front with graphical attributes that includes at least one of shape or pattern of guide marks formed by plurality of circles. Further, [0142]-[0148], [0152], Figs 18A-18C and 19A-19C also teaches a passing maneuver to avoid obstacles such as other vehicles that are stopping in front in which the travel path includes changing to the opposing lane and overpasses a vehicle and returns to the original lane and uses arrow shaped graphical object and triangular graphical object, i.e. graphical attributes including at least one of shape or pattern to show a mode of when object of the lane change is passing a vehicle in front.), and
start the lane change after displaying the information (see [0147] where in a situation where a temporary lane change is to be performed, the display control unit displays an object indicating a travel path at a timing before electronic control is performed to change the autonomous steering when and accelerator, etc. by a control unit, i.e. displaying information before starting a lane change. Note also in [0103] that a vehicle changes a lane in accordance with the guidance marks.).
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 1(see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general as shown in claim 1.), wherein
the processor displays an object of the lane change in the display area using at least one of characters or an icon (see Yamaguchi Figs 11-12, [0098] and [0102] where there are auxiliary images 43B and 47 to indicate vehicle to pass or be aware of. In the two Figures of 11 and 12, there are icon and characters of exclamation and “waiting” respectively to display presence of an object or vehicle.).
Regarding claim 8, Yamaguchi teaches a vehicle display control system (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general.) comprising:
the vehicle display control device of claim 1(see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general as shown in claim 1.); and
a display device that displays the information relating to the lane change in the display area (see Yamaguchi [0050]-[0052] and Figs 1A and 1B where display apparatus 1 is an in-vehicle head-up display (HUD) and images are projected onto a projection area 311 of windshield 310; see also Yamaguchi [0079] and Fig. 5 where display apparatus 1 illustrates the guidance marks 41 to change lane on a two-lane road based on information from navigation device 400.).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi teaches the vehicle display control system of claim 8 (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general as shown in claim 8.), wherein
the display device is a head-up display device capable of projecting images onto a windshield glass (see Yamaguchi [0050]-[0052] and Figs 1A and 1B where display apparatus 1 is an in-vehicle head-up display (HUD) and images are projected onto a projection area 311 of windshield 310.).
Regarding claim 10, Yamaguchi teaches a vehicle including the vehicle display control system of claim 9 (see Yamaguchi Figs 1A-1B and [0050]-[0051] where it is indicated that automobile 300, i.e. vehicle, is a movable body mounted with a display apparatus 1 with projection area 311 on windshield 310.).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recite a vehicle display control method that comprises components, a processor, configured to perform the method(s) recited in claim 1. The cited portions of Yamaguchi et al. used in the rejections of claims 1 teach where the method(s) are performed using a system comprising the components recited in claim 11. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recite a non-transitory computer storage readable medium comprising instruction that, when executed by a computer, perform the method(s) recited in claim 1. The cited portions of Yamaguchi et al. used in the rejections of claims 1 teach where the method(s) are performed using a processor and a computer readable storage medium. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claims 1.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
6. Claim 13-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being anticipated by Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda et al. (US 20200086890A1).
Regarding claim 13, Yamaguchi teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 1,
Yamaguchi does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to determine whether or not a lane change with an object of passing the vehicle driving in front in a same lane is necessary.
However, Ikeda teaches a driving control devices that has a display system with a recognizer, which is a controller realized by a central processing unit (CPU), that recognizes an object that includes vehicles such as motorcycles and four wheeled vehicles, and determines the object state, including its position, speed, acceleration or jerk, etc. Once an overtake event is determined to be necessary with regards to information of a vehicle in front, i.e. vehicle driving too slowly and has come within a predetermined distance, then host vehicle performs a lane change to an adjacent lane, overtake, or pass, and change lane to return (see [0049], [0052] and [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a display apparatus of a vehicle displaying different information of lane change due to overpassing a stopped vehicle or changing lanes due to other reasons, such as a hindering object on a road, of Yamaguchi by incorporating teaching of Ikeda such that the display apparatus of a vehicle display control device also determines a lane change necessary when vehicle driving in front of host vehicle is determined to be getting too close, i.e. driving too slowly.
The motivation to have a display with a recognizer that varies graphical shape and patterns to show when host vehicle is approaching to a front vehicle driving too slowly and determines a necessary lane change to overtake along a planned travel route with regards to the front vehicle is that, as indicated by Ikeda, this would allow for a detailed information on a lane change, such as state of vehicle in front and seeing where a lane change is happening, which would allow an occupant to ascertain purpose of lane change and give higher sense of security to the occupant (see [0087], [0104] and [0005]).
Regarding claim 14, Yamaguchi teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 1,
Yamaguchi does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to determine whether or not a lane change with an object of passing the vehicle driving in front in a same lane is necessary based on a speed of a preceding vehicle.
However, Ikeda teaches a driving control devices that has a display system with a recognizer, which is a controller realized by a central processing unit (CPU), that recognizes an object that includes vehicles such as motorcycles and four wheeled vehicles, and determines the object state, including its position, speed, and acceleration. Once an overtake event is determined to be necessary with regards to information of a vehicle driving in front, i.e. vehicle driving too slowly and has come within a predetermined distance, then host vehicle performs a lane change to an adjacent lane, overtake, or pass, and change lane to return (see [0049], [0052] and [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a display apparatus of a vehicle displaying different information of lane change due to overpassing a stopped vehicle or changing lanes due to other reasons, such as a hindering object on a road, of Yamaguchi by incorporating teaching of Ikeda such that the display apparatus of a vehicle display control device also determines a lane change necessary when vehicle driving in front of host vehicle is determined to be getting too close, i.e. driving too slowly.
The motivation to have a display with a recognizer that varies graphical shape and patterns to show when host vehicle is approaching to a front vehicle driving too slowly and determines a necessary lane change to overtake along a planned travel route with regards to the front vehicle is that, as indicated by Ikeda, this would allow for a detailed information on a lane change, such as state of vehicle in front and seeing where a lane change is happening, which would allow an occupant to ascertain purpose of lane change and give higher sense of security to the occupant (see [0087], [0104] and [0005]).
Regarding claim 15, Yamaguchi teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 1,
Yamaguchi does not teach: wherein the processor is configured to display, in the display area, at least one of characters or an icon indicating that an object of the lane change is passing the vehicle driving in front.
However, Ikeda teaches vehicle display control that has displays provided at front of a driver’s seat, at an instrument panel, and including a head-up display (HUD) device to display information of host vehicle, such as speed, fuel, traveling distance, etc. as well as different scenes that shows target trajectory for lane change to overtake, or pass, a vehicle driving in front (see Fig. 6 and [0085], and Fig. 2 and [0037]-[0038]). Note also that in Fig. 6 and [0085]-[0086] of Ikeda shows an icon image LCS and trajectory image of TA2 to indicate passing the vehicle driving in front.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify a display apparatus of a vehicle displaying different information of lane change due to overpassing a stopped vehicle or changing lanes due to other reasons, such as a hindering object on a road, of Yamaguchi by incorporating teaching of Ikeda such that the display apparatus of a vehicle display control device displays target trajectory for lane change to overtake a vehicle in front as well as showing an icon image LCS and trajectory image of TA2 to indicate passing the vehicle driving in front.
The motivation to have a display with a recognizer that varies graphical shape and patterns to show when host vehicle is approaching to a front vehicle driving too slowly and determines and show a necessary lane change with icons to overtake along a planned travel route with regards to the front vehicle is that, as indicated by Ikeda, this would allow for a detailed information on a lane change, such as state of vehicle in front and seeing where a lane change is happening, which would allow an occupant to ascertain purpose of lane change and give higher sense of security to the occupant (see [0087], [0104] and [0005]).
7. Claim 3 is rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Kumon (US 20200309555A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yamaguchi in view of Ikeda teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 1 (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general.), wherein, for a lane change with the object of passing a vehicle in front, the processor displays the planned travel route (see Yamaguchi [0061] where CPU 202 controls the overall image data processing of the display apparatus 1, which also has the image control unit 250. Therefore, the information of the image control unit 250 and display apparatus 1 showing lane changes are varied by the CPU 202; see also Fig 18A-18C and [0146]-[0147] where display control unit 14 shows a travel path to change into another lane to overpass a vehicle. The Fig. 14-16 also shows configurations of hardware and functional configurations where there is a CPU that processes the information displayed just as mentioned above. This overall configuration shows that the CPU processes to display different information of either lane change due to overpassing a vehicle or of other reasons than passing, such as traveling a planned route.)
While Yamaguchi teaches the processor displaying the planned travel route while changing a lane with the object of passing a vehicle in front, it does not explicitly teach a leading end of the displayed planned travel route thereof gradually becoming fainter.
Kumon teaches a leading end thereof gradually becoming fainter (see Figs 5A-5B, and Figs 6-9).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature as disclosed by Kumon into the invention of Yamaguchi et al. because Kumon teaches how intuitively the driver can view the display information with respect to the actual foreground through the use of markers in positions to indicate future positions of a vehicle (see Kumon [0006]-[0007]).
8. Claim 5 is rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20220289228A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 1 (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general.),
wherein, among lane changes with objects other than passing, the processor varies the information displayed in the display area (see Yamaguchi [0061] where CPU 202 controls the overall image data processing of the display apparatus 1, which also has the image control unit 250. Therefore, the information of the image control unit 250 and display apparatus 1 showing lane changes are varied by the CPU 202 as seen on Figs 7-10; see also Fig 18A-18C and [0146]-[0147] where display control unit 14 shows a travel path to change into another lane to overpass a vehicle. The Fig. 14-16 also shows configurations of hardware and functional configurations where there is a CPU that processes the information displayed just as mentioned above. This overall configuration shows that the CPU processes to display different information of either lane change due to overpassing a vehicle or of other reasons than passing, such as traveling a planned route as seen on Figs 7-10 as mentioned above.)
While Yamaguchi teaches lane changes with objects other than passing, it does not explicitly teach varying the information displayed between a lane change for heading to a freeway exit and a lane change for approaching a branch road.
Yamamoto et al. teaches the processor varying the information displayed in the display area between a lane change for heading to a freeway exit and a lane change for approaching a branch road (see Yamamoto et al. Figs 4-5 versus Figs 11-12 where there is a distinction made between exit and branch marked in F2, i.e. a varying information through different wording displayed in the display area for freeway exit and branch road.).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature as disclosed by Yamamoto et al. into the invention of Yamaguchi et al. because Yamamoto et al. teaches a human-machine interface capable of an autonomous steering control with lane information related to a possibility of a lane change of the vehicle executed by autonomous steering and entry into a congestion section where it is considered the recommended section to lane change into and help maneuver through the display information (see Yamamoto et al. [0004]).
9. Claim 6-7 are rejected under pre-35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Yamamoto in further view of Yagyu et al. (US 20220107201A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yamaguchi in view of Yamamoto teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 5 (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general.),
wherein, at a time of a lane change for heading to a freeway exit, the processor displays a see Yamamoto et al. Figs 4-5 shows a guidance of a planned route on the display to lead to a lane change to freeway exit.).
While Yamaguchi in view Yamamoto teaches the processor displaying a leading end of the planned travel route during lane change for heading to a freeway exit, it does not explicitly teach the leading end in a shape of an arrow.
Yagyu et al. teaches the displaying on a leading end of the planned travel route in a shape of an arrow (see Yagyu et al. Fig. 42 where there are series of arrows on the windshield display of the vehicle directing and leading a driver to change lane to head to a freeway exit.)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature as disclosed by Yagyu et al. into the invention of Yamaguchi et al. because Yagyu et al. teaches a lane change trajectory, based on a route information, superimposed on the road surface to display and correct vehicle deviated position, and to make it easier to recognize which direction to go (see Yagyu et al. [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamaguchi in view Yamamoto teaches the vehicle display control device of claim 5 (see Yamaguchi [0052]-[0077] in general.),
wherein, at a time of a lane change for approaching a branch road, the processor displays a leading end of the planned travel route discontinuously (see Yamamoto et al. Figs 11-12 shows a guidance of a planned route on the display to lead to a lane change to a branch road.).
While Yamaguchi in view of Yamamoto teaches the processor displaying a leading end of the planned travel route during lane change for approaching a branch road, it does not explicitly teach displaying the leading end discontinuously.
Yagyu et al. teaches the displaying on a leading end of the planned travel route discontinuously (see Yagyu et al. Fig. 15 where there are series of discontinuous pointers on the windshield display of the vehicle directing and leading a driver to change lane on a planned route.)
Motivation above in the rejection of claim 6 applies here.
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYANG AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-4162. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/H.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/MATTHIAS S WEISFELD/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights