DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/29/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant filed an RCE on 04/29/2026. Claims 1-2, 5, 12 and 14-19 were amended. Claims 1-20 are presently pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103: Applicant argues that paragraphs 57, 78, and 79 of Tanaka do not teach configuring a signal to adjust (reduce/attenuate) the sound level using historical information in the form of prior operator responses and results, and that Tanaka lacks any recording of operator responses following attenuation or vehicle contact outcomes, or any feedback/updating of driver information 156 based thereon. Applicant further contends that the evaluation value and years of driving experience are static, pre-existing data independent of object-detection events or sound-level reductions, that the output control unit 163 performs only a read-only consultation, and that the evaluating unit 165 updates based solely on general safe-driving policies unrelated to responses to sound attenuation or contact outcomes.
These arguments are not persuasive. Tanaka discloses that driver information 156 holds historical information used to configure the degree of sound-level attenuation:
“The driver information 156 is information that holds various kinds of information about the driver 1. For example, the driver information 156 includes years of driving experience, an evaluation value of driving skill, and the like of the driver 1.”[0057]
Tanaka further discloses that this historical information is consulted by the output control unit to determine the attenuation amount:
“The output control unit 163 determines whether the driver 1 is an experienced driver by referring to the driver information 156. The output control unit 163 determines that the driver 1 is an experienced driver when an evaluation value of the driver information 156 is equal to or higher than a predetermined evaluation value. At the time when an object is detected and the output of the stationary sound is to be attenuated, the output control unit 163 decreases the attenuation amount of the output of the stationary sound when the driver 1 is an experienced driver.”[0078]
Tanaka illustrates the resulting configuration of attenuation levels:
“FIG. 8 is a diagram for explaining an attenuation amount of the stationary sound. For example, when an object is not detected, the intensity of the stationary sound to be output from the speaker 13 is P1. When an object is detected and the driver 1 is not an experienced driver (beginner driver), the intensity of the stationary sound subjected to attenuation is P2. When an object is detected and the driver 1 is an experienced driver, the intensity of the stationary sound subjected to attenuation is P3.”[0079]
Tanaka teaches that this evaluation value is derived from, and updated based on, the driver’s past performance and behavior:
“The evaluating unit 165 is a processing unit that evaluates the driver 1 that drives the vehicle 10. The evaluating unit 165 enters an evaluation result in the driver information 156. The evaluating unit 165 refers to the driver video information in the driver video buffer 153, and compares movement of the driver 1 and movement policies conforming to safe driving, to calculate an evaluation value of the driver 1.” [0084]
“The evaluating unit 165 updates the evaluation value of the driver 1 based on evaluation items relating to behavior of the driver 1 or the vehicle 10, and evaluation policies associated with point addition or point deduction. The evaluating unit 165 may add points to or deduct points from the evaluation value based on a driving history of the driver 1 or information of a driver’s license. For example, points are added to the evaluation value when the driving history of the driver 1 is equal to or longer than predetermined years.”[0085]
The associated evaluation values are the product of prior driving scenarios, including responses to detected objects/risks (the very scenarios described throughout Tanaka). The assertion that the evaluation value is wholly independent of prior operator responses finds no support in the cited passages; the evaluation is based on observed driver movements and driving history. The output control unit’s use of that value to select among attenuation levels (P2 versus P3) constitutes configuring the attenuation signal using the recited historical information.
With respect to the newly amended limitations requiring the processor to “record, following the reduction of the sound level, a response of the operator and whether the work vehicle contacted the detected object, and update the historical information in the memory device based thereon,” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely only on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument in view of Karol (US20210114514A1).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US20200384916A1) in view of Karol (US20210114514A1), hereinafter referred to as Tanaka and Karol respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 16, Tanaka discloses An object intelligence detection system for providing a notification of a detected object to an operator of a work vehicle (“the driving assistance apparatus 100 is connected to the camera 11 (cameras 11 a to 11 d), the microphone 12 (microphones 12 a to 12 d), the speaker 13 (13 a to 13 d), the inner camera 14, the vibrator 15 (15 a, 15 b), and a vehicle-information detecting device 25.” [0100]),
the object intelligence detection system comprising:
at least one sensor configured to provide a captured information indicative of a presence of the detected object at a location outside of the work vehicle (“The driving assistance apparatus 100 detects a state of the surroundings of the vehicle 10 based on the video information received from the camera 11. When detecting an object …..” [0035]);
a sound emission device that generates or emits a sound that is detectable by the operator in an operator cab associated with the work vehicle (“Around the driver 1 aboard at a driver's seat of the vehicle 10, plural speakers 13 a to 14 d and an inner camera 14 are arranged. Furthermore, on a steering wheel at the driver's seat, vibrators 15 a, 15 b are arranged. The microphones 12 a to 12 d are one example of a sound collecting device. The speakers 13 a to 13 d are one example of a sound source.” [0028] and “When detecting an object while outputting the stationary sound from the speaker 13, the driving assistance apparatus 100 attenuates the output of the stationary sound toward the driver 1 from the direction of the object 2.” [0035]);
at least one processor (component 204, see also [0132]);
and a memory device (206) coupled to the at least one processor (204), the memory device(206) including instructions that when executed by the at least one processor (204) cause the at least one processor to:
detect, from at least the captured information, the presence of the detected object (“e driving assistance apparatus 100 may detect an object from the surroundings of the vehicle 10 by using a distance sensor or the like, and may detect an object by comparing the position information of the vehicle 10 with map data.” [0127] and “the detecting unit 162 detects a risk”[0088]);
generate, in response to at least the detection of the presence of the detected object, a signal to adjust an operation of the sound emission device to reduce a sound level within the operator cab (108) (“When detecting an object in an upward direction, a downward direction, a leftward direction, and a rightward direction, the driving assistance apparatus 100 attenuates the output of the stationary sound in a direction toward the pilot from the object in the field of the stationary sound.” [0128] and “when an object is detected, controls to reduce the output of the stationary sound toward the driver 1 from the direction in which the object is detected” [0117]),
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the signal is configured using historical information of prior operator responses to prior reductions in sound level to previously detected objects and whether the work vehicle contacted the previously detected objects
and record, following the reduction of the sound level, a response of the operator and whether the work vehicle contacted the detected object, and update the historical information in the memory device based thereon.
However, Karol does teach wherein the signal is configured using historical information of prior operator responses to prior reductions in sound level to previously detected objects and whether the work vehicle contacted the previously detected objects (“Responsive to a determination that the object reaction substantially matches the expected reaction, the vehicle computing system may store the encounter (e.g., data associated with first warning signal and the object reaction) in the database. … The database may be used for future object reaction comparisons … to train the machine learned model.”[0019] and
“based on a determination that a detected object did not react according to an expected reaction to a first warning signal including a first frequency emitted at 50 decibels, the vehicle computing system may cause a second warning signal including a second frequency to be emitted at 70 decibels.” [0023]);
and record, following the reduction of the sound level, a response of the operator and whether the work vehicle contacted the detected object, and update the historical information in the memory device based thereon (“Responsive to a determination that the object reaction substantially matches the expected reaction, the vehicle computing system may store the encounter (e.g., data associated with first warning signal and the object reaction) in the database.” [0019] and
“based on a determination that a detected object did not react according to an expected reaction to a first warning signal including a first frequency emitted at 50 decibels, the vehicle computing system may cause a second warning signal including a second frequency to be emitted at 70 decibels.” [0023] and “the database may be used for future object reaction comparisons, such as to increase a confidence in a reaction to a warning signal, to train the machine learned model, or the like.” [0024]). Both Tanaka and Karol teach methods for determining and controlling sounds levels during different modes of vehicle operation. However, Karol explicitly teaches wherein the signal is configured using historical information of prior operator responses to prior reductions in sound level to previously detected objects and whether the work vehicle contacted the previously detected objects and record, following the reduction of the sound level, a response of the operator and whether the work vehicle contacted the detected object, and update the historical information in the memory device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound control method of Tanaka to also include wherein the signal is configured using historical information of prior operator responses to prior reductions in sound level to previously detected objects and whether the work vehicle contacted the previously detected objects and record, following the reduction of the sound level, a response of the operator and whether the work vehicle contacted the detected object, and update the historical information in the memory device, as taught by Karol, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information to the operator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Karol, 0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses wherein the signal adjusts the operation of at least one of an engine fan of a prime mover of the work vehicle and a blower of a heating and air conditioning system of the work vehicle. (“The vehicle-information detecting device 20 is a device that detects vehicle information, such as position information, speed information, acceleration information of the vehicle 10, whether brakes are applied, steering angle information of the steering wheel, and whether the engine of the vehicle 10 is started. The vehicle-information detecting device 20 outputs the vehicle information every certain time to the driving assistance apparatus 100.” See at least [0037] and
“he output control unit 163 refers to the vehicle information buffer 154, and determines whether the engine of the vehicle 10 is started. The output control unit 163 creates, when the engine of the vehicle 10 is started, a field of the stationary sound by using the speaker 13. For example, the output control unit 163 controls the speaker 13 such that uniform stationary sound is heard from around the driver 1 by using a stereophonic technique, to create a field of the stationary sound. The output control unit 163 uses white noise as the stationary sound. The output control unit 163 may output startup sound surrounding the driver 1 from the speaker 13 before creating the field of the stationary sound.” [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 1, wherein the signal adjusts the operation of at least one of a radio of the work vehicle and a speaker of the work vehicle (“the driving assistance apparatus 100 attenuates the output of the stationary sound toward the driver 1 from the direction of the object 2. Moreover, after attenuating the output of the stationary sound, the driving assistance apparatus 100 outputs, from the speaker 13, the environmental sound in a direction of the object based on the environmental sound information received from the microphone 12.” [0035]).
Regarding claims 4, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 1, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to generate, in response to a receipt of an acknowledgement signal indicative of an acknowledgement by the operator of the reduction in the sound level, a signal to increase the sound level within the operator above the reduced sound level (“the output control unit 163 determines whether the driver 1 has recognized the object (risk) based on the driver video information of the driver video buffer 153. When the driver 1 has recognized the object, the output control unit 163 outputs a control command to the speaker 13 to perform processing of returning back to the original stationary sound from the attenuated stationary sound.” [0080]).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka discloses wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: determine a location of the detected object; (“As illustrated in FIG. 7, it is supposed that an object is detected at a position (x, y, z), and the driver 1 is positioned at a position (xd, yd, zd). The output control unit 163 identifies a line segment L1 that connects the position (x, y, z) and the position (xd, yd, zd). The output control unit 163 identifies line segments connecting positions of the respective speakers 13 a to 13 d, and the position (xd, yd, zd) based on the arrangement information 155.” [0072]);
and determine a degree the sound level is reduced, the degree being variable based at least in part on the determined location of the detected object (“when an object is detected, the output control unit 163 acquires the detection result from the detecting unit 162, and controls to reduce the output of the stationary sound toward the driver 1 from a direction in which the object is detected.” [0071]).
Regarding claim 7,
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a detection of a gesture made by the detected object
However, Karol does teach wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a detection of a gesture made by the detected object (“The object reaction may include a change (or lack thereof) in the object trajectory (e.g., speed increase, speed decrease, direction of travel away from the vehicle, etc.), a movement of the head and/or shoulders of the object, a gesture (e.g., a wave, etc.), a foot placement of the object, a positional adjustment to an item the object holds (e.g., adjusting a position of an electronic device, book, magazine, or other item), and/or any other movement indicative of an object reacting the first warning signal.”[0055]). Both Tanaka and Karol teach methods for determining and controlling sounds levels during different modes of vehicle operation. However, Karol explicitly teaches wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a detection of a gesture made by the detected object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound control method of Tanaka to also include wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a detection of a gesture made by the detected object, as taught by Karol, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information to the operator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Karol, 0055]).
Regarding claim 8,
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a movement by the detected object
However, Karol does teach wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a movement by the detected object (“The object reaction may include a change (or lack thereof) in the object trajectory (e.g., speed increase, speed decrease, direction of travel away from the vehicle, etc.), a movement of the head and/or shoulders of the object, a gesture (e.g., a wave, etc.), a foot placement of the object, a positional adjustment to an item the object holds (e.g., adjusting a position of an electronic device, book, magazine, or other item), and/or any other movement indicative of an object reacting the first warning signal.”[0055]). Both Tanaka and Karol teach methods for determining and controlling sounds levels during different modes of vehicle operation. However, Karol explicitly teaches wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a movement by the detected object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound control method of Tanaka to also include wherein the detection of the presence of the detected object can comprise a movement by the detected object, as taught by Karol, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information to the operator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Karol, 0055]).
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 1, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine, based on a feedback information that indicates an actual sound level within the operator cab, a signal to at least one of (a) readjust the operation of the sound emission device to further reduce the actual sound level within the operator cab, and (b) adjust the operation of an additional sound emission device to further reduce the actual sound level within the operator cab (“when an object is not detected, the intensity of the stationary sound to be output from the speaker 13 is P1. When an object is detected and the driver 1 is not an experienced driver (beginner driver), the intensity of the stationary sound subjected to attenuation is P2. When an object is detected and the driver 1 is an experienced driver, the intensity of the stationary sound subjected to attenuation is P3. As described above, by making a difference between before and after attenuation small when the driver 1 is an experienced driver, the pressure on the driver 1 can be reduced.” [0079]).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to capture information in the form of at least a detection signal emitted from a detected device outside of the work vehicle (“The driving assistance apparatus 100 collects sound in surroundings of the vehicle 10 by using the microphone 12 arranged on an exterior of the vehicle 10.” [0093]).
Regarding claims 14 and 18, Tanaka discloses, further comprising: a second senor system configured to sense a second captured information (“The interface unit 110 outputs the video information acquired from the camera 11 to the control unit 160.” [0041]);
and a second sound emission device configured for an operation in a manner that generates or emits a second sound that is detectable by the operator in the operator cab (“Around the driver 1 aboard at a driver's seat of the vehicle 10, plural speakers 13 a to 14 d and an inner camera 14 are arranged. Furthermore, on a steering wheel at the driver's seat, vibrators 15 a, 15 b are arranged. The microphones 12 a to 12 d are one example of a sound collecting device. The speakers 13 a to 13 d are one example of a sound source.” [0028]),
wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: detect, from at least the second captured information, a detected object (“The driving assistance apparatus 100 detects a state of the surroundings of the vehicle 10 based on the video information received from the camera 11.” [0035]);
and generate, in response to at least the detection of the detected object, a second signal to adjust the operation of the second sound emission device in a manner that reduces the first reduced sound level within the operator cab to a second reduced sound level (“When detecting an object while outputting the stationary sound from the speaker 13, the driving assistance apparatus 100 attenuates the output of the stationary sound toward the driver 1 from the direction of the object 2.” [0035]).
Regarding claims 15 and 19, Tanaka discloses wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: receive an acknowledgment signal indicative of an acknowledgment by the operator of the reduction of the sound level to the first reduced sound level; (“Thus, the output control unit 163 reduces the output of the stationary sound toward the driver 1 from the direction in which the object is detected in the field of the stationary sound.” [0074])
and generate, in response to receipt of the acknowledgment signal, a signal to increase the sound level above the first reduced sound level. (“When the driver 1 has recognized the object, the output control unit 163 outputs a control command to the speaker 13 to perform processing of returning back to the original stationary sound from the attenuated stationary sound.” [0080]).
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka discloses further comprising an optical sensor system configured to provide captured information indicative of a presence of a detected object at a location outside of the work vehicle (“The cameras 11 a to 11 d are cameras to take video around the vehicle 10. It is explained using the cameras 11 a to 11 d in this example, but another camera may be further used to take videos around the vehicle 10. The cameras 11 a to 11 d output information of the video taken thereby to the driving assistance apparatus 100.” [0030]).
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka discloses The object intelligence detection system of claim 16, wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to retrieve the project map from an external secondary device (“The driving assistance apparatus 100 may detect an object from the surroundings of the vehicle 10 by using a distance sensor or the like, and may detect an object by comparing the position information of the vehicle 10 with map data.” [0127]).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Karol and further in view of Kameo et al. (US20210261136A1), hereinafter referred to as Tanaka, Karol and Kameo respectively.
Regarding claim 6,
Tanaka in view of Karol does not explicitly disclose wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine the detected object has a protected status, and wherein the generation of the signal to adjust the operation of the sound emission device is further based at least in part on the detected object having the protected status.
However, Kameo does teach wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine the detected object has a protected status, and wherein the generation of the signal to adjust the operation of the sound emission device is further based at least in part on the detected object having the protected status (“Then an object that may be an obstacle, such as a person or luggage, is detected around a vehicle, the vehicle notifies the driver that the object has been detected, regardless of whether or not the driver recognizes the object. Then, a case is also considered in which, when the driver is notified, the driver actually recognizes the object and the degree of risk is low. In a case in which this notification is repeated, the driver may be accustomed to the notification.” [0004] and
“Whenever the estimation unit 407 calculates the degree of risk, the tagging unit 409 generates risk degree information such that predetermined tag information is associated with the degree of risk and writes the risk degree information to the storage unit 412 (Step S16). Then, the recording unit 410 transmits the risk degree information stored in the storage unit 412 to the host device 2 instantly or at a predetermined timing (Step S17)” [0120] and
“The notification unit 23 generates a near miss accident report for each driver on the basis of the risk degree information stored in the database 22.” [0121]). Both Tanaka in view of Karol and Kameo teach methods for determining and controlling sounds levels during different modes of vehicle operation. However, Kameo explicitly teaches wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine the detected object has a protected status, and wherein the generation of the signal to adjust the operation of the sound emission device is further based at least in part on the detected object having the protected status.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound control method of Tanaka in view of Karol to also include wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to determine the detected object has a protected status, and wherein the generation of the signal to adjust the operation of the sound emission device is further based at least in part on the detected object having the protected status, as taught by Kameo, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information to the operator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Kameo, 0004, 0120-0121]).
Regarding claim 10,
Tanaka in view of Karol does not explicitly disclose wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: determine a location of the detected object is within a predetermined distance of the work vehicle and generate, in response to the determination the detected object is within the predetermined distance, a supplementary signal to activate an output device of the work vehicle, the output device comprising at least one of an illumination device and a haptic feedback device
However, Kameo does teach wherein the memory device further includes instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to: determine a location of the detected object is within a predetermined distance of the work vehicle (“The position of the object with respect to the industrial vehicle 1 is represented by the direction and distance of the object with respect to the industrial vehicle 1.” [0044]);
and generate, in response to the determination the detected object is within the predetermined distance, a supplementary signal to activate an output device of the work vehicle, the output device comprising at least one of an illumination device and a haptic feedback device (“detecting a position of an object that is a possible obstacle to a vehicle; detecting a direction of a line of sight of a driver of the vehicle; deciding an aspect of an alarm on the basis of the position and the direction of the line of sight of the driver; and controlling a speaker corresponding to the position such that a sound of the aspect is output.” [0008]). Both Tanaka in view of Karol and Kameo teach methods for determining and controlling sounds levels during different modes of vehicle operation. However, Kameo explicitly teaches determining a location of the detected object is within a predetermined distance of the work vehicle and generate, in response to the determination the detected object is within the predetermined distance, a supplementary signal to activate an output device of the work vehicle, the output device comprising at least one of an illumination device and a haptic feedback device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound control method of Tanaka in view of Karol to also include determining a location of the detected object is within a predetermined distance of the work vehicle and generate, in response to the determination the detected object is within the predetermined distance, a supplementary signal to activate an output device of the work vehicle, the output device comprising at least one of an illumination device and a haptic feedback device., as taught by Kameo, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves safety for operating a work vehicle by providing valuable information to the operator (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Kameo, 0004-0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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, FADEY JABR can be reached on (571) 272-1516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights