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 .
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 , 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ediger et al. (US 20210291651 A1), herein after will be referred to as Ediger, in view of Arndt (Speed Control At Roundabouts – Use Of Maximum Entry Path Radii).
Regarding Claim 1,
Ediger discloses “A vehicle speed control method” (see at least [0014]: “Controlling the speed of the motor vehicle depending on the zone of the curve to be reached is advantageous…”: Rationale: Ediger discloses a method to control vehicle speed, satisfying the claimed preamble for a vehicle speed control method) comprising: a calculation step (see at least [0029]: “In one example of a method according to the flow diagram of FIG. 2 , a curve path 10 is determined in a first step S1.”: Rationale: Ediger’s Step S1 performs calculation by determining the curve path, squarely meeting claim 1’s required “calculation step” element) in which a controller (see at least [0028]: “The motor vehicle 1 has a control device 2.”: Rationale: The cited controller is Ediger’s “control device 2,” which performs the method operations, mapping directly to the claimed controller) of a vehicle (see at least [0028]: “The motor vehicle 1 has a control device 2.”: Rationale: That controller is expressly part of “a motor vehicle 1,” thus belonging to the vehicle, matching the claim language precisely) calculates a first vehicle speed (see at least [0014]: “For this purpose, a target speed is calculated, with which the current speed is compared.”: Rationale: Ediger declares “a target speed is calculated,” which corresponds to calculating the claimed first vehicle speed used for control) when the vehicle moves (see at least [0014]: “The speed is controlled by the IACC, i.e., it is adapted to the situation.”: Rationale: Because Ediger calculates and adjusts speed while traversing curves, the calculation occurs when the vehicle moves, not merely offline) in a roundabout (see at least [0018]: “The present disclosure applies to, without limitation, situations in which the curve is a roundabout.”: Rationale: Ediger identifies the curve specifically as “a roundabout 11,” so the method expressly applies in a roundabout environment), on the basis of curvature information (see at least [0016]: “the curve can be characterized by waypoints… and a certain curve shape (i.e. a certain curvature or a certain curvature value).”: Rationale: Ediger’s waypoints include curvature values, establishing that speed is calculated on the basis of curvature information as claimed) indicating curvature related to the roundabout (see at least [0029]: “several waypoints 14 of the curve along the perimeter of the roundabout 11”: Rationale: Those curvature values characterize the roundabout’s waypoints, so the curvature information is specifically related to the roundabout geometry) obtained from map information (see at least [0016]: “The curve path is taken from the map information of the navigation system.”i: Rationale: Ediger determines the curve path from “map information,” demonstrating the curvature information is obtained from map data, as required); a first control step (see at least [0031]: “In a fourth step S4, the speed of the motor vehicle 1 is adjusted accordingly.”: Rationale: Step S4 constitutes a distinct control step adjusting speed, satisfying the first control step executed approaching the roundabout entry) in which the controller brings the vehicle speed of the vehicle (see at least [0031]: “In a fourth step S4, the speed of the motor vehicle 1 is adjusted accordingly.”: Rationale: Ediger’s control device actively adjusts vehicle speed toward targets, thus it “brings the vehicle speed of the vehicle” as required), that is higher than the first vehicle speed (see at least [0031]: “If the current speed is too high (vi>vs), the speed is reduced.”: Rationale: Ediger reduces speed when the current speed exceeds the target (vi>vs), matching the condition “higher than the first vehicle speed” exactly), on the basis of output (see at least [0028]: “The motor vehicle 1 may have further sensors 5 which transmit measured values to the control device 2.”: Rationale: Comparing current speed to target requires measured speed outputs, supporting that control is “on the basis of output” from sensors) of a wheel speed sensor (see at least [0031]: “A certain speed is set… (target speed vs)… If the current speed (vi) is too low… If the current speed is too high…”: Rationale: Obtaining current speed vi typically uses wheel sensors; thus inherency satisfies this limitation) of the vehicle (see at least [0028]: “The motor vehicle 1 has a control device 2… sensors 5… which transmit measured values to the control device 2.”: Rationale: All sensing and speed control occur on the motor vehicle, meeting the “of the vehicle” requirement for the sensor element) before the vehicle enters the roundabout (see at least [0029]: “a curve path 10 is determined in a first step S1.” And [0016]: “waypoints corresponding to a certain distance from the entrance to the curve”: Rationale: Ediger plans curve path, zones, and exit before entry; that anticipatory framework supports executing speed control before entering); and a second control step (see at least [0031]: “If the current speed (vi) is too low (vi<vs), the speed is increased.”: Rationale: A distinct second control step exists: increasing speed when vi<vs after entry, separate from approach deceleration to the entry target) in which the controller brings the vehicle speed of the vehicle (see at least [0031]: “In a fourth step S4, the speed of the motor vehicle 1 is adjusted accordingly.”: Rationale: The controller performs this second step by changing speed, therefore it “brings the vehicle speed of the vehicle” as claimed), that is lower than the first vehicle speed (see at least [0029]: “If the current speed (vi) is too low (vi<vs), the speed is increased.”: Rationale: Because vi<vs after entry triggers acceleration, this second step begins from lower-than-first speed, matching the claimed condition) close to the first vehicle speed (see at least [0031]: “A certain speed is set according to the current position and the exit to be reached (target speed vs).” / “If the current speed corresponds to the target speed (vi=vs), it is maintained.”: Rationale: The second step’s purpose is reaching the first vehicle speed, namely Ediger’s internal target speed vs inside the roundabout zones), on the basis of the output of the wheel speed sensor (see at least [0031] (speed variable): “If the current speed (vi) is too low… If the current speed is too high…” ) and [0028] (sensor outputs): “sensors 5… transmit measured values to the control device 2.”: Rationale: Measuring current speed vi uses wheel sensors; standard practice satisfies this basis clause) after the vehicle enters the roundabout (see at least [0031]: “The distance travelled in the roundabout 11… are used to determine the current position of the motor vehicle 1.”: Rationale: Ediger’s S4 computes position by distance traveled “in the roundabout,” demonstrating these actions occur after the vehicle has entered).
However, Ediger does not explicitly disclose close to a second vehicle speed that is lower than the first vehicle speed.
Arndt discloses close to a second vehicle speed (see at least Pg 12 of 22: “greater speed attenuation is required to achieve an appropriate speed for entry onto the roundabout.” / “appropriate entry speed.”: Rationale: Arndt provides an explicit entry speed target, supplying the “second vehicle speed” distinct from Ediger’s in-roundabout first speed) that is lower than the first vehicle speed (see at least Pg. 12 of 22: “Applying the maximum entry path radii given in the Table 4 will ensure that speeds onto the roundabout will be minimised.”: Rationale: Arndt (+ Ediger context for higher in-roundabout targets): Arndt’s limits show entry speed is lower than circulating speed, establishing the claimed relationship between second and first speeds).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ediger and Arndt before them, to modify the method of Ediger by incorporating the safety teaching of Arndt to calculate a distinct, lower entry speed (the second vehicle speed) and to implement a control step to decelerate the vehicle to that speed before entering the roundabout.
Regarding Claim 3,
Ediger and Arndt disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Ediger discloses a vehicle speed control method further comprising a third control step (see at least [0033]): “The control device 2 then issues a control command to increase the speed in a fifth step S5…”: Rationale: Ediger’s fifth step S5 is a discrete, subsequent control step, which constitutes the claimed “third control step” beyond prior control actions) in which the controller (see at least [0028]): “The motor vehicle 1 has a control device 2.”: Rationale: Ediger identifies “control device 2” as the controller that issues commands within the method steps, aligning with the claimed controller requirement) brings the vehicle speed of the vehicle (see at least [0033]): “…issues a control command to increase the speed…”: Rationale: Issuing a command “to increase the speed” brings the vehicle’s speed toward a commanded value, satisfying the claim’s “brings… speed” language), that is lower than the third vehicle speed (see at least [0033]: “…increase the speed… so that the motor vehicle 1 accelerates out of the roundabout 11.”: Rationale: S5 acceleration implies initial speed below commanded post-exit target, thus lower than the claimed third vehicle speed), close to a third vehicle speed (see at least [0033]): “…issues a control command to increase the speed…”: Rationale: Increasing speed under S5 indicates convergence toward a higher target value after exit, i.e., approaching a distinct third vehicle speed) that is higher than the first vehicle speed (see at least [0031]: “…a higher speed is possible…” and [0033]: “…accelerates out of the roundabout 11.: Rationale: Ediger describes “higher speed is possible”; with S5 exit acceleration, the post-exit target reasonably exceeds the in-roundabout first speed values) on the basis of the output of the wheel speed sensor (see at least [0031]): “If the current speed (vi) is too low… If the current speed is too high…” and [0028]): “…further sensors 5 which transmit measured values to the control device 2.”: Rationale: Ediger uses speed variable vi and sensors providing measured values, making wheel-speed feedback an inherent, routine ACC implementation) after the vehicle exits from the roundabout (see at least [0033]): “…so that the motor vehicle 1 accelerates out of the roundabout 11.”: Rationale: Ediger expressly states in S5 control increases speed “so that [the vehicle] accelerates out of the roundabout,” occurring after exit is reached).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ediger and Arndt before them, to implement Ediger’s S5 post-exit acceleration as a distinct third control step that increases speed above the in-roundabout first speed, using routine wheel-speed feedback for 𝑣𝑖. In view of Arndt’s teachings on distinct, safe target speeds across roundabout phases, restoring a higher post-exit roadway speed is a predictable optimization with a reasonable expectation of success under KSR.
Regarding Claim 4,
Ediger and Arndt disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Ediger discloses a vehicle speed control method (see at least [0004]: “The present disclosure includes a system and method for controlling the speed of a motor vehicle with an adaptive cruise control system in a curve…”: Rationale: Ediger expressly teaches a method for controlling motor-vehicle speed in curves) wherein in the calculation step (see at least [0029]: “In one example of a method according to the flow diagram of FIG. 2, a curve path 10 is determined in a first step S1.”: Rationale: Ediger’s Step S1 is a defined initial computation determining the curve path, squarely constituting the method’s “calculation step” context recited here), the controller (see at least [0028]): “The motor vehicle 1 has a control device 2.”: Rationale: Ediger identifies “control device 2” as the controller performing calculations and control, aligning directly with the claim’s controller element) calculates a radius (see at least [0027]): “…waypoints corresponding to a certain distance from the entrance to the curve and a certain curve shape (i.e. a certain curvature or a certain curvature value).”: Rationale: Ediger supplies curvature values at waypoints; a PHOSITA routinely converts curvature κ to radius R via R=1/κ, thereby calculating a radius) of the roundabout (see at least: [0029]: “The curve 10 here is a roundabout 11, as shown in FIG. 3.”: Rationale: Ediger explicitly identifies the curve as a roundabout; thus, the calculated geometric quantity pertains to the roundabout, satisfying this contextual requirement) on the basis of the curvature information (see at least [0027]: “…a certain curve shape (i.e. a certain curvature or a certain curvature value).”: Rationale: Ediger’s map-based waypoints include curvature values; the radius computation (R=1/κ) is therefore performed on the basis of curvature information), and calculates the first vehicle speed (see at least [0004]: “For this purpose, a target speed is calculated, with which the current speed is compared.”: Rationale: Ediger explicitly calculates a target speed; that target corresponds to the claimed first vehicle speed, meeting this speed-calculation element)
However, Ediger does not explicitly disclose calculates vehicle speed on the basis of the calculated radius
Arndt discloses calculates vehicle speed on the basis of the calculated radius (see at least p. 6 of 22): “(1) V = design speed (km/h) … R = radius (m) …” (Equation 1) and see at least p. 7 of 22): “To calculate speed values for a particular roundabout… QDMR (2006) provides… a speed prediction model…”: Rationale: Arndt’s speed equations explicitly relate speed V to radius R; thus the vehicle’s first speed is calculated on the basis of radius).
Ediger teaches the calculation step (S1), supplies curvature information at waypoints, and calculates a target speed (first speed). Radius step via PHOSITA conversion: R = 1/κ from Ediger’s curvature data (routine physics). Arndt: expressly teaches calculating speed from radius (Equation 1; speed-prediction framework), supplying the “on the basis of the calculated radius” portion).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ediger and Arndt before them, to (i) use Ediger’s map-derived curvature values in the calculation step and routinely convert curvature to radius (R = 1/κ), then (ii) apply Arndt’s speed-from-radius model to compute the first (target) vehicle speed on the basis of that calculated radius—merely combining known elements according to their established functions with predictable results (improved safety/comfort and consistent speed selection) under KSR.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ediger, in view of Arndt, and further in view of Wang et al. (A curvature-segmentation-based minimum time algorithm for autonomous vehicle velocity planning), herein after will be referred to as Wang.
Regarding Claim 2,
Ediger and Arndt disclose all the limitations of claim 1.
Ediger further discloses Wherein the curvature information (see at least [0016]): “…the curve can be characterized by waypoints… and a certain curve shape (i.e. a certain curvature or a certain curvature value).”: Rationale: Ediger identifies curvature as part of the curve’s characterization within map information, establishing the claimed curvature information element for this limitation) includes a plurality of curvature values (see at least [0029]: “…several waypoints 14 of the curve along the perimeter of the roundabout 11…”: Rationale: Several waypoints plus explicit “curvature value” language together demonstrate multiple curvature values are present, satisfying the plurality requirement for this limitation) corresponding respectively to a plurality of points in the roundabout (see at least [0029]: “The curve 10 here is a roundabout 11, as shown in FIG. 3… several waypoints 14 of the curve along the perimeter of the roundabout 11…”:Rationale: Ediger’s waypoints are discrete points on the roundabout perimeter; each corresponds to curvature, satisfying the points-in-roundabout correspondence expressly claimed) the vehicle speed control method comprises a division step (see at least [0029]: “In a second step S2, the roundabout 11 is divided into zones 12 by the IACC 3.”: Rationale: Ediger includes an explicit division step identified as S2, meeting the requirement that the method comprises a division step element) of dividing the roundabout into at least two sections (see at least [0019]: “The roundabout can be divided into at least three zones with respect to the circular position of the planned exit…”: Rationale: Division into at least three zones necessarily satisfies division into at least two sections within the roundabout, meeting this limitation’s requirement), when the plurality of points include two or more points (see at least [0029]): “…several waypoints 14 of the curve along the perimeter of the roundabout 11…”: Rationale: “Several waypoints” confirms two or more points exist, satisfying the plurality-of-points condition inherent in this limitation’s textual requirement), and the calculating step calculates a vehicle speed” (see at least [0014]): “For this purpose, a target speed is calculated, with which the current speed is compared.”: Rationale: Ediger unambiguously calculates a target speed, which is a vehicle speed, fulfilling the calculating step’s requirement) when the vehicle moves in each of the at least two sections, as the first vehicle speed (see at least [0014]): “Controlling the speed of the motor vehicle depending on the zone of the curve to be reached is advantageous…” and [0031]: “A certain speed is set according to the current position and the exit to be reached (target speed vs).”: Rationale: Ediger sets and adjusts a target speed per zone during travel, establishing the first vehicle speed in each section while moving).
However, Ediger does not explicitly disclose roundabout can be divided into at least three zones on the basis of the plurality of curvature values, each of which has a curvature value that deviates from an average value of the plurality of curvature values
Wang discloses roundabout can be divided into at least three zones on the basis of the plurality of curvature values (see at least, p. 249: “this paper proposes a method to divide the assigned path based on curvature and the detailed procedures are concluded in Algorithm 1.”: Rationale: Ediger divides by planned exit position, not curvature. Wang expressly divides based on curvature, providing the required curvature-based division basis), each of which has a curvature value that deviates from an average value of the plurality of curvature values ”(see at least p. 250, Algorithm 1): “Find the maximum curvature ρ_max and the minimum curvature ρ_min, and calculate the curvature change ratio Δρ = K(ρ_max − ρ_min).” “… if |ρ(s_{i+1}) − ρ(s_i)| ≥ Δρ then … return s.”: Rationale: Wang uses range-based Δρ; substituting average-deviation is an obvious dispersion alternative. PHOSITA would make a routine parameterization swap), of the plurality of curvature values (see at least, p. 249–250): Algorithm 1 evaluates curvature ρ(s) along the path, computes ρ_max, ρ_min, and triggers breakpoints when |ρ(s_{i+1}) − ρ(s_i)| ≥ Δρ: Rationale: The algorithm processes many curvature samples across points; breakpoints derive from that plurality, satisfying the “of the plurality” requirement)
Ediger provides plural waypoints with curvature values, an S2 division step, and per-zone speed setting, but divides zones by planned exit position rather than curvature. Wang expressly divides the path based on curvature (p. 249–250, Algorithm 1) using a Δρ threshold derived from many curvature values; substituting an average-deviation criterion is an obvious parameterization choice for a PHOSITA, producing predictable sectioning and the same control workflow.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having Ediger, Arndt, and Wang before them, to (i) incorporate Arndt’s entry-speed attenuation into Ediger to create a distinct, lower entry (second) speed with pre-entry deceleration; (ii) segment the roundabout by curvature per Wang, with an obvious substitution of average-deviation for Wang’s Δρ range threshold; and (iii) use wheel-speed feedback for vi as routine ACC practice—yielding predictable improvements under KSR.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §101 Rejection
Upon review of Applicant’s amended Claims 1–4 and the accompanying remarks, filed 08/25/2025, the §101 rejection is withdrawn.
Reasoning (2019 Revised Guidance; MPEP §2106):
Step 2A, Prong One: As amended, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The claim set recites a vehicle speed control method executed by a vehicle controller using wheel-speed sensor output and map/curvature (and radius) information to command distinct pre-entry, in-roundabout, and post-exit speed control steps. The claims are directed to controlling a machine, not to mathematical calculation in the abstract.
Step 2A, Prong Two (alternative): Even if a mathematical concept is implicated, the calculations are integrated into a practical application—closed-loop control of vehicle actuators to achieve specific speed targets tied to roadway state (before entry/after entry/after exit) and geometry (curvature/radius).
Step 2B: Not reached. Alternatively, when viewed as an ordered combination, the recited controller, sensor feedback, and phase-specific control steps amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract concepts.
Disposition:The rejection of Claims 1–4 under 35 U.S.C. §101 is withdrawn.
(Any outstanding rejections under other statutes, if applicable, remain pending.)
§103 Remarks (Claims 1–4)
Upon review of Applicant’s amended Claims 1–4 and the accompanying remarks, filed 08/25/2025, the §103 rejections are maintained. The amendments to claim 1 do not patentably distinguish over the applied art. Dependent claims 2–4 remain unpatentable for the reasons of record, as supplemented below.
Claim 1 – Ediger in view of Arndt
Applicant’s position: Neither Ediger nor Arndt teaches decelerating to a lower “second” speed before entering the roundabout and then accelerating to the “first” speed after entry.
Examiner’s response: The combination squarely teaches (and would have motivated) the recited sequence.
Calculation step / first vehicle speed from map curvature (Ediger): Ediger determines the curve/roundabout from map information, divides it into zones, and calculates/sets a target speed (vs) used by the controller. Ediger’s control logic compares current speed vi to vs and adjusts speed accordingly (reduce when vi > vs, increase when vi < vs).
First control step (pre-entry deceleration to a lower “second” speed) – supplied by Arndt, implemented in Ediger’s framework: Arndt expressly teaches lower entry speeds onto roundabouts (e.g., limiting entry speed by entry-path radius/geometry to minimize conflicts). A POSITA implementing Ediger’s framework would, in view of Arndt, set a lower entry target (the claimed “second vehicle speed”) and, consistent with Ediger’s vi vs vs logic, decelerate before entry to meet that target.
Second control step (post-entry regulation up to the “first” speed) – Ediger:Once inside, Ediger’s controller continues S4 regulation and increases speed when vi < vs, thereby bringing speed back toward the in-roundabout first speed (vs) after entry, as claimed.
Wheel-speed basis: Ediger’s control device uses sensor-measured vehicle speed (vi) in a closed loop. Selection of a wheel-speed signal as the speed source is well-understood, routine, and conventional in ACC/ADAS and would have been an obvious implementation choice.
Motivation to combine (KSR): Ediger provides the roundabout control framework (map-based target speed and continuous adjustment). Arndt provides a safety-driven lower entry speed methodology. Combining them yields predictable benefits (safety/comfort, fewer conflicts) with a reasonable expectation of success: decelerate to a lower entry target before entry (Arndt) and regulate upward to the in-roundabout first target after entry (Ediger). The amendment merely articulates this known, predictable sequencing and does not render the claim nonobvious.
Accordingly, amended claim 1 remains obvious over Ediger in view of Arndt.
Claim 2 – Ediger in view of Wang (and Arndt as needed)
Claim 2’s additional “division based on curvature values with deviation from an average” is not taught by Ediger (which divides with respect to planned exit/zones) but is explicitly taught by Wang (curvature-based path division and break pointing using a curvature-change threshold). Ediger supplies the waypoint/curvature data and per-zone speed framework; Wang supplies the curvature-based segmentation criterion. Substituting an average-deviation trigger for Wang’s range-based threshold would have been an obvious parameterization to a POSITA. Therefore, claim 2 remains obvious over Ediger in view of Wang (and in view of Arndt to the extent speed targets at entry are argued).
Claim 3 – Ediger (and Arndt)
Claim 3’s “third control step” after exit to a higher third speed is expressly taught by Ediger (post-exit acceleration step). Arndt’s entry-speed attenuation further reinforces distinct target speeds across phases. Claim 3 remains obvious.
Claim 4 – Ediger in view of Arndt
Ediger provides curvature (κ) from map/waypoints and calculates a target speed; converting κ↔R is routine. Arndt expressly ties speed to radius for roundabout design (speed-from-radius equations/models). It would have been obvious to compute the first speed on the basis of radius as claimed. Claim 4 remains obvious over Ediger in view of Arndt.
Examiner Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments and arguments do not overcome the articulated reasons to combine. The rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE whose telephone number is (571)272-4311. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/OLUWABUSAYO ADEBANJO AWORUNSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662