DETAILED ACTION
This is the final Office action and is responsive to the papers filed 09/23/2025. The amendments filed on 09/23/2025 have been entered and considered by the examiner. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and examined below. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16 and 18 have been amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 09/23/2025, with respect to Fig. 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection of Fig. 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 09/23/2025, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are partially persuasive.
There was no amendments or arguments made with respect to the recitations in [0058], [0060], [0065], [0067], [0072], [0074] relating to the message of the second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 09/23/2025, with respect to claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 19 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 09/23/2025, with respect to rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner’s understanding of claims 1, 8 and 15 is as follows:
Based on the messages of the ADS ECUs, EA ECU determines the diagnostic statuses of the ADS ECUs and arbitrate/select VMC command to implement vehicle motion.
Englard discloses: Based on the candidate decisions of the SDCAs, the decision arbiter 108 (or candidate decision analyzer 122) generates decision by selecting from candidate decisions and provides signals indicative of the generated decision to one or more operational subsystems of the autonomous vehicle to effectuate maneuvering of the autonomous vehicle in accordance with the generated decision.
Englard reads on the claimed features, thus Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the 102(a)(1) rejections are not withdrawn.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In [0058], [0065], [0072], regarding the recitation “determine a second authorization status of the second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the first message”, the second authorization status should be based on the second message transmitted by the second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs, not the first message.
In [0060], [0067], [0074], regarding the recitation “determine a second diagnostic status of the second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the first message”, the second diagnostic status should be based on the second message transmitted by the second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs, not the first message.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claims 4, 11 and 18, the recitation “determine a second diagnostic status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to second diagnostic information distinct from the second VMC command” fails to comply with the written description requirement. From diagnostic and arbitration process 400 of Fig. 4 of the specification, the specification does not appear to determine a second diagnostic status on the same ADS ECU. As the specification fails to provide enough details to understand and the invention, claims 4, 11 and 19 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims are rejected as they depend upon rejected claims.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 1, 8 and 15, the recitation “determine a first diagnostic status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to first diagnostic information distinct from the first VMC command” is unclear. It is unclear what makes the diagnostic information distinct from VMC command, why are the diagnostic information is being compared to the VMC command when one is diagnostic information about one of the ADS ECUs and one is VMC command for controlling the vehicle, how them being distinct would lead to the operation of determining the diagnostic status of one of ADS ECUs, or what is the difference between the diagnostic status and diagnostic information. The scope of the invention is thus indefinite. For examination purposes, the diagnostic status/information will be the diagnostic determined for the one of ADS ECUs.
In claims 4, 11 and 18, the recitation “determine a second diagnostic status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to second diagnostic information distinct from the second VMC command” is unclear. It is unclear what makes the diagnostic information distinct from VMC command, why are the diagnostic information is being compared to the VMC command when one is diagnostic information about one of the ADS ECUs and one is VMC command for controlling the vehicle, how them being distinct would lead to the operation of determining the diagnostic status of one of ADS ECUs, or what is the difference between the diagnostic status and diagnostic information. The scope of the invention is thus indefinite. For examination purposes, the diagnostic status/information will be the diagnostic determined for the one of ADS ECUs.
Dependent claims are rejected as they depend upon rejected claims.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Englard et al. (US 20190113918 A1; hereinafter Englard).
Regarding claim 1, Englard discloses:
A vehicle system (Fig. 3 – aggregate SDCA 140) comprising:
a plurality of automated driving system electronic control units (ADS ECUs) (Fig. 3 – SDCAs 104) configured to determine vehicle motion control (VMC) commands in response to input from one or more vehicle environment sensors ([0052] Each of the SDCAs 104 processes its corresponding portion of the sensor data 102 to generate “candidate” decisions 106 for maneuvering/operating the autonomous vehicle) and transmit messages including the VMC commands over one or more communication links (see Fig. 3, [0061] the SDCAs 104 may provide the decision arbiter 108 with candidate decisions 106 that indicate maneuvers); and
an execution authority electronic control unit (EA ECU)(Fig. 3 – decision arbiter 108) configured with execution authority over one or more VMC commands ([0058] the decision arbiter 108 may analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104 in order to generate a final decision that is reflected in the control signals 110) and configured to:
receive via the one or more communication links a first message transmitted by a first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and including a first VMC command and a second message transmitted by a second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and including a second VMC command ([0058] the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104),
determine a first diagnostic status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to first diagnostic information distinct from the first VMC command ([0058] analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104),
select one of the first VMC command and the second VMC command in response to an arbitration based upon information of the first message and the second message ([0058] the decision arbiter 108 may analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104 in order to generate a final decision or select a single decision from among the candidate decisions 106), and
control motion of the vehicle system using the selected one of the first VMC command and the second VMC command ([0058] a final decision that is reflected in the control signals 110).
Regarding claim 2, Englard discloses:
wherein the EA ECU is configured to:
determine a first authorization status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the first message ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means), and
determine a second authorization status of the second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the second message ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means).
Regarding claim 3, Englard discloses:
wherein the EA ECU is configured to:
determine the first authorization in response to the information of the first message and a first predetermined calibration parameter ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means, [0063] outputs of the safety watchdog 112 or other factors may cause the candidate decision analyzer 122 (or the decision arbiter 108 generally) to bypass analysis of some or all of the candidate decisions 106 in certain scenarios), and
determine the second authorization in response to the information of the second message and a second predetermined calibration parameter ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means, [0063] outputs of the safety watchdog 112 or other factors may cause the candidate decision analyzer 122 (or the decision arbiter 108 generally) to bypass analysis of some or all of the candidate decisions 106 in certain scenarios).
Regarding claim 4, Englard discloses:
wherein the EA ECU is configured to:
determine a second diagnostic status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to second diagnostic information distinct from the second VMC command ([0058] analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104).
Regarding claim 5, Englard discloses:
wherein the arbitration is based at least in part upon the first diagnostic status and the second diagnostic status ([0085] the decision arbiter 108 may generate final decisions by performing functions of the candidate decision analyzer 122 in some scenarios, and instead performing the functions of the SDCA selector 142 in other scenarios).
Regarding claim 6, Englard discloses:
wherein the EA ECU is configured to:
determine the first diagnostic status based upon the information received from a second ECU ([0085] the decision arbiter 108 may generate final decisions by performing hybrid functions that combine aspects of the candidate decision analyzer 122 with aspects of the SDCA selector 142. For example, the decision arbiter 108 may select the candidate decisions 106 of a particular subset of the SDCAs 104 based on both a priori knowledge of the SDCAs 104 and detected conditions and/or situations, and then analyze all candidate decisions 106 from that subset to generate final decisions (e.g., by calculating the geometric means of operational parameters indicated by the candidate decisions 106 of the subset, or by voting, etc.)).
Regarding claim 7, Englard discloses:
wherein the second ECU is a braking system ECU ([0042] some SDCAs may output candidate maneuvers (e.g., brake gradually or rapidly)).
Regarding claim 8, Englard discloses:
A process comprising:
operating a plurality of automated driving system electronic control units (ADS ECUs)(Fig. 3 – SDCAs 104) to perform the acts of determining vehicle motion control (VMC) commands in response to input from one or more vehicle environment sensors ([0052] Each of the SDCAs 104 processes its corresponding portion of the sensor data 102 to generate “candidate” decisions 106 for maneuvering/operating the autonomous vehicle) and transmitting messages including the VMC commands over one or more communication links (see Fig. 3, [0061] the SDCAs 104 may provide the decision arbiter 108 with candidate decisions 106 that indicate maneuvers); and
operating an execution authority electronic control unit (EA ECU)(Fig. 3 – decision arbiter 108) configured with execution authority over one or more VMC commands ([0058] the decision arbiter 108 may analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104 in order to generate a final decision that is reflected in the control signals 110) to perform the acts of:
receiving via the one or more communication links a first message transmitted by a first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and including a first VMC command and a second message transmitted by a second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and including a second VMC command ([0058] the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104),
determining a first diagnostic status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to first diagnostic information distinct from the first VMC command ([0058] analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104),
selecting one of the first VMC command and the second VMC command in response to an arbitration based upon information of the first message and the second message ([0058] the decision arbiter 108 may analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104 in order to generate a final decision or select a single decision from among the candidate decisions 106), and
controlling motion of the vehicle system using the selected one of the first VMC command and the second VMC command ([0058] a final decision that is reflected in the control signals 110).
Regarding claim 9, Englard discloses:
comprising operating the EA ECU to perform the acts of:
determining a first authorization status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the first message ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means), and
determining a second authorization status of the second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the second message ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means).
Regarding claim 10, Englard discloses:
comprising operating the EA ECU to perform the acts of:
determining the first authorization in response to the information of the first message and a first predetermined calibration parameter ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means, [0063] outputs of the safety watchdog 112 or other factors may cause the candidate decision analyzer 122 (or the decision arbiter 108 generally) to bypass analysis of some or all of the candidate decisions 106 in certain scenarios), and
determining the second authorization in response to the information of the second message and a second predetermined calibration parameter ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means, [0063] outputs of the safety watchdog 112 or other factors may cause the candidate decision analyzer 122 (or the decision arbiter 108 generally) to bypass analysis of some or all of the candidate decisions 106 in certain scenarios).
Regarding claim 11, Englard discloses:
comprising operating the EA ECU to perform the act of determining a second diagnostic status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to second diagnostic information distinct from the second VMC command ([0058] analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104).
Regarding claim 12, Englard discloses:
wherein the arbitration is based at least in part upon the first diagnostic status and the second diagnostic status ([0085] the decision arbiter 108 may generate final decisions by performing functions of the candidate decision analyzer 122 in some scenarios, and instead performing the functions of the SDCA selector 142 in other scenarios).
Regarding claim 13, Englard discloses:
comprising operating the EA ECU to perform the act of:
determining the first diagnostic status based upon information received from a second ECU ([0085] the decision arbiter 108 may generate final decisions by performing hybrid functions that combine aspects of the candidate decision analyzer 122 with aspects of the SDCA selector 142. For example, the decision arbiter 108 may select the candidate decisions 106 of a particular subset of the SDCAs 104 based on both a priori knowledge of the SDCAs 104 and detected conditions and/or situations, and then analyze all candidate decisions 106 from that subset to generate final decisions (e.g., by calculating the geometric means of operational parameters indicated by the candidate decisions 106 of the subset, or by voting, etc.)), the second ECU being in operative communication with the EA ECU via at least one of the one or more communication links (see Fig. 3, [0061] the SDCAs 104 may provide the decision arbiter 108 with candidate decisions 106 that indicate maneuvers).
Regarding claim 14, Englard discloses:
wherein the second ECU is a braking system ECU ([0042] some SDCAs may output candidate maneuvers (e.g., brake gradually or rapidly)).
Regarding claim 15, Englard discloses:
An apparatus (Abstract – autonomous vehicle) comprising:
an electronic control system (Fig. 3 – aggregate SDCA 140) including one or more non-transitory memory media (Abstract – computer-readable medium) configured to store instructions executable by one or more processors (Abstract – one or more processors)(Abstract – A computer-readable medium stores instructions executable by one or more processors to implement an aggregate self-driving control architecture (SDCA) for controlling an autonomous vehicle) to:
operate a plurality of automated driving system electronic control units (ADS ECUs)(Fig. 3 – SDCAs 104) to determine vehicle motion control (VMC) commands in response to input from one or more vehicle environment sensors ([0052] Each of the SDCAs 104 processes its corresponding portion of the sensor data 102 to generate “candidate” decisions 106 for maneuvering/operating the autonomous vehicle) and transmit messages including the VMC commands over one or more communication links (see Fig. 3, [0061] the SDCAs 104 may provide the decision arbiter 108 with candidate decisions 106 that indicate maneuvers); and
operate an execution authority electronic control unit (EA ECU)(Fig. 3 – decision arbiter 108) configured with execution authority over one or more VMC commands ([0058] the decision arbiter 108 may analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104 in order to generate a final decision that is reflected in the control signals 110) to:
receive via the one or more communication links a first message transmitted by a first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and including a first VMC command and a second message transmitted by a second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs and including a second VMC command ([0058] the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104),
determine a first diagnostic status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to first diagnostic information distinct from the first VMC command ([0058] analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104),
select one of the first VMC command and the second VMC command in response to an arbitration based upon information of the first message and the second message ([0058] the decision arbiter 108 may analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104 in order to generate a final decision or select a single decision from among the candidate decisions 106), and
control motion of the vehicle system using the selected one of the first VMC command and the second VMC command ([0058] a final decision that is reflected in the control signals 110).
Regarding claim 16, Englard discloses:
wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to operate the EA ECU to:
determine a first authorization status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the first message ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means), and
determine a second authorization status of the second one of the plurality of ADS ECUs based upon information of the second message ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means).
Regarding claim 17, Englard discloses:
wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to operate the EA ECU to:
determine the first authorization in response to the information of the first message and a first predetermined calibration parameter ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means, [0063] outputs of the safety watchdog 112 or other factors may cause the candidate decision analyzer 122 (or the decision arbiter 108 generally) to bypass analysis of some or all of the candidate decisions 106 in certain scenarios), and
determine the second authorization in response to the information of the second message and a second predetermined calibration parameter ([0062] any of the candidate decisions 106 that do not satisfy the current restrictions (e.g., allowed and/or disallowed maneuvers or operational parameters) indicated by the safety watchdog 112 are discarded, and/or the output of the decision arbiter 108 is forced to satisfy the current restrictions by other suitable means, [0063] outputs of the safety watchdog 112 or other factors may cause the candidate decision analyzer 122 (or the decision arbiter 108 generally) to bypass analysis of some or all of the candidate decisions 106 in certain scenarios).
Regarding claim 18, Englard discloses:
wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to operate the EA ECU to:
determine a second diagnostic status of the first one of the plurality of ADS ECUs in response to second diagnostic information distinct from the first VMC command ([0058] analyze the candidate decisions 106 from two or more (e.g., all) of the SDCAs 104).
Regarding claim 19, Englard discloses:
wherein the arbitration is based at least in part upon the first diagnostic status and the second diagnostic status ([0085] the decision arbiter 108 may generate final decisions by performing functions of the candidate decision analyzer 122 in some scenarios, and instead performing the functions of the SDCA selector 142 in other scenarios).
Regarding claim 20, Englard discloses:
wherein the instructions are executable by the one or more processors to operate the EA ECU to:
determine the first diagnostic status based upon information received from a second ECU ([0085] the decision arbiter 108 may generate final decisions by performing hybrid functions that combine aspects of the candidate decision analyzer 122 with aspects of the SDCA selector 142. For example, the decision arbiter 108 may select the candidate decisions 106 of a particular subset of the SDCAs 104 based on both a priori knowledge of the SDCAs 104 and detected conditions and/or situations, and then analyze all candidate decisions 106 from that subset to generate final decisions (e.g., by calculating the geometric means of operational parameters indicated by the candidate decisions 106 of the subset, or by voting, etc.)), the second ECU being in operative communication with the EA ECU via at least one of the one or more communication links (see Fig. 3, [0061] the SDCAs 104 may provide the decision arbiter 108 with candidate decisions 106 that indicate maneuvers).
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 PAYSUN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-1528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571)272-7298. 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.
/PAYSUN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665