DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are pending. Claims dated 07/17/2026 are being examined.
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
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended independent claim 1 to incorporate some subject matter of former dependent claims 4-6 with some changes in scope and asserts that the claims are now in condition for allowance. However, the Applicant has not presented any substantive arguments explaining why the amended claim distinguishes over the applied art. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not overcome. The same reasoning is applied to independent claim 9.
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 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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breisinger et al. (US-20200023830-A1), in view of Mimura et al. (US-20190283777-A1), in view of Hutchings et al. (US-20200198644-A1), in view of Lind et al. (US-20150283998-A1), in view of Knoll et al. (DE-102009052928-A1) and herein after will be referred to as Breisinger, Mimura, Hutchings, Lind, and Knoll, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Breisinger teaches a control unit for arrangement on a steering wheel in a motor vehicle (FIG. 1 steering wheel 1), the control unit comprising:
a main body positioned on a left side of the steering wheel (FIG. 1 left surface of wheel spoke 4 having operating elements 5),
[…] an L2 operating element which is designed to activate a driver assistance system having a first degree of automation; and (FIG. 1 operating element 5.6 (“ASSIST”); [0081] it is possible to switch over into a partially-automated driving mode by actuating the operating element 5.6 (“ASSIST”))
an L3 operating element which is designed to activate a driver assistance system having a second degree of automation, the L3 operating element positioned adjacent to the L2 operating element […] (FIG. 1 operating element 5.7 (“AUTO”) is adjacent to operating element 5.6; [0081] By actuating the operating element 5.7 (“AUTO”), it is possible to switch over from a partially-automated driving mode TAF-HOF or TAF-HON into the highly-automated driving mode HAF),
Breisinger does not explicitly teach the main body with “a central plateau”, and the main body “defining an upper chamfered edge adjacent to the central plateau and a lower chamfered edge adjacent to the central plateau”.
However, Mimura teaches a main body with “a central plateau” (FIG. 4 steering wheel 300 comprising left inclined surface 321 with upper and lower bevels and having operation members 351).
and the main body “defining an upper chamfered edge adjacent to the central plateau and a lower chamfered edge adjacent to the central plateau” (FIG. 4 annotated herein showing 2 chamfered edges).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Annotated Mimura FIG. 4]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the main body as taught in Breisinger to incorporate the teachings of Mimura to include “a central plateau” and the main body “defining an upper chamfered edge adjacent to the central plateau and a lower chamfered edge adjacent to the central plateau”, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of helping with the visibility of the buttons to the occupant (Mimura [0113]-[0114]).
Breisinger, as modified, does not explicitly teach: an operating element arranged on the upper chamfered edge that is configured to activate a parking assistance system of the motor vehicle.
However, Lind teaches an operating element that is configured to activate a parking assistance system of the motor vehicle (FIG. 3 autonomous driving mode button 12; [0016] Another example of an autonomous driving mode is automatic parking).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Breisinger, as modified, to substitute or configure an additional operating element that is configured to activate a parking assistance system of the motor vehicle as taught in Lind because both assistance functions are known, and the substitution merely involves replacing or adding one known control function with another known control function. Additionally, the modification to substitute or add a parking assist button would have been a routine design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, motivated by feature selection, i.e., to include features that help driver safety (Lind [0005]). It also would have been obvious for the location of the operating element that is configured to activate a parking assistance system of the motor vehicle to be arranged on the upper chamfered edge, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, except with regard to the position of the component, as long as the relocation of the component would not have modified the operation of the device, the particular placement would be an obvious matter of design choice (In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). In this case, the modification involves a simple rearrangement of known elements (operating element positions) without disabling or changing the user capabilities of button selecting/use of the parking assist button.
Breisinger, as modified, does not explicitly teach: an operating element arranged on the lower chamfered edge that is configured to confirm at least one of an input or a proposed setting.
However, Lind also teaches an operating element that is configured to confirm at least one of an input or a proposed setting (FIG. 3 confirmation switch button 24; [0025] A confirmation switch, such as an OK button, may be located on the steering wheel).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Breisinger, as modified, to substitute or configure an additional operating element that is configured to confirm at least one of an input or a proposed setting as taught in Lind because both assistance functions are known, and the substitution merely involves replacing or adding one known control function with another known control function. Additionally, the modification to substitute or add a confirmation button would have been a routine design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, motivated by feature selection, i.e., to include features that help the driver reduce the likelihood of an unwanted driving function switch, “such that the driver knows which driving mode is being utilized at a certain moment” (Lind [0006]). It also would have been obvious for the location of the an operating element that is configured to confirm at least one of an input or a proposed setting to be arranged on the lower chamfered edge, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, except with regard to the position of the component, as long as the relocation of the component would not have modified the operation of the device, the particular placement would be an obvious matter of design choice (In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). In this case, the modification involves a simple rearrangement of known elements (operating element positions) without disabling or changing the user capabilities of button selecting/use of the confirmation button.
Breisinger does not explicitly teach the L3 operating element “on a right side” of the L2 element.
However, Hutchings teaches a L3 operating element positioned adjacent to a L2 operating element “on a right side” of the L2 element (FIG. 3A area 306 with button L3 positioned adjacent to button L2 on a right side of the button L2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to adjust the position of the L3 and L2 operating elements to have the L3 operating element positioned adjacent to the L2 operating element “on a right side” of the L2 element, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, except with regard to the position of the component, as long as the relocation of the component would not have modified the operation of the device, the particular placement would be an obvious matter of design choice (In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). Although Breisinger illustrates the L3 operating element above the L2 operating element, Breisinger does not attribute any critical functional significance to this specific placement. Furthermore, Hutchings describes another equally viable placement of the L2 and L3 operating elements. No unexpected result or change in functionality arises from this change in position. The modification involves a simple rearrangement of known elements (operating element positions) performing the same function (enabling user selection).
Breisinger, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the L2 operating element is recessed with respect to the central plateau in such a manner to reduce a risk of a user actuating the L2 operating element while operating the steering wheel of the motor vehicle; and wherein the L3 operating element is raised in a manner of a relief with respect to the central plateau.
However, Knoll teaches wherein a first operating element is recessed with respect to a central plateau ([0032] Fig. 5 is an isometric view of the control unit according to Fig. 1, whereby the keys below the touchpad can be haptically distinguished by recesses)
and wherein a second operating element is raised in a manner of a relief with respect to the central plateau ([0031] Fig. 4 is an isometric view of the control unit according to Fig. 1, wherein the keys below the touchpad can be haptically distinguished by projections; [0033] This three-dimensional contouring may have at least one projection and/or at least one recess or depression that serves a user for haptic orientation on the touchpad; [0043] These can be recesses, depressions, projections, convex surfaces, concave surfaces or combinations thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the contours of the L2 operating element and the L3 operating element as taught in Breisinger, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Knoll such that the L2 operating element is recessed with respect to the central plateau in such a manner to reduce a risk of a user actuating the L2 operating element while operating the steering wheel of the motor vehicle; and wherein the L3 operating element is raised in a manner of a relief with respect to the central plateau, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of allowing the operating elements to be felt or found without having to look (Knoll [0020]), enabling easier distinguishing between the operating elements (Knoll [0012] - Examiner interprets the modification of the L2 operating element of Breisinger, as modified, to have a recess as taught in Knoll reads on the limitation “reduces a risk of a user actuating the L2 operating element while operating the steering wheel of the motor vehicle”).
Regarding claim 2, Breisinger, as modified, teaches the control unit according to claim 1.
Breisinger, as modified does not explicitly teach: further comprising: further operating elements which are arranged on the central plateau and are designed to change a set speed of a cruise control of the motor vehicle.
However, Lind teaches further comprising: further operating elements which are arranged on the central plateau and are designed to change a set speed of a cruise control of the motor vehicle (FIG. 3 buttons 16 and 18 for controlling/limiting set speed in the two driving assistance modes; [0088] The additional switch may comprise a “+” switch 16 for increasing a set speed of the active driving mode, a “−” switch 18 for decreasing a set speed of the active driving mode).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Breisinger, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Lind to include further comprising: further operating elements which are arranged on the central plateau and are designed to change a set speed of a cruise control of the motor vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of providing more driver functions by providing to the driver options to more easily change vehicle speed, and for better driver awareness (Lind [0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Breisinger, as modified, teaches the control unit according to claim 2.
Breisinger, as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the further operating elements for changing the set speed are raised in the manner of a relief with respect to the central plateau.
However, Knoll teaches wherein further operating elements are raised in the manner of a relief with respect to the central plateau ([0031] Fig. 4 is an isometric view of the control unit according to Fig. 1, wherein the keys below the touchpad can be haptically distinguished by projections; [0033] This three-dimensional contouring may have at least one projection and/or at least one recess or depression that serves a user for haptic orientation on the touchpad; [0043] These can be recesses, depressions, projections, convex surfaces, concave surfaces or combinations thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the contours of the further operating elements for changing the set speed as taught in Breisinger, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Knoll to include wherein the further operating elements for changing the set speed are raised in the manner of a relief with respect to the central plateau, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of allowing the operating elements to be felt or found without having to look (Knoll [0020]), enabling easier distinguishing between the operating elements (Knoll [0012]).
Regarding claim 7, Breisinger, as modified, teaches the control unit according to claim 3.
Breisinger, as modified, also teaches wherein the L2 operating element is arranged in a recess (see rejection of claim 1 incorporating the teachings of Knoll to include wherein the L2 operating element is recessed with respect to the central plateau).
and the main body is chamfered in a region adjacent to the recess such that a chamfer extends toward the recess (see rejection of claim 1 cited to Mimura FIG. 4 and also annotated below showing 2 chamfered edges).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Annotated Mimura FIG. 4]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the main body as taught in Breisinger to incorporate the teachings of Mimura to include the main body is chamfered in a region adjacent to the recess such that a chamfer extends toward the recess, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of helping with the visibility of the buttons to the occupant (Mimura [0113]-[0114]).
Regarding claim 8, Breisinger, as modified, teaches the control unit according to claim 1.
Breisinger, as modified, does not explicitly teach: further comprising: an operating element, which is arranged on the central plateau, and is designed to activate a speed limiter of the motor vehicle.
However, Lind teaches further comprising: an operating element, which is arranged on the central plateau, and is designed to activate a speed limiter of the motor vehicle (FIG. 3 buttons 16 and 18 for controlling set speed in the two driving assistance modes; [0088] The additional switch may comprise a “+” switch 16 for increasing a set speed of the active driving mode, a “−” switch 18 for decreasing a set speed of the active driving mode).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Breisinger, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Lind to include further comprising: an operating element, which is arranged on the central plateau, and is designed to activate a speed limiter of the motor vehicle, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of providing more driver functions by providing to the driver options to more easily change vehicle speed, and for better driver awareness (Lind [0006]).
Regarding claim 9, Breisinger teaches an operating device for a motor vehicle, comprising:
a steering wheel; and (FIG. 1 steering wheel 1),
a control unit arranged on the steering wheel, the control unit comprising:
a main body positioned on a left side of the steering wheel (FIG. 1 left surface of wheel spoke 4 having operating elements 5),
[…] an L2 operating element which is designed to activate a driver assistance system having a first degree of automation; and (FIG. 1 operating element 5.6 (“ASSIST”); [0081] it is possible to switch over into a partially-automated driving mode by actuating the operating element 5.6 (“ASSIST”))
an L3 operating element which is designed to activate a driver assistance system having a second degree of automation, the L3 operating element positioned adjacent to the L2 operating element […] (FIG. 1 operating element 5.7 (“AUTO”) is adjacent to operating element 5.6; [0081] By actuating the operating element 5.7 (“AUTO”), it is possible to switch over from a partially-automated driving mode TAF-HOF or TAF-HON into the highly-automated driving mode HAF),
Breisinger does not explicitly teach the main body with “a central plateau”, and the main body “defining an upper chamfered edge adjacent to the central plateau and a lower chamfered edge adjacent to the central plateau”.
However, Mimura teaches a main body with “a central plateau” (FIG. 4 steering wheel 300 comprising left inclined surface 321 with upper and lower bevels and having operation members 351).
and the main body “defining an upper chamfered edge adjacent to the central plateau and a lower chamfered edge adjacent to the central plateau” (FIG. 4 annotated herein showing 2 chamfered edges).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[Annotated Mimura FIG. 4]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the main body as taught in Breisinger to incorporate the teachings of Mimura to include “a central plateau” and the main body “defining an upper chamfered edge adjacent to the central plateau and a lower chamfered edge adjacent to the central plateau”, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of helping with the visibility of the buttons to the occupant (Mimura [0113]-[0114]).
Breisinger, as modified, does not explicitly teach: an operating element arranged on the upper chamfered edge that is configured to activate a parking assistance system of the motor vehicle.
However, Lind teaches an operating element that is configured to activate a parking assistance system of the motor vehicle (FIG. 3 autonomous driving mode button 12; [0016] Another example of an autonomous driving mode is automatic parking).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Breisinger, as modified, to substitute or configure an additional operating element that is configured to activate a parking assistance system of the motor vehicle as taught in Lind because both assistance functions are known, and the substitution merely involves replacing or adding one known control function with another known control function. Additionally, the modification to substitute or add a parking assist button would have been a routine design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, motivated by feature selection, i.e., to include features that help driver safety (Lind [0005]). It also would have been obvious for the location of the operating element that is configured to activate a parking assistance system of the motor vehicle to be arranged on the upper chamfered edge, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, except with regard to the position of the component, as long as the relocation of the component would not have modified the operation of the device, the particular placement would be an obvious matter of design choice (In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). In this case, the modification involves a simple rearrangement of known elements (operating element positions) without disabling or changing the user capabilities of button selecting/use of the parking assist button.
Breisinger, as modified, does not explicitly teach: an operating element arranged on the lower chamfered edge that is configured to confirm at least one of an input or a proposed setting.
However, Lind also teaches an operating element that is configured to confirm at least one of an input or a proposed setting (FIG. 3 confirmation switch button 24; [0025] A confirmation switch, such as an OK button, may be located on the steering wheel).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify Breisinger, as modified, to substitute or configure an additional operating element that is configured to confirm at least one of an input or a proposed setting as taught in Lind because both assistance functions are known, and the substitution merely involves replacing or adding one known control function with another known control function. Additionally, the modification to substitute or add a confirmation button would have been a routine design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, motivated by feature selection, i.e., to include features that help the driver reduce the likelihood of an unwanted driving function switch, “such that the driver knows which driving mode is being utilized at a certain moment” (Lind [0006]). It also would have been obvious for the location of the an operating element that is configured to confirm at least one of an input or a proposed setting to be arranged on the lower chamfered edge, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, except with regard to the position of the component, as long as the relocation of the component would not have modified the operation of the device, the particular placement would be an obvious matter of design choice (In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). In this case, the modification involves a simple rearrangement of known elements (operating element positions) without disabling or changing the user capabilities of button selecting/use of the confirmation button.
Breisinger does not explicitly teach the L3 operating element “on a right side” of the L2 element.
However, Hutchings teaches a L3 operating element positioned adjacent to a L2 operating element “on a right side” of the L2 element (FIG. 3A area 306 with button L3 positioned adjacent to button L2 on a right side of the button L2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to adjust the position of the L3 and L2 operating elements to have the L3 operating element positioned adjacent to the L2 operating element “on a right side” of the L2 element, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, except with regard to the position of the component, as long as the relocation of the component would not have modified the operation of the device, the particular placement would be an obvious matter of design choice (In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)). Although Breisinger illustrates the L3 operating element above the L2 operating element, Breisinger does not attribute any critical functional significance to this specific placement. Furthermore, Hutchings describes another equally viable placement of the L2 and L3 operating elements. No unexpected result or change in functionality arises from this change in position. The modification involves a simple rearrangement of known elements (operating element positions) performing the same function (enabling user selection).
Breisinger, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the L2 operating element is recessed with respect to the central plateau in such a manner to reduce a risk of a user actuating the L2 operating element while operating the steering wheel of the motor vehicle; and wherein the L3 operating element is raised in a manner of a relief with respect to the central plateau.
However, Knoll teaches wherein a first operating element is recessed with respect to a central plateau ([0032] Fig. 5 is an isometric view of the control unit according to Fig. 1, whereby the keys below the touchpad can be haptically distinguished by recesses)
and wherein a second operating element is raised in a manner of a relief with respect to the central plateau ([0031] Fig. 4 is an isometric view of the control unit according to Fig. 1, wherein the keys below the touchpad can be haptically distinguished by projections; [0033] This three-dimensional contouring may have at least one projection and/or at least one recess or depression that serves a user for haptic orientation on the touchpad; [0043] These can be recesses, depressions, projections, convex surfaces, concave surfaces or combinations thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the contours of the L2 operating element and the L3 operating element as taught in Breisinger, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Knoll such that the L2 operating element is recessed with respect to the central plateau in such a manner to reduce a risk of a user actuating the L2 operating element while operating the steering wheel of the motor vehicle; and wherein the L3 operating element is raised in a manner of a relief with respect to the central plateau, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit of allowing the operating elements to be felt or found without having to look (Knoll [0020]), enabling easier distinguishing between the operating elements (Knoll [0012] - Examiner interprets the modification of the L2 operating element of Breisinger, as modified, to have a recess as taught in Knoll reads on the limitation “reduces a risk of a user actuating the L2 operating element while operating the steering wheel of the motor vehicle”).
Regarding claim 10, Breisinger, as modified, teaches a motor vehicle comprising an operating device according to claim 9 (Breisinger [0010] A first aspect of the invention relates to a driving system for automated driving for a motor vehicle, wherein the driving system comprises a steering wheel display).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-D727226-S: Mayerle shows a steering wheel with an upper and lower chamfered main body similar to the cited Kim reference above
The prior arts cited in the previous Office Actions are also relevant:
US-20190369770-A1: Temming discloses a steering wheel with touch elements FIG. 2
US-20100250066-A1: Eckstein discloses a steering wheel with operating elements FIG. 1
US-20220001912-A1: Mayville discloses parking mode operating elements FIGs. 32-34
US-20190369866-A1: Balint discloses use of chamfered edges on a watch
US-20150353118-A1: Entenmann discloses the use of chamfered edges on a steering wheel are beneficial to prevent operating errors
US-20150283998-A1: Lind discloses operating elements including autonomous driving mode and confirmation buttons FIG. 3
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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 on (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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights