Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments and associated applicant arguments/ remarks filed on 1/9/2026 were received and considered.
Claims 1, 16, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/9/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under USC 103 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hayakawa et al. (US 8346437 B2).
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, 16, and 20 recites the limitation "detection zone". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahriari et al. (US 20230365124 A1) referred to as Shahriari hereinafter and further in view of Ho et al. (US 12008906 B2) referred to as Ho hereinafter and Hayakawa et al. (US 8346437 B2) referred to as Hayakawa hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, Shahriari teaches A blind spot detection system for a vehicle, (“The radar devices may be capable of detecting and recognizing objects, particularly objects located alongside (e.g. in a blind spot area) of the vehicle 10.” Shahriari, para. [0037]) the system comprising: one or more sensors configured to detect vehicle movements; (“the perception system 74 can incorporate information from multiple sensors, including but not limited to cameras, lidars, radars, and/or any number of other types of sensors.” Shahriari, para. [0036])
a memory comprising instructions; (“The computer-readable storage device or media 46 may be implemented using any of a number of known memory devices” Shahriari, para. [0040]) and a controller configured by the instructions to: (“The controller 34 includes at least one processor 44 and a computer readable storage device or media 46. The processor 44 can be any custom made or commercially available processor … or generally any device for executing instructions.” Shahriari, para. [0040])
establish a normal detection zone having a generally rectangular shape surrounding all sides of the vehicle; (“Referring to FIG. 2, the vehicle 10 is schematically depicted in association with a normal detection zone 102 and an extended detection zone 104.” Shahriari, para. [0043]), fig. 2 shows rectangular detection zones on the sides of the vehicle)
predict an impending turn of the vehicle based on receiving a signal or signals from the one or more sensors; (“the turn predicting data includes at least one of the following types of turn predicting data: … turn signal data describing activation of a turn signal.” Shahriari, para. [0013]) and (“receive turn predicting data from at least one vehicle system of the vehicle, receive perception data from the perception system, predict a vehicle turn based on the turn predicting data,” Shahriari, para. [0012])
adjust a detection range from a first setting based on the prediction, (“The present disclosure provides a probabilistic algorithm that explicitly predicts a host vehicle maneuvers (for example turns) using standard vehicle dynamics and active safety sensors to enable sensors on the vehicle to adjust a sensing zone with a required lead time for threat detection.” Shahriari, para. [0029]) and (“Referring now to FIG. 4, and with continued reference to FIGS. 1-3, a flowchart illustrates an alerting method 400 for predicting an upcoming vehicle turn, adapting a size of a detection zone in dependence upon the prediction of the upcoming turn and assessing objects or obstacles within the adapted detection zone” Shahriari, para. [0060])
and return to the first setting of the detection range upon termination of a turn by the vehicle, such that the detection zone is returned to the normal detection zone. (“The coverage area is extended when an upcoming turn is predicted and shrunk when the turn is completed (or otherwise when the vehicle 10 is not turning at an intersection).” Shahriari, para. [0058], the coverage area getting shrunk is the claimed returning to the first setting) and (“When the turn completion (or straight scenario) is determined, the detection zone is shrunk from the extended detection zone 104 to the normal detection zone 102 such that the alert is not generated when an obstacle or object is located within the extended detection zone 104 but is generated when an obstacle or object is located within the normal detection zone 102.” Shahriari, para. [0065])
However Shahriari does not teach a sharp turn,
Ho teaches a sharp turn (“The turning angle information is correspondingly the information about an angle (turning angle Φ in FIG. 3) between a longitudinal axis a1 of the first vehicle body V1 and a longitudinal axis a2 of the second vehicle body V2. The turning angle Φ may be changed as the vehicle V turns, and so the turning angle Φ is a dynamic information. The first sensor 110 communicates with the processor 130 to transfer the turning angle information to the processor 130 in real time.” Ho, col. 3, lines 14-23, and fig. 3 shows a sharp turn)
Shahriari and Ho are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in performing blind spot detection.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shahriari in light of Ho’s sharp turn. One would have been motivated to do so because it can result in an improved method and system of blind spot detection with a better performance. (Ho, col. 1, lines 24-25)
However, the combination of Shahriari and Ho does not teach such that the detection zone is increased laterally away from the vehicle in the direction of the curve, and only to the front of the vehicle;
Hayakawa teaches the detection zone is increased laterally away from the vehicle in the direction of the curve, and only to the front of the vehicle;
PNG
media_image1.png
293
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hayakawa, col. 4, lines 23-36 and fig. 4
Shahriari, Ho, and Hayakawa are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in performing blind spot detection.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shahriari and Ho in light of Hayakawa’s . One would have been motivated to do so because it can result in the determination of starting the vehicle driving support control can be made while achieving reduction in the feeling of strangeness given to the driver. (Hayakawa, col. 22, lines 40-43)
Regarding claim 2, Shahriari teaches wherein the controller is configured by the instructions to predict by determining whether the vehicle is in a large angle turn or not. (“first and second front facing perception devices (e.g. optical cameras) are arranged for respectively imaging a wide angle, near field of view and a narrow angle, far field of view.” Shahriari, para. [0036])
Regarding claim 3, Shahriari teaches wherein the controller is configured by the instructions to predict by determining, while the vehicle is in a large angle turn, whether the large angle turn is entering a turn. (“The navigation device can provide map data and a localization of the vehicle 10 relative to the map. A location, and movement trend, of the vehicle 10 can indicate an upcoming intersection, which increases probability of a vehicle turn. If the navigation device is providing guidance for a route (e.g. turn by turn directions), an upcoming turn is known to the navigation device according to a generated route. Further, the navigation device can provide speed limit information, which may be combined with a vehicle speed to garner an indication of an upcoming turn.” Shahriari, para. [0046])
However Shahriari does not teach a sharp turn,
Ho teaches a sharp turn (“The turning angle information is correspondingly the information about an angle (turning angle Φ in FIG. 3) between a longitudinal axis a1 of the first vehicle body V1 and a longitudinal axis a2 of the second vehicle body V2. The turning angle Φ may be changed as the vehicle V turns, and so the turning angle Φ is a dynamic information. The first sensor 110 communicates with the processor 130 to transfer the turning angle information to the processor 130 in real time.” Ho, col. 3, lines 14-23, and fig. 3 shows a sharp turn)
Shahriari and Ho are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in performing blind spot detection.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shahriari in light of Ho’s sharp turn. One would have been motivated to do so because it can result in an improved method and system of blind spot detection with a better performance. (Ho, col. 1, lines 24-25)
Regarding claim 4, Shahriari teaches wherein the one or more sensors includes an inertial sensor. (“The sensor system 28 includes … an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 212,” Shahriari, para. [0045])
Regarding claim 5, Shahriari teaches wherein the controller is further configured by the instructions to predict based on a plurality of conditions and implementation of one of rules or a state machine. (“In one embodiment, u.sub.k includes vehicle states and environmental conditions including yaw rate of host vehicle 10, steering wheel angle, driver applied torque, velocity of host vehicle, brake pedal position, vehicle transmission gear, surrounding lane markings, etc.” Shahriari, para. [0054])
Regarding claim 6, Shahriari teaches wherein the controller is further configured by the instructions to predict based on computing sensor data from the one or more sensors. (“the turn may be predicted based on any combination of the following data elements: application of the brake and/or throttle position from the throttle/brake sensor 222; driver's head and/or eye movement from the DMS 202; the turn indictor being on or off as detected by the turn signal sensor 220; a steering wheel angle from the SAS 208; rate of change of yaw from the IMU 212; deceleration of the vehicle 10, which can be derived from data from the IMU 212, the WSS 210 or the GPS; no lane line detected or intermittent lane line detection for a set time on a side of the vehicle 10 as detected by the perception system 74.” Shahriari, para. [0062])
Regarding claim 7, Shahriari teaches wherein the controller is further configured by the instructions to adjust the detection range by extending the detection range according to a second setting. (“The alerting system 200 includes a detection zone determination module 230 that receives the vehicle turn prediction data 228. When the vehicle turn prediction data 228 changes from a straight scenario being predicted to a vehicle turn being predicted, the detection zone determination module 230 switches from the normal detection zone 102 to the extended detection zone 104. When the vehicle turn prediction data 228 changes from a vehicle turn being predicted to a straight scenario being predicted (e.g. completion of the vehicle turn), the detection zone determination module 230 switches from the extended detection zone 104 to the normal detection zone 102.” Shahriari, para. [0057])
Regarding claim 8, Shahriari teaches wherein the controller is further configured by the instructions to extend the detection range on at least a turning side of the vehicle. (“the detection zone is laterally expanded to the extended detection zone 104. The extension is directional in that a prediction of a right turn will result in an extension of the detection zone on a right side of the vehicle 10 and a prediction of a left turn will result in an extension of the detection zone on a left side of the vehicle 10.” Shahriari, para. [0043])
Regarding claim 9, Shahriari teaches wherein the one or more sensors includes a radar sensor configured for detection of a zone along a turning side of the vehicle, wherein the controller is further configured by the instructions to use the radar sensor in a non-extended range or disable the radar sensor during a turn of the vehicle. (“The radar devices may be capable of detecting and recognizing objects, particularly objects located alongside (e.g. in a blind spot area) of the vehicle 10.” Shahriari, para. [0037]) and (“The obstacle location, and optionally the further obstacle information, is assessed with respect to the normal or extended detection zone 102, 104 (whichever is elected according to the detection zone size data 232) to determine whether there is an obstacle or object in the detection zone or to determine that a trend of the obstacle or object is to move into the detection within a predetermined amount of time or to determine a collision risk with an obstacle within the detection zone.” Shahriari, para. [0058])
However Shahriari does not teach a sharp turn,
Ho teaches a sharp turn (“The turning angle information is correspondingly the information about an angle (turning angle Φ in FIG. 3) between a longitudinal axis a1 of the first vehicle body V1 and a longitudinal axis a2 of the second vehicle body V2. The turning angle Φ may be changed as the vehicle V turns, and so the turning angle Φ is a dynamic information. The first sensor 110 communicates with the processor 130 to transfer the turning angle information to the processor 130 in real time.” Ho, col. 3, lines 14-23, and fig. 3 shows a sharp turn)
Shahriari and Ho are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in performing blind spot detection.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shahriari in light of Ho’s sharp turn. One would have been motivated to do so because it can result in an improved method and system of blind spot detection with a better performance. (Ho, col. 1, lines 24-25)
Regarding claim 11, Shahriari teaches wherein the controller is further configured by the instructions to return to the first setting of the detection range based on computing sensor data from the one or more sensors. (“The alert generation module 234 outputs an alert 240 when a positive assessment is made that an obstacle is located within the detection zone. The coverage area is extended when an upcoming turn is predicted and shrunk when the turn is completed (or otherwise when the vehicle 10 is not turning at an intersection).” Shahriari, para. [0058])
Regarding claim 16, refer to the explanation of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, refer to the explanation of claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, refer to the explanation of claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, refer to the explanation of claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, Shahriari teaches A non-transitory, computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a controller (“The controller 34 includes at least one processor 44 and a computer readable storage device or media 46.” Shahriari, para. [0040])
Regarding rest of claim 20, refer to the explanation of claim 1.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahriari, Ho, and Hayakawa as mentioned above and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 20210300243 A1) referred to as Shimizu hereinafter.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Shahriari, Ho, and Hayakawa does not teach wherein the controller is further configured by the instructions to return to the first setting of the detection range based on reaching a timeout.
Shimizu teaches wherein the controller is further configured by the instructions to return to the first setting of the detection range based on reaching a timeout. (“the warning area may be gradually reduced to predetermined dimensions according to an elapsed time from the initiation of the turn, the traveling state of the traveling state of the subject vehicle 40, the object information around the subject vehicle 40 and the like.” Shimizu, para. [0060]) and (“The area changer 36 may reduce the warning area to predetermined dimensions at the time that initiation of a turn is determined by the determiner 34, or may reduce the warning area stepwise during a time period from when the subject vehicle 40 initiates a turn to when the subject vehicle 40 completes the turn.” Shimizu, para. [0048])
Shahriari, Ho, Hayakawa, and Shimizu are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in driving assistance.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shahriari, Ho, and Hayakawa in light of Shimizu’s returning to the first setting based on reaching a timeout. One would have been motivated to do so because driving safety of the subject vehicle can be ensured. (Shimizu, para. [0021])
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahriari, Ho, and Hayakawa as mentioned above and further in view of Ghannam et al. (US 20190130756 A1) referred to as Ghannam hereinafter.
Regarding claim 12, Shahriari teaches wherein the controller is further configured by the instructions to indicate to an operator of the vehicle the adjusted detection range. (“The radar devices may be specifically configured for providing an input to driver assistance systems, such as adaptive cruise control and collision warning. The radar devices may be capable of detecting and recognizing objects, particularly objects located alongside (e.g. in a blind spot area) of the vehicle 10. The radar devices are suitable for providing radio frequency signals that can be used to determine a distance and/or a relative velocity of various objects with respect to the vehicle 10.” Shahriari, para. [0037])
However, the combination of Shahriari, Ho, and Hayakawa does not teach further comprising a user interface, via the user interface the adjusted detection range.
Ghannam teaches further comprising a user interface, via the user interface (“the infotainment head unit 110 includes database of sound signatures 116 and an obstacle monitor 118 to detect sounds and identify of objects behind the vehicle 100 and provides an audio, visual, and/or haptic warning to a driver when (a) the rear view camera 112 and/or the rear-facing ultrasonic sensors 114 are obscured or malfunctioning, and/or (b) the vehicle 100 is positioned such that the field of view 119 of the rear view camera 112 and/or the field of view 121 of the rear-facing ultrasonic sensors 114 cannot observe the are behind the vehicle 100 (e.g., the vehicle 100 is positioned on a hill, etc.).” Ghannam, para. [0019]) and (“The flowchart of FIG. 3 is representative of machine readable instructions stored in memory (such as the memory 206 of FIG. 2) that comprise one or more programs that, when executed by a processor (such as the processor 204 of FIG. 2), cause the infotainment head unit 110 to implement the example obstacle monitor 118 of FIGS. 1 and 2.” Ghannam, para. [0036])
Shahriari, Ho, Hayakawa, and Ghannam are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in driving assistance.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shahriari, Ho, and Hayakawa in light of Ghannam’s user interface (infotainment system). One would have been motivated to do so because it can increase the safeness of driving.
Regarding claim 13, Shahriari teaches wherein the controller is further configured by the instructions to present an alert, of a presence of an object in an area corresponding to the adjusted detection range. (“predicting, via the at least one processor, a vehicle turn based on the turn predicting data, generating, via the at least one processor, an obstacle alert, which is output through an output device of the vehicle, when an obstacle is detected within a first sized detection zone or a second sized detection zone using the perception data” Shahriari, para. [0004])
However, the combination of Shahriari, Ho, and Hayakawa does not teach at the user interface.
Ghannam teaches further at the user interface (“the infotainment head unit 110 includes database of sound signatures 116 and an obstacle monitor 118 to detect sounds and identify of objects behind the vehicle 100 and provides an audio, visual, and/or haptic warning to a driver when (a) the rear view camera 112 and/or the rear-facing ultrasonic sensors 114 are obscured or malfunctioning, and/or (b) the vehicle 100 is positioned such that the field of view 119 of the rear view camera 112 and/or the field of view 121 of the rear-facing ultrasonic sensors 114 cannot observe the are behind the vehicle 100 (e.g., the vehicle 100 is positioned on a hill, etc.).” Ghannam, para. [0019]) and (“The flowchart of FIG. 3 is representative of machine readable instructions stored in memory (such as the memory 206 of FIG. 2) that comprise one or more programs that, when executed by a processor (such as the processor 204 of FIG. 2), cause the infotainment head unit 110 to implement the example obstacle monitor 118 of FIGS. 1 and 2.” Ghannam, para. [0036])
Shahriari, Ho, Hayakawa, and Ghannam are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in driving assistance.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shahriari, Ho, and Hayakawa in light of Ghannam’s user interface (infotainment system). One would have been motivated to do so because it can increase the safeness of driving.
Regarding claim 14, Ghannam teaches wherein the controller is further configured by the instructions to visually mark the object in the user interface. (“the infotainment head unit 110 includes database of sound signatures 116 and an obstacle monitor 118 to detect sounds and identify of objects behind the vehicle 100 and provides an audio, visual, and/or haptic warning to a driver when (a) the rear view camera 112 and/or the rear-facing ultrasonic sensors 114 are obscured or malfunctioning, and/or (b) the vehicle 100 is positioned such that the field of view 119 of the rear view camera 112 and/or the field of view 121 of the rear-facing ultrasonic sensors 114 cannot observe the are behind the vehicle 100 (e.g., the vehicle 100 is positioned on a hill, etc.)… the obstacle monitor 118 may cause the sound system of the infotainment head unit 110 to emit a chime and a steering wheel control module to vibrate the steering wheel. Additionally, in some examples, depending on a mode selected by a user, the obstacle monitor 118 plays the sound over speakers 120 of the vehicle 100.” Ghannam, para. [0019], fig. 1) and (“The flowchart of FIG. 3 is representative of machine readable instructions stored in memory (such as the memory 206 of FIG. 2) that comprise one or more programs that, when executed by a processor (such as the processor 204 of FIG. 2), cause the infotainment head unit 110 to implement the example obstacle monitor 118 of FIGS. 1 and 2.” Ghannam, para. [0036])
Examiner’s note: According to para. [0056] of the instant application, “Alert mechanisms may include audible alarms (verbal or sounds, like beeping noise, etc.), tactile (e.g., vibration on the steering wheel), and/or visual. For instance, object 46 may be marked in a manner that heightens awareness to the operator, such as via a colored (e.g., red) symbol 48 overlaid onto the object 42 as shown, or actual coloring of the object, or other mechanisms to visually distinguish or alert the operator to the presence of the object 46.” The examiner interpreted the visually marking the object as the visual warning that is taught in Ghannam reference.
Shahriari, Ho, Hayakawa, and Ghannam are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in driving assistance.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shahriari, Ho, and Hayakawa in light of Ghannam’s visually marking the object. One would have been motivated to do so because it can increase the safeness of driving.
Regarding claim 15, Shahriari teaches wherein the one or more sensors further comprises a camera, wherein the controller is further configured by the instructions to adjust a camera view presented on the rear view to a view covering the adjusted detection range based on the adjustment of the detection range. (“Such alert systems can include, but are not limited to, side blind zone alert systems, lane change alert systems, and other systems using front, side, and rear view cameras and other perception devices. Typically, sensory devices are placed and/or calibrated to detect objects within a defined area around the vehicle.” Shahriari, para. [0002]) and (“a rear camera perception device (such as an optical camera).” Shahriari, para. [0036])
However, the combination of Shahriari, Ho, and Hayakawa does not teach the user interface from a rear view.
Ghannam teaches further comprising a user interface from a rear view (“the infotainment head unit 110 includes database of sound signatures 116 and an obstacle monitor 118 to detect sounds and identify of objects behind the vehicle 100 and provides an audio, visual, and/or haptic warning to a driver when (a) the rear view camera 112 and/or the rear-facing ultrasonic sensors 114 are obscured or malfunctioning, and/or (b) the vehicle 100 is positioned such that the field of view 119 of the rear view camera 112 and/or the field of view 121 of the rear-facing ultrasonic sensors 114 cannot observe the are behind the vehicle 100 (e.g., the vehicle 100 is positioned on a hill, etc.).” Ghannam, para. [0019], fig. 1) and (“The flowchart of FIG. 3 is representative of machine readable instructions stored in memory (such as the memory 206 of FIG. 2) that comprise one or more programs that, when executed by a processor (such as the processor 204 of FIG. 2), cause the infotainment head unit 110 to implement the example obstacle monitor 118 of FIGS. 1 and 2.” Ghannam, para. [0036])
Shahriari, Ho, Hayakawa, and Ghannam are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, image processing in driving assistance.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shahriari, Ho, and Hayakawa in light of Ghannam’s user interface (infotainment system). One would have been motivated to do so because it can increase the safeness of driving.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH
shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory
action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will
be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PARDIS SOHRABY whose telephone number is (571)270-0809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am till 6pm.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/PARDIS SOHRABY/Examiner, Art Unit 2664
/CHARLOTTE M BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights