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 amendment filed on 07/21/2026 has been entered, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nishira (US20050256630) in view of Li (US20200307589).
Regarding claim 1, Nishira teaches a method comprising:
Nishira teaches evaluating using a first criteria and with respect to the candidate gap, speed profiles based at least on corresponding forward projections of the machine and the at least one object, ([0053] discloses the appropriate speed range for the gap based on an appropriate lane change condition as to a positional relationship between the host vehicle and the other vehicle where the equation is based on a value which relates to longitudinal travel as shown in figure 4, i.e., in one dimension. [0055] disclosing determining a condition where the host vehicle would travel at a position ahead of the other vehicle by a headway time. [0056] disclosing predicting the change of state quantity in relationship and [0057] disclosing determining appropriate speed range that reaches the lane changeable condition within a predicted period in time, i.e., filtering set of speed profiles and only selecting a set that are the appropriate speed range. The cited paragraph disclose at least in view of one object that corresponds to the gap and in one dimension to determine its changed location and the changed location of the subject vehicle in view of the different speeds to select the best speed profile… the first criteria herein to evaluate the speed profile is that it reaches and place the host machine vehicle within the target gap safely as cited and shown in figure 8);
Evaluating the forward projections using one or more criteria to select a speed profile from the speed profiles for the candidate gap (at least [0053]-[0057] disclosing the critera has to be met corresponding to the relative distance between the subject vehicle and the one other vehicle in order to select the speed profile from amongst the set of speed profiles);
Determining based at least on the evaluating, to perform a lane change maneuver into the gap ([0102] disclosing using the speed range, it is determined that the vehicle to be maneuvered into the candidate gap).
Based at least on the determining, evaluating, using a second set of criteria, a plurality of the speed profiles for the candidate gap to select, from the plurality of the speed profiles, a speed profiles for in the lane change maneuver ([0102-[0107] discloses criteria for selecting the speed profile from the plurality of speed profiles within the speed range by choosing the closest to the current speed of the vehicle or other criteria as cited).
Generating based at least on selecting a trajectory that implements the selected speed profile ([0102-[0107] discloses criteria for selecting the speed profile from the plurality of speed profiles within the speed range by choosing the closest to the current speed of the vehicle or other criteria as cited and implementing the lane change).
Using the trajectory to perform one or more control operations to implements one or more portions of the lane change maneuver ([0102-[0107] discloses criteria for selecting the speed profile from the plurality of speed profiles within the speed range by choosing the closest to the current speed of the vehicle or other criteria as cited, here the one portion is the implementing the speed control of the vehicle while the lane change is taking place at the target speed to assist the lane change maneuver).
Nashira does not teach identifying, based at least on sensor data obtained using at least one sensor of a machine in an environment, a candidate gap for the machine; graph having an axis representing a longitudinal space of a lane corresponding to the machine compressed with at least one lane corresponding to the one object defining the candidate gap. Evaluating projections within graph.
Li teaches identifying, based at least on sensor data obtained using at least one sensor of a machine in an environment, a candidate gap defined by at least one object ([0025] disclosing the target gap created between vehicles based on the velocities, locations and accelerations of the two vehicles on the target lane change. [0030]-[0055] disclosing candidate gaps based on sensing other vehicles locations).
the speed profile representing sequences of changes in longitudinal speed of the machine over time ([0050]-[0060] discloses candidate longitudinal speed profiles with changing speeds over time, and wherein the candidate speed profile trajectories are evaluated based on that change of speed to determine a cost to select the appropriate speed profile for a lane change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combine the teaching of Li yielding predictable results in order to identify gaps based on relative speeds, locations and accelerations of other vehicles as taught by Li [0025, [0030]-[0055], in addition it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the speed profiles are taught by Li incorporating changing speeds with the speed profiles of Nishira yielding predictable results, solving the problem of selecting appropriate speed profiles and improving the comfort and safety by taking in consideration the cost based on changing speeds, accelerations as taught by Li.
Regarding claim 4, Nishira as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 1,
Wherein the speed profile includes a first portion that aligns the machine with the candidate gap and corresponds to the speed profile (Nishira [0066] disclosing appropriate lane change condition between two vehicles given as a relationship between the positions of the host vehicle Xo and the predicted positions of the other two vehicles corresponding to a gap for a lane change. [0070] disclosing predicting the state quantity within a predicted period and determining if the speed of the vehicle allows meeting the lane changeable condition to execute the lane change. See also [0071] disclosing the condition where the position of the host vehicle is between the position of the leading vehicle and trailing vehicle on the target lane within a safety margin has to be satisfied. As shown in figure 9, the appropriate speed of the vehicle that satisfies the condition. It is interpreted from the citations that the speed profiles that do not meet the criteria for the lane change within the safety margin are filtered out and thus speed profiles that do not reach the lane change condition are filtered out. See also [0050] disclosing the appropriate speed range allows the lane change into a gap between other vehicles on the target lane within a predetermined margin. [0055] disclosing the margin is a time to collision. It is interpreted from the citations that the chosen speed sets allow the vehicle to execute a lane change within a safety margin where the time to collision is greater than a threshold ,i.e., avoiding collision, of the two vehicles in the gap based on the prediction of the locations of the vehicles during a period of time and the prediction of the location of the own vehicle by the projection of vehicle position based on a speed profile, i.e., the filtered set eliminates the trajectories that cause an intersection in positions of the projected positions of the other two vehicles and the host vehicle “machine”. See also 0053] discloses the appropriate speed range for the gap based on an appropriate lane change condition as to a positional relationship between the host vehicle and the other vehicle where the equation is based on an x value which relates to longitudinal travel as shown in figure 4. [0055] disclosing determining a condition where the host vehicle would travel at a position ahead of the other vehicle by a headway time. [0056] disclosing predicting the change of state quantity in relationship and [0057] disclosing determining appropriate speed range that reaches the lane changeable condition within a predicted period in time, i.e., filtering set of speed profiles and only selecting a set that are the appropriate speed range).
Li further teaches and a second portion that initiates when the machine is aligned with the candidate gap and corresponds to a lateral profile that is selected from a plurality of lateral profile candidates based at least on the speed profile ([0040]-[0060] disclosing the trajectory that aligns with a gap and further includes a lateral profile that is selected based on the selected trajectory based on the cost of the speed profile changes, i.e., the lateral profile from a plurality of the trajectories is selected with the trajectory that is selected based on the speed profile).
it is obvious to substitute the speed profiles are taught by Li incorporating changing speeds with the speed profiles of Nishira yielding predictable results, solving the problem of selecting appropriate speed profiles and improving the comfort and safety by taking in consideration the cost based on changing speeds, accelerations as taught by Li, combining the teaching of Li to incorporate the lateral profile to change into a different lane improves the autonomous of the vehicle and comfort of the driver yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Nishira as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 1, teaches wherein the evaluating the speed profiles using the first set of criteria includes, and the evaluating the plurality of speed profiles using the second set of criteria includes assigning second scores the plurality of the speed profiles with respect to the candidate gap (Nishira teaches at least the evaluation using a second score, [0102]-[0110] disclosing the evaluation based on the trajectory whose speed is nearest to the current trajectory, i.e., nearest here is a score given to the trajectory selected based on a difference which is a score of the trajectories).
Li further teaches assigning first scores to the speed profiles with respect to the candidate gap [0003]-[0010] and [0027], [0050]-[0070] disclosing assigning scores to the trajectories for the gap and evaluating the trajectories).
The combination of the scoring method of Li to the trajectory selection of Nishira is obvious yielding predictable results in order to improve the comfortability and the smoothness of trajectories based on scores.
Regarding claim 7, Nishira as modified by Li further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating of the speed profiles using the first criteria identifies a set of the speed profiles that would result in the machine not reaching the candidate gap, and the plurality of the speed profiles is determining by filtering out the set of the speed profiles from the speed profiles (Nishira [0053] discloses the appropriate speed range for the gap based on an appropriate lane change condition as to a positional relationship between the host vehicle and the other vehicle where the equation is based on a value which relates to longitudinal travel as shown in figure 4, i.e., in one dimension. [0055] disclosing determining a condition where the host vehicle would travel at a position ahead of the other vehicle by a headway time. [0056] disclosing predicting the change of state quantity in relationship and [0057] disclosing determining appropriate speed range that reaches the lane changeable condition within a predicted period in time, i.e., filtering set of speed profiles and only selecting a set that are the appropriate speed range. The cited paragraph disclose at least in view of one object that corresponds to the gap and in one dimension to determine its changed location and the changed location of the subject vehicle in view of the different speeds to select the best speed profile… the first criteria herein to evaluate the speed profile is that it reaches and place the host machine vehicle within the target gap safely as cited and shown in figure 8);
Regarding claim 14, Nishira as modified by Li further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the evaluating of the speed profiles using the first criteria identifies a set of the speed profiles that would result in the machine not reaching the candidate gap using the one or more others of the speed profiles (Nishira [0053] discloses the appropriate speed range for the gap based on an appropriate lane change condition as to a positional relationship between the host vehicle and the other vehicle where the equation is based on a value which relates to longitudinal travel as shown in figure 4, i.e., in one dimension. [0055] disclosing determining a condition where the host vehicle would travel at a position ahead of the other vehicle by a headway time. [0056] disclosing predicting the change of state quantity in relationship and [0057] disclosing determining appropriate speed range that reaches the lane changeable condition within a predicted period in time, i.e., filtering set of speed profiles and only selecting a set that are the appropriate speed range. The cited paragraph disclose at least in view of one object that corresponds to the gap and in one dimension to determine its changed location and the changed location of the subject vehicle in view of the different speeds to select the best speed profile… the first criteria herein to evaluate the speed profile is that it reaches and place the host machine vehicle within the target gap safely as cited and shown in figure 8);
Regarding claim 15, Nishira as modified by Li teaches the at least one processor of claim 10, wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of:
control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine (Nishira at least [0102]-[0103] disclosing the control is a lane assist that sets the speed of the vehicle); a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Regarding claim 17, Nishira as modified by Li teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the operation further includes selecting from a plurality of lateral profile candidates, a lateral profile for the lane change maneuver based on at least on the speed profile, wherein the generating the trajectory is to implement the lateral profile (Li [0040]-[0060] disclosing the trajectory that aligns with a gap and further includes a lateral profile that is selected based on the selected trajectory based on the cost of the speed profile changes, i.e., the lateral profile from a plurality of the trajectories is selected with the trajectory that is selected based on the speed profile and is implemented).
it is obvious to substitute the speed profiles are taught by Li incorporating changing speeds with the speed profiles of Nishira yielding predictable results, solving the problem of selecting appropriate speed profiles and improving the comfort and safety by taking in consideration the cost based on changing speeds, accelerations as taught by Li, combining the teaching of Li to incorporate the lateral profile to change into a different lane improves the autonomous of the vehicle and comfort of the driver yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Nishira as modified by Li teaches the system of claim 16 wherein evaluating using the second set of criteria includes: assigning, to each of the plurality of the speed profiles, a respective score based at least on the second set of criteria (Nishira teaches at least the evaluation using a second score, [0102]-[0110] disclosing the evaluation based on the trajectory whose speed is nearest to the current trajectory, i.e., nearest here is a score given to the trajectory selected based on a difference which is a score of the trajectories); and
selecting, as the speed profile for use in the lane-change maneuver, the speed profile based at least on a corresponding score of the respective scores (Nishira teaches at least the evaluation using a second score, [0102]-[0110] disclosing the evaluation based on the trajectory whose speed is nearest to the current trajectory, i.e., nearest here is a score given to the trajectory selected based on a difference which is a score of the trajectories).
Claim 10, 16 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection. At least [0065] of Nishira disclosing a processing unit.
Claims 20 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 15 respectively, see above rejection.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nishira (US20050256630) in view of Li (US20200307589) and Asakura (US20170313313).
Regarding claim 2, Nishira as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one object includes a first object and a second object (Nishira [0066] disclosing appropriate lane change condition between two vehicles given as a relationship between the positions of the host vehicle Xo and the predicted positions of the other two vehicles corresponding to a gap for a lane change. [0070] disclosing predicting the state quantity within a predicted period and determining if the speed of the vehicle allows meeting the lane changeable condition to execute the lane change. As shown in figure 9, the appropriate speed of the vehicle that satisfies the condition. See also [0050] disclosing the appropriate speed range allows the lane change into a gap between other vehicles on the target lane within a predetermined margin. It is interpreted from the citations that the chosen speed sets allow the vehicle to execute a lane change within a safety margin of the two vehicles in the gap based on the prediction of the locations of the vehicles during a period of time and the prediction of the location of the own vehicle by the projection of vehicle position based on a speed profile. See also 0053] discloses the appropriate speed range for the gap based on an appropriate lane change condition as to a positional relationship between the host vehicle and the other vehicle where the equation is based on an x value which relates to longitudinal travel as shown in figure 4. [0055] disclosing determining a condition where the host vehicle would travel at a position ahead of the other vehicle by a headway time. [0056] disclosing predicting the change of state quantity in relationship and [0057] disclosing determining appropriate speed range that reaches the lane changeable condition within a predicted period in time, i.e., filtering set of speed profiles and only selecting a set that are the appropriate speed range).
Asakura further teaches and the corresponding forward projections on the a shared axis a first position of the first object at a future time, a second position of the second object at a future time and a third position of the machine at the future time (fig. 10 and [0102] disclosing the future projection of the vehicle position and at least two other objects).
Nishira already teaches projection along the longitudinal dimensions to find an appropriate gap [0053]-[0075], thus, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of the lane graph as taught by Asakura with the prediction of gaps of Nishira yielding predictable results simplifying the lane determination condition into finding an appropriate gap in the longitudinal dimension thus improving and making more efficient lane changes.
Claims 3, 12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nishira (US20050256630) in view of Li (US20200307589) and Pan (US20210181742) and Pierson (US20190354109).
Regarding claim 3, Nishira as modified by Li and does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding forward projections are computed by a one-dimensional longitudinal projection of beads respectively corresponding to the at least one object and the machine in a two-dimensional top down view of the environment.
Pan teaches corresponding forward projections are computed by a one-dimensional longitudinal projection of ([0055]-[0062], fig. 9a-9b disclosing the one dimensional lane representation corresponds to the two dimensional top down environment trajectory of 9A including the representation of the objects and the ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Nishira as modified by Li to combine/substitute the teaching of Pan of the longitudinal projections computed corresponding to at least first and second position in a two dimensional top down yielding predictable results allowing the representation of surrounding lane vehicles on the graph improving safety and efficient lane changes. While the trajectory is shown as one line, it is obvious to try and represent trajectories as points, i.e., beads with reasonable expectations of success.
Pierson teaches the projection of beads (Fig. 6, and [0102]-[0110] disclosing the representation of vehicles as nodes, beads, and ensuring no collision with nodes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the representation of a trajectory or projections as beads in order to represent occupancy maps allowing to determine collision free lane changes yielding predictable results improving safety and refining lane changes and verifying collision free paths.
Claim 12, 18 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 3, see above rejection.
Claims 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Nishira (US20050256630) in view of Li (US20200307589) and Jafari (US20210061282).
Regarding claim 5, Nishira as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the evaluating of the speed profiles using the first set of criteria includes assigning scores to the speed profiles with respect to the candidate gap and the determining to perform the lane change maneuver into the candidate gap is based at least on an aggregate of the scores.
Jafari wherein the evaluating of the speed profiles using the first set of criteria includes assigning scores to the speed profiles with respect to the candidate gap and the determining to perform the lane change maneuver into the candidate gap is based at least on an aggregate of the scores ([0090]-[0100] disclosing calculating a cumulative score for the speed profile of the gap and selecting the profile based on the aggregate score).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Jafari of calculating a cumulative score in order to take in consideration the two components while making a lane change thus improving the safety, comfort and efficiency of the lane change candidate trajectory.
Regarding claim 8, Nishira as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising based at least on the evaluating, selecting, for a lane change maneuver, the candidate gap from a plurality of lane change gaps (Nishira [0102] disclosing selecting the target gap).
Nishira as modified by Li does not teach wherein the selecting the speed profile is based at least on the selecting of the candidate gap for the lane change maneuver.
Jafari teaches wherein the selecting the speed profile is based at least on the selecting of the candidate gap for the lane change maneuver ([0061] disclosing selecting optimal actions for lane change including velocity profiles. [0063] disclosing selecting the optimal action, i.e., speed profile, for the target gap).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined or substituted the teaching of Nishira as modified by Li to combine the teaching of Jafari of wherein the selecting the speed profile is based at least on the selecting of the candidate gap for the lane change maneuver, yielding predictable restuls, in order to select the optimal action for the lane change taking in consideration the feasibility, safety and comfort requirements for a gap as taught by Jafari [0060].
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Li (US20200307589) in view of Nishira (US20050256630) and Nagasaka (US9475491).
Regarding claim 11, Nishira as modified by Li does not teach the at least one processor of claim 10 wherein the second set of criteria includes a count of fallback gaps representing a number of potential lane change gaps available if the candidate gap becomes unavailable after the machine initiates a speed adaptation towards the candidate gaps.
Nagasaka teaches wherein the second set of criteria includes a count of fallback gaps representing a number of potential lane change gaps available if the candidate gap becomes unavailable after the machine initiates a speed adaptation towards the candidate gaps (col. 18-19 discloses a criteria for selecting at least another lane change gap if a candidate gap becomes unacceptable during the processes of aligning with the gap, a number of gaps could be one gap).
It would have been obvious to combine the art to combine the teaching of Nagasaka of evaluating at least another gap when one gaps becomes unavailable yielding predictable results in order to allow a safe and acceptable lane change thus improving autonomous driving capabilities instead of cancelling a hindering movement.
Claims 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Li (US20200307589) in view of Nishira (US20050256630) and Wongpiromsarn (US20200189575).
Regarding claim 13, Nishira as modified by Li teaches the method of claim 10. Nishira as modified by Li does not teach wherein the speed profile is selected based at least on evaluating of the speed profiles using the first set of criteria indicating the machine would collide with one or more objects using the one or more speed profiles.
Wongpiromsarn teaches wherein the speed profile is selected based at least on evaluating of the speed profiles using the first set of criteria indicating the machine would collide with one or more objects using the one or more speed profiles ([0114] disclosing motion constraint that removes speed profiles that can cause collision with another vehicles and keeps the range of speed profiles that will ensure no collision with other vehicles).
Nishira already teaches the criteria including reaching the gap between the vehicles, thus It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wongpiromsarn with the method of selection of speed profiles that would not cause collisions of Nishira yielding predictable results in order to avoid collisions as taught by Wongpiromsarn [0114].
Regarding claim 19, Nishira as modified by Li does not teach the system of claim 16, wherein the speed profile is selected based at least on evaluating indicating the machine would collide with one or more objects using the one or more speed profiles.
Wongpiromsarn teaches wherein the speed profile is selected based at least on evaluating indicating the machine would collide with one or more objects using the one or more speed profiles ([0114] disclosing motion constraint that removes speed profiles that can cause collision with another vehicles and keeps the range of speed profiles that will ensure no collision with other vehicles).
Nishira already teaches the criteria including reaching the gap between the vehicles, thus It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wongpiromsarn with the method of selection of speed profiles that would not cause collisions of Nishira yielding predictable results in order to avoid collisions as taught by Wongpiromsarn [0114].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/21/2026 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Nishira does not teach respective sequence of longitudinal speed of the machine over time, this is moot since Li teaches in [0040]-[0060] choosing the speed profile based on the changes in speeds in each trajectory, see full rejection above.
The arguments directed towards Asakura are moot since the rejection does not rely on Asakura for claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if rewritten to overcome any 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112b rejections on record.
Claim 9 would be allowable for disclosing the method of claim 1, further comprising determining that a forward projection of the at least one object violates a speed vector field; clamping a speed corresponding to the at least one object based at least on the determining; and modifying the forward projection of the at least one object based at least on the clamped speed, wherein the evaluating of the speed profiles is based at least on the modified forward projection.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20220073076 disclosing selecting a speed based on the preceding vehicle speed and following vehicle speed of a target gap.
US9475491 disclosing controlling the speed to match the target speed of the vehicle corresponding to the gap.
US20200189598 disclosing the adjustment of speed to go into gap
US20200331476 discloses ranking trajectories and choosing best trajectory.
US20170102705 discloses minimum and maximum target position for a lane change based on predicted other vehicle’s positions.
US20210269041 discloses predicting position of the vehicles and a safety margin for a lane change between them.
US11027735 discloses predicting target position for a lane change based on future predicted positions of other vehicles forming a gap.
US20190329777 discloses controlling other vehicles to increase the available gap for a lane change based on their predicted positions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on (571) 272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3664B
