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 October 16, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
[1] Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
(A) Applicant respectfully submits that Step 2A is satisfied because claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are either not directed to a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea (Prong One), and/or incorporate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two).
(i) Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 include recitations of a processor configured to detect that a host vehicle under autonomous driving control is towing a towed vehicle, determine whether an involvement requirement for requesting a driver of the host vehicle to be involved in driving the host vehicle is satisfied, based on an exterior sensor signal generated by an exterior sensor configured to detect conditions around the host vehicle, an interior sensor signal generated by an interior sensor configured to detect conditions in an interior of the host vehicle, a vehicle motion signal generated by a motion sensor configured to detect motion of the host vehicle, or a position of the host vehicle, and make the involvement requirement less strict when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected.
These recitations are improvements in improvements in autonomous driving control of a host vehicle that is towing another vehicle. These claim features are not capable of being performed in the human mind as alleged by the Examiner. (Office Action, page 3).
That is, the currently pending claimed subject matter of independent claims 1, 9, and 10 are not directed to mental processes. Specifically, the original claims as a whole cannot be performed in the human mind. Further, the Examiner does not provide any reasoning or analysis on how the features of the claims can be performed in the human mind. Rather, the Examiner merely reproduces certain claim language to draw conclusory assertions without more.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In the office action, Examiner reasoned: This invention relates to detecting the presence of towed vehicle, receiving sensor data regarding exterior, interior and motion of the vehicle and determining requirement of driver involvement accordingly, which is similar to a human driver’s activity of a towing vehicle for deciding manual override (Mental Process) based on the detection result of towed vehicle and sensor data for exterior, interior and motion of the vehicle. There is no control of the vehicle being carried out, only determining degree of involvement requirement. The determining process can be performed mentally or in a computer.
Examiner provided reasoning or analysis on how the features of the claims can be performed in the human mind.
(ii) Even if, arguendo, the instant claims recites a judicial exception under prong one of Step 2A (which Applicant refutes), the claims nevertheless are integrated into a practical application.
In particular, Application respectfully submits that the claims are directed to the practical application of transforming data and improvements in autonomous driving control of a host vehicle that is towing another vehicle by making the involvement requirement less strict when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected.
The claimed subject matter applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claimed features are directed to improvements in autonomous driving control of a host vehicle that is towing another vehicle, which integrates the claims into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant did not provide any reasoning how the claimed invention transforms data and improves autonomous driving control of a host vehicle that is towing another vehicle, but only conclusively alleged.
Examiner opines that making involvement requirement for requesting a driver of the host vehicle to be involved in driving the host vehicle less strict is not related to the autonomous driving control itself, and cannot be an improvement for autonomous driving control.
(B) Even if arguendo, the instant claims were directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A (which Applicant refutes), the claims nevertheless recite significantly more than an abstract idea, thus satisfying Step 2B. Applicant submits that each of the pending claims recites an "inventive concept" and is accordingly eligible for patenting. Applicant asserts that the combination of elements for each claim, taken individually and as a whole, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Applicant respectfully submits that original independent claims 1, 9, and 10 recite an "inventive concept" and is accordingly eligible for patenting. As a whole, the recited claims provide for transforming data and improvements in autonomous driving control of a host vehicle that is towing another vehicle by the giving notification of the request for involvement in driving via a notification device provided in the interior of the host vehicle, when the involvement requirement is satisfied, and making the involvement requirement less strict when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, there is no improvement in autonomous driving control itself.
[2] Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
For independent claims 1, 9, 10, Applicant argued that citing paragraph [0022] of Mizoguchi, Mizoguchi fails to expressly or inherently disclose or make obvious the features regarding a processor is configured to determine whether an involvement requirement for requesting a driver of the host vehicle to be involved in driving the host vehicle is satisfied, based on an exterior sensor signal generated by an exterior sensor configured to detect conditions around the host vehicle, an interior sensor signal generated by an interior sensor configured to detect conditions in an interior of the host vehicle, a vehicle motion signal generated by a motion sensor configured to detect motion of the host vehicle, or a position of the host vehicle.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In this office action, the limitation is rejected citing paragraphs [0020], [0022], [0023], [0035], [0031], [0029] of Mizoguchi.
[3] Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant respectfully submits that neither Mizoguchi nor Emura, either alone or in combination, disclose or make obvious the features of original independent claim 8. Specifically, the cited art fails to disclose or make obvious the features regarding a processor configured to determine whether an interruption condition that is set based on at least one of the relative speed or a change in the relative position is satisfied during execution of the lane change control. In the rejection, the Examiner relies on paragraphs [0022]-[0024] of Mizoguchi as disclosing or suggesting determining whether an interruption condition is satisfied during execution of the lane change control. Paragraphs [0022]-[0024] of Mizoguchi disclose guiding a subject vehicle to a safe evacuation place in a case where it is difficult to continue driving in a first and a second driving support modes, limiting a part of a function of a second driving support mode, and automatically performing a lane change when detecting an intention of a lane change by the driver.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As explained in the office action, [0023] of Mizoguchi discloses a situation that it is difficult to perform the lane change during the traveling in autonomous driving mode, which implies determining whether an interruption condition is satisfied during execution of the lane change control. [0024] discloses a condition, under which autonomous lane changer is possible. That is, [0024] discloses that the interruption condition for the lane change is not satisfied.
Emura teaches that the interruption condition that is set based on at least one of the relative speed or a change in the relative position in paragraphs [0035], [0043], [0045].
Therefore, the limitation in issue is rejected by combination of Mizoguchi in view of Emura.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a vehicle controller (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below with the category of abstract idea bolded) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle controller comprising: a processor configured to: detect that a host vehicle under autonomous driving control is towing a towed vehicle,
determine whether an involvement requirement for requesting a driver of the host vehicle to be involved in driving the host vehicle is satisfied [mental process/step],
based on an exterior sensor signal generated by an exterior sensor configured to detect conditions around the host vehicle, an interior sensor signal generated by an interior sensor configured to detect conditions in an interior of the host vehicle, a vehicle motion signal generated by a motion sensor configured to detect motion of the host vehicle, or a position of the host vehicle,
give notification of the request for involvement in driving via a notification device provided in the interior of the host vehicle, when the involvement requirement is satisfied, and
make the involvement requirement less strict when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected [mental process/step].
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The involvement requirement determining process is recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via computer. This invention relates to detecting the presence of towed vehicle, receiving sensor data regarding exterior, interior and motion of the vehicle and determining requirement of driver involvement accordingly, which is similar to a human driver’s activity of a towing vehicle for deciding manual override (Mental Process) based on the detection result of towed vehicle and sensor data for exterior, interior and motion of the vehicle. There is no control of the vehicle being carried out, only determining degree of involvement requirement. The determining process can be performed mentally or in a computer.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A vehicle controller comprising: a processor configured to: detect that a host vehicle under autonomous driving control is towing a towed vehicle [pre-solution activity],
determine whether an involvement requirement for requesting a driver of the host vehicle to be involved in driving the host vehicle is satisfied,
based on an exterior sensor signal generated by an exterior sensor configured to detect conditions around the host vehicle, an interior sensor signal generated by an interior sensor configured to detect conditions in an interior of the host vehicle, a vehicle motion signal generated by a motion sensor configured to detect motion of the host vehicle, or a position of the host vehicle [pre-solution activity (data gathering)] ,
give notification of the request for involvement in driving via a notification device provided in the interior of the host vehicle, when the involvement requirement is satisfied [mere post-solution activity], and
make the involvement requirement less strict when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected.
The examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application because detecting a towed vehicle, receiving data from exterior, interior and motion sensors are pre-solution activity (data gathering) and giving notification is a mere post-solution activity that could be attached to the determination process. There is no practical application as only notification for involvement request is given.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 9, 10.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or mere extra-solution activities, such as, measuring lateral distance, considering weight or volume of the towed vehicle, measuring speed and setting speed threshold, considering radius of curvature and gradient of road, generating trajectory that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner notes that claim 8 is not rejected because it recites limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible; and claims 13, 16, 19 are rejected here for being dependent on rejected base claims while they do recite limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizoguchi et al. (JP 2019123299 A), which was cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Mizoguchi discloses:
A vehicle controller comprising: a processor configured to: detect that a host vehicle under autonomous driving control is towing a towed vehicle {paragraph [0012] of the English translation discloses detecting towed vehicle. [0013] discloses autonomous driving},
determine whether an involvement requirement for requesting a driver of the host vehicle to be involved in driving the host vehicle is satisfied {[0020]: the first driving support mode is a driving mode in which the steering state of the driver (gripping of the steering wheel) is a condition (driver involvement requirement), and the second driving support mode is a driving mode in which the steering state of the driver is not a condition. [0022] discloses the involvement requirement: under a predetermined condition, and the mode is shifted to the first driving support mode in which the driving operation is taken over by the driver. Examiner notes that shifting to the first driving mode under a predetermined condition implies determining whether the involvement requirement is satisfied}, based on an exterior sensor signal generated by an exterior sensor configured to detect conditions around the host vehicle, an interior sensor signal generated by an interior sensor configured to detect conditions in an interior of the host vehicle, a vehicle motion signal generated by a motion sensor configured to detect motion of the host vehicle or a position of the host vehicle {[0023] discloses determining the involvement requirement is satisfied based on exterior sensor signal: as illustrated in FIG. 1 a, in a case where the towed vehicles Mt are connected to the subject vehicles M, the scan areas 2L and 2R of the left and right rear side radars 2La and 2Ra are blocked by the towed vehicles Mt, and the rear side and the rear side are difficult to be detected, and thus are narrowed. Therefore, it is difficult to perform the lane change during the traveling in the second driving support mode. [0035] discloses exterior sensors. {[0031] discloses an interior sensor detecting interior conditions. [0029] discloses a gyro sensor and a longitudinal acceleration sensor, which are motion sensors, and detecting vehicle position}, give notification of the request for involvement in driving via a notification device provided in the interior of the host vehicle, when the involvement requirement is satisfied {[0022] discloses the involvement requirement. [0031] discloses giving notification according to the decision of the driving mode setting calculation unit. Being provided in the interior is implied. The decision requiring taking over by the driver means that the involvement requirement is satisfied}, and make the involvement requirement less strict when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected {[0023] discloses that when towing the towed vehicle is detected, the second driving support mode, which is one of automated mode is difficult to perform, and when the towed vehicle is not detected, the second driving support mode is possible. [0022] discloses that where it is difficult to continue the automatic driving in the second driving support mode, the mode is shifted to the first driving mode in which the driving operation is taken over by the driver. That is, there is a more need to require driver’s involvement when the towed vehicle is detected, which implies that the involvement requirement is made less strict when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected. The involvement requirements is considered conditions under which driver’s involvement needs to be required. When a towed vehicle is detected, driving situations which are not difficult with no towed vehicle become difficult, and conditions to request driver’s involvement should be less strict since driver’s involvement is more necessary}.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 9 and 10.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1, Mizoguchi discloses: wherein the processor determines that the involvement requirement is satisfied, when a speed of the host vehicle indicated by the vehicle motion signal is greater than a regulation speed of a road being traveled by the host vehicle by more than a predetermined speed threshold {[0028]: speed limit}; and sets the predetermined speed threshold to a lower value when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected {[0023], [0022]. Examiner notes that [0023] and [0022] disclose that autonomous driving becomes more difficult when towing a towed vehicle. An speed control is an essential part of autonomous driving}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1, Mizoguchi discloses: wherein the processor determines that the involvement requirement is satisfied, when a regulation speed of a road being traveled by the host vehicle is less than a predetermined speed; and sets the predetermined speed to a higher value when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected {[0039] discloses that at higher regulation speed, the predetermined speed may be set higher}.
Regarding claim 11, which depends from claim 1, Mizoguchi discloses: wherein the processor generates a planned trajectory extending in a host vehicle lane; and controls travel of the host vehicle to autonomously travel in accordance with the planned trajectory {[0021]: a navigation system… a traveling route… where the self vehicle M should go to this running route}.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 14 and 17.
Regarding claim 12, which depends from claim 11, Mizoguchi discloses: wherein the planned trajectory extends along a center of an area between lane lines that demarcate the host vehicle lane {[0021]: A target traveling path for traveling while maintaining the lane is set}.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 15 and 18.
Regarding claim 13, which depends from claim 1, Mizoguchi discloses: wherein the processor executes the autonomous driving control of the host vehicle; and determines whether the involvement requirement is satisfied while executing the autonomous driving control of the host vehicle {[0020], [0022]}.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 16 and 19.
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.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Lee et al. (US 20170247054 A1).
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Mizoguchi does not disclose: wherein the processor measures a lateral distance between a lane line demarcating a lane being traveled by the host vehicle and the host vehicle, based on the exterior sensor signal, and determines that the involvement requirement is satisfied, when the lateral distance is not greater than a predetermined distance threshold; and makes the distance threshold greater when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected.
Lee teaches a lateral distance between a lane line demarcating a lane being traveled by the host vehicle and the host vehicle in paragraph [0042]: a lane mark detection… lateral offset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the lateral distance feature of Lee with the described invention of Mizoguchi in order to include the lateral distance as a criteria for determining involvement requirement.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1, Lee teaches: wherein the processor determines that the involvement requirement is satisfied, when a radius of curvature of a curve in a section being traveled by the host vehicle or extending to a predetermined distance away is less than a predetermined curvature radius threshold; and sets the predetermined curvature radius threshold to a higher value when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected {[0042]: the curvature of the roadway}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the radius of curvature feature of Lee with the described invention of Mizoguchi in order to include the radius of curvature as a criteria for determining involvement requirement.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Lee and in further view of Kuwahara et al. (US 20160349755 A1).
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 2, Lee teaches: wherein the processor increases the distance threshold for a case where towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected {[0042]. Examiner notes the lateral distance (distance threshold) of Lee is considered as the involvement requirement of claim 1}.
Kuwahara teaches: as weight or volume of the towed vehicle increases {[0011]: vehicle weight is heavier… towing another vehicle}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance threshold feature of Lee to consider the towed vehicle weight factor of Kuwahara and to incorporate the modification with the described invention of Mizoguchi in order to include the distance threshold and towed vehicle weight as criteria for determining involvement requirement.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Kuwahara.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1, Kuwahara teaches: wherein the processor determines that the involvement requirement is satisfied, when a gradient of a road in a section being traveled by the host vehicle or extending to a predetermined distance away is not less than a predetermined gradient threshold; and sets the predetermined gradient threshold to a lower value when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected {[0029]: external condition… a road gradient}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the road gradient feature of Kuwahara with the described invention of Mizoguchi in order to include the road gradient as a criteria for determining involvement requirement.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Emura (US 20190375430 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Mizoguchi discloses:
A vehicle controller comprising: a processor configured to: detect that a host vehicle under autonomous driving control is towing a towed vehicle {[0012], [0013]},
execute lane change control of the host vehicle, when a predetermined condition is satisfied, so that the host vehicle makes a lane change from the host vehicle lane to the adjacent lane {[0022] discloses predetermined condition. [0023]: the scan areas 2L and 2R of the left and right rear side radars 2La and 2Ra are blocked by the towed vehicles Mt, and the rear side and the rear side are difficult to be detected, and thus are narrowed. Therefore, it is difficult to perform the lane change during the traveling in the second driving support mode. [0024]: since the first driving support mode is a traveling in a state in which the steering of the driver is a condition and the driver can take over the driving, when the driving support device 1 detects the intention of the lane change by the driver, it is possible to automatically perform the lane change},
determine whether an interruption condition is satisfied during execution of the lane change control, interrupt the lane change control when the interruption condition is satisfied {[0022], [0023], [0024]}, and
make the interruption condition less strict when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is detected than when towing the towed vehicle by the host vehicle is not detected {[0022], [0023]}.
Mizoguchi does not disclose:
[1] detect a relative position and a relative speed between the host vehicle and another vehicle traveling on an adjacent lane adjacent to a host vehicle lane being traveled by the host vehicle.
[2] the interruption condition that is set based on at least one of the relative speed or a change in the relative position.
[1], [2] Emura teaches to detect relative position and speed of another vehicle in paragraph [0035] teaches lane change as part of autonomous driving. [0043] teaches excluding collision possibility is a determination parameter for lane change. [0045]: a relative speed of a vehicle traveling in an adjacent lane with respect to vehicle 100, a distance between vehicle 100 and the vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane, and position information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the detecting relative position and speed of adjacent vehicle feature of Emura with the described invention of Mizoguchi in order to include detailed criteria for lane change.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jang (US 20200189592 A1) teaches autonomous lane change based on relative position and relative velocity of an adjacent vehicle.
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 CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661