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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1 and 4-16 are currently pending.
3. Claim 16 is new.
4. Claims 2-3 are canceled.
5. Claims 1, 4-11, and 13-15 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1, 4-5, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujino (US 20200398826 A1), in view of Bae (US 20180099661 A1), and in further view of Hiei (JP 2014100958 A; already of record).
10. Regarding Claim 1, Tsujino teaches a parking assistance device that assists traveling and parking of a vehicle in a parking lot, the parking assistance device comprising (Tsujino: [0001]):
At least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the parking assistance device to (Tsujino: [0060]):
Search for a parking space for parking the vehicle in the parking lot based on surrounding information of the vehicle acquired by a surrounding monitoring sensor mounted on the vehicle (Tsujino: [0084] and [0092]);
Provide a user with information for prompting a selection of a target parking space for parking the vehicle from the parking space obtained as a search result in the parking lot (Tsujino: [0087]);
And set a target parking position of the vehicle based on the target parking space selected by the user (Tsujino: [0076], [0078], and [0087]),
Wherein providing the user with information for prompting the selection of the target parking space comprises providing the user with area information by visually presenting, on a display, a designated range that explicitly includes a plurality of parking spots in the parking space, the designated range is visually distinguished from other areas and indicates a selectable range for the user… (Tsujino: [0075] and [0091]),
The at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the parking assistance device to provide the area information to the user during search traveling in which the vehicle travels in the parking lot while searching for the parking space in the parking lot (Tsujino: [0073] and [0076]).
Tsujino fails to explicitly teach the designated range is presented to the user without considering a vacancy state of each parking spot of the plurality of parking spots.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bae teaches providing the user with information for prompting the selection of the target parking space comprises providing the user with area information by visually presenting, on a display, a designated range that explicitly includes a plurality of parking spots in the parking space… the designated range is presented to the user without considering a vacancy state of each parking spot of the plurality of parking spots (Bae: [0134] and [0135] Note that Fig. 8 display two areas bordered in bold to indicate available parking areas. This is equivalent to a designated range presented to the user without considering a vacancy state. Other vehicles are included inside this border.).
Tsujino and Bae are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle and parking control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsujino to incorporate the teachings of Bae for the designated range to be presented to the user without considering a vacancy state of a parking spot because it provides the benefit to determine candidate parking spots based on a no parking areas rather than the pattern of other vehicles because it avoids the problem of obstructing another vehicle, as explicitly explained in [0134] and [0135] of Bae.
Tsujino does not explicitly teach to cause the parking assistance device to change at least one of a displayed size of the designated range and a displayed position of the designated range on the display according to a traveling speed of the vehicle during the search traveling. However, Tsujino teaches in [0084] and [0133] that the parking area being displayed is dependent on the vehicle speed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to cause the parking assistance device to change a displayed size or position of the designated range on the display according to a traveling speed of the vehicle as similarly shown in Tsujino's [0084] and [0133] use of displaying the parking area based on the speed of the vehicle to provide the benefit of avoiding a reduction in detection accuracy. Tsujino teaches to not display the parking position candidates and parking area when the vehicle is above a speed threshold (Fig. 13B). Changing the displayed size or position of that designated range may be broadly interpreted as removing the parking area from the display because the size of the parking area is not displayed the same size or in the same position compared to when the vehicle is traveling in the low-speed scenarios.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Hiei teaches to cause the parking assistance device to change at least one of a displayed size of the designated range and a displayed position of the designated range on the display according to a traveling speed of the vehicle during the search traveling (Hiei: [0038], [0040], and [0048] Note that the target position notification unit provides the support device (which includes a display device) information on the target parking position within the search range. This is equivalent to a displayed designated range.).
Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle and parking control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsujino and Bae to incorporate the teachings of Hiei to change the size or position of the displayed designated range because it provides the benefit of improving the accuracy of the detection of candidate parking spots by supporting the setting of the target parking position in the area not intended by the driver. Adjusting the size or position also shortens the calculation time. These benefits are explicitly explained in [0065] of Hiei.
11. Regarding Claim 4, Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei remains as applied as above in Claim 1, and further Hiei teaches to cause the parking assistance device to change the size of the designated range such that the size of the designated range increases as the traveling speed of the vehicle during the search traveling increases (Hiei: [0040]).
12. Regarding Claim 5, Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei remains as applied as above in Claim 1, and further Hiei teaches to cause the parking assistance device to change the position of the designated range such that the position of the designated range is shifted to a position away from the vehicle as the traveling speed of the vehicle during the search traveling increases (Hiei: [0040]).
13. Regarding Claim 14, Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Tsujino teaches to cause the parking assistance device to provide the area information to the user in a visual manner (Tsujino: [0091]).
14. Regarding Claim 15, Tsujino teaches a parking assistance method that assists traveling and parking of a vehicle in a parking lot, the parking assistance method performed by at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor, comprising (Tsujino: [0001] and [0060]):
Searching for a parking space for parking the vehicle in the parking lot based on surrounding information of the vehicle acquired by a surrounding monitoring sensor mounted on the vehicle (Tsujino: [0084] and [0092]);
Providing a user with information for prompting a selection of a target parking space for parking the vehicle from the parking space obtained as a search result in the parking lot (Tsujino: [0087]);
And setting a target parking position of the vehicle based on the target parking space selected by the user (Tsujino: [0076], [0078], and [0087]),
Wherein when a selection of the target parking space in which the vehicle is to be parked from the parking space is promoted, providing the user with information for prompting the selection of the target parking space comprises providing the user with area information by visually presenting, on a display, a designated range that explicitly includes parking spots in the parking space, the designated range is visually distinguished from other areas and indicates a selectable range for the user… (Tsujino: [0075] and [0091]),
The at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to provide the area information to the user during search traveling in which the vehicle travels in the parking lot while searching for the parking space in the parking lot (Tsujino: [0073] and [0076]).
Tsujino fails to explicitly teach the designated range is presented to the user without considering a vacancy state of each parking spot of the plurality of parking spots.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bae teaches wherein when a selection of the target parking space in which the vehicle is to be parked from the parking space is promoted, providing the user with information for prompting the selection of the target parking space comprises providing the user with area information by visually presenting, on a display, a designated range that explicitly includes parking spots in the parking space… the designated range is presented to the user without considering a vacancy state of each parking spot of the plurality of parking spots (Bae: [0134] and [0135] Note that Fig. 8 display two areas bordered in bold to indicate available parking areas. This is equivalent to a designated range presented to the user without considering a vacancy state. Other vehicles are included inside this border.).
Tsujino and Bae are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle and parking control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsujino to incorporate the teachings of Bae for the designated range to be presented to the user without considering a vacancy state of a parking spot because it provides the benefit to determine candidate parking spots based on a no parking areas rather than the pattern of other vehicles because it avoids the problem of obstructing another vehicle, as explicitly explained in [0134] and [0135] of Bae.
Tsujino does not explicitly teach to change at least one of a displayed size of the designated range and a displayed position of the designated range on the display according to a traveling speed of the vehicle during the search traveling. However, Tsujino teaches in [0084] and [0133] that the parking area being displayed is dependent on the vehicle speed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to cause the parking assistance device to change a displayed size or position of the designated range on the display according to a traveling speed of the vehicle as similarly shown in Tsujino's [0084] and [0133] use of displaying the parking area based on the speed of the vehicle to provide the benefit of avoiding a reduction in detection accuracy. Tsujino teaches to not display the parking position candidates and parking area when the vehicle is above a speed threshold (Fig. 13B). Changing the displayed size or position of that designated range may be broadly interpreted as removing the parking area from the display because the size of the parking area is not displayed the same size or in the same position compared to when the vehicle is traveling in the low-speed scenarios.
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Hiei teaches to change at least one of a displayed size of the designated range and a displayed position of the designated range on the display according to a traveling speed of the vehicle during the search traveling (Hiei: [0038], [0040], and [0048] Note that the target position notification unit provides the support device (which includes a display device) information on the target parking position within the search range. This is equivalent to a displayed designated range.).
Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle and parking control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsujino and Bae to incorporate the teachings of Hiei to change the size or position of the displayed designated range because it provides the benefit of improving the accuracy of the detection of candidate parking spots by supporting the setting of the target parking position in the area not intended by the driver. Adjusting the size or position also shortens the calculation time. These benefits are explicitly explained in [0065] of Hiei.
15. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujino (US 20200398826 A1), in view of Bae (US 20180099661 A1), in view of Hiei (JP 2014100958 A; already of record), and in further view of Kuroda (US 20190333384 A1).
16. Regarding Claim 6, Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei fails to explicitly teach to cause the parking assistance device to change at least one of the size of the designated range and the position of the designated range according to a parking orientation of the vehicle at the target parking position.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kuroda teaches to cause the parking assistance device to change at least one of the size of the designated range and the position of the designated range according to a parking orientation of the vehicle at the target parking position (Kuroda: [0041] and [0047]).
Tsujino, Bae, Hiei and Kuroda are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle and parking control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei to incorporate the teachings of Kuroda to change the size or position of the designated range because it provides the benefit of determining whether or not parking in the parking space can be performed with higher accuracy, as explicitly explained in [0046] of Kuroda.
17. Regarding Claim 7, Tsujino, Bae, Hiei and Kuroda remains as applied as above in Claim 6, and further Kuroda teaches to cause the parking assistance device to change the size of the designated range such that the size of the designated range increases when the vehicle is parked forward at the target parking position as compared with a case where the vehicle is parked backward (Kuroda: [0041] and [0047]).
18. Regarding Claim 8, Tsujino, Bae, Hiei and Kuroda remains as applied as above in Claim 6, and further Kuroda teaches to cause the parking assistance device to change the position of the designated range such that the position of the designated range is shifted to a position away from the vehicle when the vehicle is parked forward at the target parking position as compared with a case where the vehicle is parked backward (Kuroda: [0041] and [0047]).
19. Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujino (US 20200398826 A1), in view of Bae (US 20180099661 A1), in view of Hiei (JP 2014100958 A; already of record), in view of Kuroda (US 20190333384 A1), and in further view of Tagawa (US 20200041287 A1).
20. Regarding Claim 9, Tsujino, Bae, Hiei and Kuroda remains as applied above in Claim 6.
Tsujino, Bae, Hiei and Kuroda fails to explicitly teach to cause the parking assistance device to estimate whether the parking orientation is forward or backward based on a positional relationship between an angled parking spot and the vehicle when the parking spot included in the designated range is the angled parking spot angled with respect to a traveling direction of the vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tagawa teaches to cause the parking assistance device to estimate whether the parking orientation is forward or backward based on a positional relationship between an angled parking spot and the vehicle when the parking spot included in the designated range is the angled parking spot angled with respect to a traveling direction of the vehicle (Tagawa: [0039] and [0040]).
Tsujino, Bae, Hiei, Kuroda, and Tagawa are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle and parking control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsujino, Bae, Hiei and Kuroda to incorporate the teachings of Tagawa to estimate whether the parking orientation is forward or backward based on a positional relationship because it provides the benefit of assisting the vehicle park at a correct attitude by computing a parking path into a target parking position, as explicitly explained in [0008] of Tagawa.
21. Regarding Claim 10, Tsujino, Bae, Hiei, Kuroda, and Tagawa remains as applied as above in Claim 9, and further Tagawa teaches to cause the parking assistance device to determine that the parking orientation is forward when a distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction to a near side in the angled parking spot is smaller than a distance to a far side (Tagawa: [0040]).
And determines that the parking orientation is backward when the distance from the vehicle in the traveling direction to the far side in the angled parking spot is smaller than the distance to the near side (Tagawa: [0039]).
22. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujino (US 20200398826 A1), in view of Bae (US 20180099661 A1), in view of Hiei (JP 2014100958 A; already of record), and in further view of Wilding (US 20200017100 A1).
23. Regarding Claim 11, Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei fails to explicitly teach to cause the parking assistance device to cause the vehicle to automatically move along a predetermined target route, and when a predetermined condition is satisfied in the parking lot, cause the vehicle to automatically move along a search route generated to perform the search traveling in the parking lot as a target route.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wilding teaches to cause the parking assistance device to cause the vehicle to automatically move along a predetermined target route (Wilding: [0035]),
And when a predetermined condition is satisfied in the parking lot, cause the vehicle to automatically move along a search route generated to perform the search traveling in the parking lot as a target route (Wilding: [0039] and [0040]).
Tsujino, Bae, Hiei, and Wilding are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle and parking control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei to incorporate the teachings of Wilding to move along a predetermined target route to search in a parking lot when the vehicle cannot park because it provides the benefit of ensuring the vehicle is parked in a permissible parking spot. Determining a permissible parking spot improves the reliability of selecting parking spaces and the vehicle continues until a space is found, as explicitly explained in [0009] and [0040] of Wilding.
24. Regarding Claim 12, Tsujino, Bae, Hiei, and Wilding remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Wilding teaches the predetermined condition is satisfied when the vehicle cannot be parked at least at the target parking position (Wilding: [0039]).
25. Regarding Claim 13, Tsujino, Bae, Hiei, and Wilding remains as applied above in Claim 11, and further, Tsujino teaches to cause the parking assistance device to generate the target route (Tsujino: [0083]),
And when the target parking position is set, generate a parking route leading to the target parking position as the target route, and when the parking route is generated, cause the vehicle to automatically move to the target parking position along the parking route (Tsujino: [0078] and [0081]).
26. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsujino (US 20200398826 A1), in view of Bae (US 20180099661 A1), in view of Hiei (JP 2014100958 A; already of record), and in further view of Hasejima (US 20200353914 A1).
27. Regarding Claim 16, Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Tsujino teaches providing the user with the area information comprises displaying, on the display, a superimposed image in which a... frame image indicating the designated range is superimposed on a camera viewpoint image generated based on images captured by a surrounding monitoring camera mounted on the vehicle, the... frame image surrounding the plurality of parking spots reflected in the camera viewpoint image (Tsujino: [0061], [0075], and [0091] Note that at least Figs. 7A, 11A, and 13A display the designated range that is superimposed on a camera viewpoint image generated based on images captured by a surrounding camera mounted on the vehicle.).
Tsujino discloses the claimed invention except for an elliptical round frame image. However, it would have been well within the skill level of one ordinary skill in the art to substitute a rectangular frame image indicating the designated range for an elliptical absent a showing to the contrary. The Applicant has not disclosed anything that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with a rectangular designated range.
Additionally, Hasejima teaches an elliptical round frame image indicating the designated range (Hasejima: [0051] and [0110] Note that Fig. 11 indicates the designated range as a circle which is a type of ellipse.).
Tsujino, Bae, Hiei, and Hasejima are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of vehicle and parking control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsujino, Bae, and Hiei to incorporate the teachings of Hasejima to display the designated range as an elliptical round frame image because it provides the benefit of a displaying a parking area with an alternative shape, as explicitly explained in [0051] of Hasejima. The parking area may still be recorded regardless of the shape of the parking area.
Response to Arguments
28. Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
29. First, the Applicant has alleged "the rejection of Claim 1 is improper because Tsujino and Bae cannot be reasonable combined under MPEP 2143.01(V) and MPEP 2143.01(V1)." The Examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Tsujino teaches in at least [0084] to determine and set parking area 50 that is larger than the vehicle and clear of obstacles that hinder travel of the vehicle. The type of parking area is selected based on if other vehicles are parked in a certain direction or based on the size of the parking area. The parking space in the parking area is selected as a vacant spot with sufficient size to park the vehicle. However, Tsujino does not explicitly teach that the parking area is selected without considering a vacancy state of each parking spot in the area.
Bae has been applied to improve on Tsujino's selection of the designated parking range. It is explicitly taught in [0134] of Bae that determines a parking spot based on the pattern of other vehicles without considering the no parking area, a problem may occur when another vehicle's passage is obstructed. Therefore, to fix this problem, Bae teaches in [0135] to determines the designated parking area based on if a vehicle is able to park without obstructing another vehicle. Fig. 10 displays several parking areas identified as AA1 and AA2. The parking areas are determined based on there being sufficient size to park. The designated parking area AA1 includes another vehicle 510 and designated parking area AA2 does not include another vehicle. This is equivalent to presenting the designated range to the user without considering a vacancy state of each parking spot. Bae does not consider the vacancy state because it detects the designated parking areas based on the size and determining no parking areas.
It would have been obvious to combine Tsujino and Bae because Bae improves on Tsujino's designated range selection. Bae explicitly teaches in [0134] and [0135] that there is a benefit to determine candidate parking spots based on a no parking area rather than the pattern of other vehicles because it avoids the problem of obstructing another vehicle. This explicit motivation in Bae is the strongest type of motivation.
As a result, Tsujino in view of Bae is a reasonable combination. Tsujino would not be unsatisfactory for its purpose when in combination with Bae because Tsujino still selects a target space from a designated range.
30. Second, the Applicant has alleged "the cited references fail to teach the feature(s) ‘cause the parking assistance device to change at least one of a displayed size of the designated range and a displayed position of the designated range on the display according to a traveling speed of the vehicle during the search traveling.'" The Examiner disagrees.
Tsujino teaches in [0084] and [0133] that the parking area being displayed is dependent on the vehicle speed. Tsujino teaches to not display the parking position candidates and parking area when the vehicle is above a speed threshold (Fig. 13B). Changing the displayed size or position of the designated range may be broadly interpreted as removing the parking area from the display because the size of the parking area is not displayed the same size or in the same position compared to when the vehicle is traveling in the low-speed scenarios. As currently claimed, there is no indication of a size the designated ranges changes to and there is no indication of a position the designated range changes to.
Additionally, Hiei teaches to change the size or position of the designated range in at least [0038] and [0040] because the size and position are variable based on the state of the vehicle (which includes vehicle speed). Further, Hiei teaches in [0030] and [0048] that the target position notification unit provides the support device (which includes a display device) information on the target parking position within the search range. This is equivalent to a displayed designated range. Therefore, Hiei teaches that the designated range is provided to the user via the support device including the display.
In addition, it appears that the Applicant is arguing the references individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As was specifically stated in the Final Office Action mailed 1/29/2026, Hiei was used to disclose changing the size or position of designated range. Tsujino was used to teach displaying the designated range. Thus, Hiei still teaches the features for which it was cited and also teaches that the changing designated range is notified to the user of the vehicle.
31. The cited prior art references in the rejections above teach all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
32. Claims 1 and 4-15 remain rejected and Claim 16 is newly rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights