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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, every feature of the invention specified in the claims must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should read: A device for minimizing soiling of an environmental sensor (10) of a vehicle (20), comprising:
an evaluation unit (30),wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured to:
determine information about objects (40) in the environment of the vehicle (20) which are potentially set up to cause soiling of the environmental sensor (10) in a region of a field of view of the environmental sensor (10),
; and
Claim 2, line 3 should read: based on:
Claim 4, line 2 should read: the vehicle (20) is:
Claim 4, line 3 should read:
Claim 5, line 3 should read: depending on:
Claim 6, line 4 should read: in that:
Claim 7 should read: The device according to claim 1,one of the preceding claims, wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured to:
determine a degree and/or a type of soiling of the environmental sensor (10), and
Claim 8, line 2 should read: wherein:
Claim 10 should read: The device according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured to:
Claim 11, line 4 should read: only if:
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: evaluation unit in claims 1-11 and cleaning unit in claims 8-9.
evaluation unit comprises a microcontroller or an ASIC (Applicant’s specification as filed [0021]).
cleaning unit comprises a nozzle…in conjunction with a pressure generator…e.g., a pump (Applicant’s specification as filed [0023]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a device for minimizing soiling of an environmental sensor of a vehicle (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed
to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below)
and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A device for minimizing soiling of an environmental sensor (10) of a vehicle (20), comprising
an evaluation unit (30),wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured
to determine information about objects (40) in the environment of the vehicle (20) which are potentially set up to cause soiling of the environmental sensor (10) in a region of a field of view of the environmental sensor (10),
to determine minimum distances to the respective objects (40) based on the determined information, compliance with which is suitable for minimizing soiling of the environmental sensor (10), and
to generate and provide a signal representing the determined minimum distances.
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. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at an object and forming a simple judgement.. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as
follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”) while the bolded portions
continue to represent the “abstract idea”:
A device for minimizing soiling of an environmental sensor (10) of a vehicle (20), comprising
an evaluation unit (30),wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured
to determine information about objects (40) in the environment of the vehicle (20) which are potentially set up to cause soiling of the environmental sensor (10) in a region of a field of view of the environmental sensor (10),
to determine minimum distances to the respective objects (40) based on the determined information, compliance with which is suitable for minimizing soiling of the environmental sensor (10), and
to generate and provide a signal representing the determined minimum distances.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional
limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “generate and provide a signal…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the generate and provide steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting and outputting data from the determining steps ), and amounts to mere post solution, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The device for minimizing soiling of an environmental sensor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the aggregate and calculate steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular vehicle navigation or control problem, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the determining… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “generate and provide …”; the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in
Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “generate and provide …” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, and the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer network component. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-11 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 and 9-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-7 and 9-11 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Miura et al. (US 20190161090 A1; Miura).
Regarding claim 1, Miura teaches a device for minimizing soiling of an environmental sensor (10) of a vehicle (20) (Fig 2, automated driving control device – box 100), comprising
an evaluation unit (30) (Fig 2, first controller-box 120)
wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured
to determine information about objects (40) in the environment of the vehicle (20) which are potentially set up to cause soiling of the environmental sensor (10) in a region of a field of view of the environmental sensor (10) (Fig 2, first controller/determiner- box 146; [0071] The determiner…determines whether or not the rainwater or the like on the road that is being flung up by the preceding vehicle…affects the recognition accuracy of the recognizer…including the object recognition device by adhering to the information collection surface of the camera…or the like on the basis of the state of the front side on the subject vehicle)
to determine minimum distances to the respective objects (40) based on the determined information, compliance with which is suitable for minimizing soiling of the environmental sensor (10) (Fig 2, first controller/action plan generator- box 150; [0122] the action plan generator…may set different inter-vehicle distances according to the flung-up degree derived by the determiner), and
to generate and provide a signal representing the determined minimum distances (Fig 2, first controller/action plan generator- box 150; [0122] the action plan generator…may control the speed of the subject vehicle…so that the inter-vehicle distance of a case where the flung-up degree is high is higher than a case where the flung-up degree is low).
Regarding claim 2, Miura teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured to determine the information about the objects (40) in the environment of the vehicle (20) (Fig 2, first controller/determiner- box 146; [0071] The determiner…determines whether or not the rainwater or the like on the road that is being flung up by the preceding vehicle…affects the recognition accuracy of the recognizer…including the object recognition device by adhering to the information collection surface of the camera…or the like on the basis of the state of the front side on the subject vehicle) based on
the environmental sensor (10) and/or
a further sensor (50) of the vehicle which differs from the environmental sensor (10) ([0071] The determiner…determines whether or not the rainwater or the like on the road that is being flung up by the preceding vehicle…affects the recognition accuracy of the recognizer
…including the object recognition device…by adhering to the information collection surface of the camera…or the like on the basis of the state of the front side on the subject vehicle M).
Regarding claim 3, Miura teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit (30) is set to determine the information about the objects (40) in the environment of the vehicle (20) on the basis of a wireless communication link (60) (Fig 2, first controller/acquirer- box 142; [0067] The acquirer
…acquires weather information of a region in which the subject vehicle M is present using the communication device…acquires the weather information from the external server, using the communication device), via which the evaluation unit (30) is configured to receive the information about the objects (40) from a wireless communication participant (65) arranged away from the vehicle (20) ([0072] The determiner…may determine whether or not the rainwater or the like on the road that is being flung up by the preceding vehicle m affects the recognizer…on the basis of the weather information acquired by the acquirer).
Regarding claim 4, Miura teaches the device according to claim 3, wherein the wireless communication participant (65) away from the vehicle (20)
is another road user, and/or
a traffic information system, and/or a traffic guidance system, and/or
a weather service, and/or a cloud service ([0067] acquires the weather information from the external server, using the communication device…includes types of weather (rain, snow, sunny, cloudy, and the like), information indicating the amount of precipitation).
Regarding claim 5, Miura teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured to determine respective minimum distances to the objects (40) depending on
an arrangement position and/or a type and/or an orientation of the environmental sensor (10) on the vehicle (20), and/or
a characteristic of the objects (40), and/or
vehicle parameters and/or operating parameters of the vehicle (20), and/or
a prediction of a relative movement and/or
a relative speed of the objects (40) in relation to the vehicle (20), and/or
a position and/or a direction of travel of the vehicle (20) and/or the objects ([0093] the determiner…determines that the rainwater or the like on the road that is being flung up by the preceding vehicle…affects the recognizer….The action plan generator…sets the inter-vehicle distance to the preceding vehicle…to D2 larger than D1 on the basis of the determination result by the determiner).
a road type and/or a condition of a roadway (140), and/or
a planned driving maneuver of the vehicle (20), and/or
a traffic volume, and/or
an active route guidance of the vehicle (20), and/or
route parameters, and/or
weather information
Regarding claim 6, Miura teaches the device according to claim 1,further comprising a control unit (70) which is configured to receive the signal from the evaluation unit (30) and to set respective minimum distances to the objects (40) on the basis of the signal, in that
a trajectory, and/or
a driving maneuver, and/or
a route, and/or
a speed and/or an acceleration of the vehicle (20) is automatically adapted ([0122] the action plan generator…may set different inter-vehicle distances according to the flung-up degree derived by the determiner…the action plan generator…may control the speed of the subject vehicle…so that the inter-vehicle distance of a case where the flung-up degree is high is higher than a case where the flung-up degree is low), and/or
a start of travel and/or an interruption of travel for the vehicle (20) is suggested
Regarding claim 7, Miura teaches the device according to claim 1,one of the preceding wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured
to determine a degree and/or a type of soiling of the environmental sensor (10), and additionally ([0122] the determiner 146 may derive the flung-up degree according to the degree of the recognition ability)
to determine the respective minimum distances to the objects (40) depending on the degree and/or the type of soiling of the environmental sensor (10) ([0122] the action plan generator…may set different inter-vehicle distances according to the flung-up degree derived by the determiner…the action plan generator…may control the speed of the subject vehicle…so that the inter-vehicle distance of a case where the flung-up degree is high is higher than a case where the flung-up degree is low).
Regarding claim 10, Miura teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured
to determine suitable minimum distances in each case on the basis of a comparison of a present driving situation with driving situations which are stored in a predefined data set (90) in conjunction with corresponding minimum distances, and/or
to update and/or extend the data set (90) on the basis of a machine learning method and/or on the basis of data provided remotely from the vehicle (20) ([0101] The action plan generator ….adjusts the inter-vehicle distance between the subject vehicle M and the preceding vehicle m on the basis of the recognition result by the state recognizer).
Regarding claim 11, Miura teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured to determine information about soiling-causing objects (40) in the environment of the vehicle (10) ([0071] The determiner…determines whether or not the rainwater or the like on the road that is being flung up by the preceding vehicle…affects the recognition accuracy of the recognizer) and/or suitable minimum distances and/or to generate and provide the signal representing the minimum distances only if
predefined environmental criteria are met ([0122] the action plan generator…may set different inter-vehicle distances according to the flung-up degree derived by the determiner), and/or
driving safety is not impaired, and/or
driving comfort is restricted only within a predefined range.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (US 20190161090 A1; Miura) in view of Herse et al. (US 20240034278 A1; hereafter Herse).
Regarding claim 8, Miura teaches the device according to claim 7. Miura does not explicitly teach further having a cleaning unit (80), wherein
the cleaning unit (80) is configured to clean the environmental sensor (10) at least in a region which is set up to influence a field of view of the environmental sensor (10),and
the evaluation unit (30) is configured to initiate cleaning of the environmental sensor (10) by controlling the cleaning unit (80) if the degree of soiling of the environmental sensor (10) exceeds a predefined threshold value and/or if a type of soiling corresponds to one or more predefined categories. However, Herse teaches these limitations.
Herse teaches further having a cleaning unit (80), wherein
the cleaning unit (80) is configured to clean the environmental sensor (10) at least in a region which is set up to influence a field of view of the environmental sensor (10) ([0062] The sensor cleaning module…may determine the frequency based on one or more attributes of the sensor…e.g., pose (position, orientation, or both) of the sensor, material of the sensor, sensitivity to contaminants…one or more attributes of the environment surrounding the sensor…e.g., cleanness of the environment, weather of the environment),and
the evaluation unit (30) is configured to initiate cleaning of the environmental sensor (10) by controlling the cleaning unit (80) if the degree of soiling of the environmental sensor (10) exceeds a predefined threshold value and/or if a type of soiling corresponds to one or more predefined categories ([0061] The sensor cleaning module…may determine whether the contamination condition of the sensor meets a threshold condition, e.g., a threshold number of contaminants, a threshold concentration of contaminants…e.g., number per unit area or unit volume).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miura and Herse to include the evaluation unit is configured to initiate cleaning of the environmental sensor by controlling the cleaning unit if the degree of soiling of the environmental sensor exceeds a predefined threshold value so that the cleanness of a sensor can influence the accuracy in the detection of the sensor, which can further influence the performance of the AV (Herse, [0037]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (US 20190161090 A1; Miura) in view of Herse et al. (US 20240034278 A1; hereafter Herse) in further view of Violetta et al. (US 20210107040 A1; hereafter Violetta).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Miura and Herse teaches the device according to claim 8. The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured to additionally determine the minimum distances taking into account an existing cleaning capacity of the cleaning unit (80). However, Violetta teaches this limitation.
Violetta teaches wherein the evaluation unit (30) is configured to additionally determine the minimum distances taking into account an existing cleaning capacity of the cleaning unit (80) ([0036] An amount of remaining sensor cleaning fluid can limit how far…a distance) vehicle…can safely travel. For example, when contaminate builds up on sensors…to a degree requiring cleaning but vehicle sensor cleaning system…runs out of sensor cleaning fluid or does not have enough sensor cleaning fluid to clean sensors ….sufficiently, vehicle…may not be safely operated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Miura and Herse to include the evaluation unit is configured to additionally determine the minimum distances taking into account an existing cleaning capacity of the cleaning unit as taught by Violetta so that optimizing use of sensor cleaning fluid can thus improve functioning of vehicle 100 and extend how far vehicle 100 can safely travel (Violetta, [0036]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOYA PETTIEGREW whose telephone number is (313)446-6636. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30pm - 5:00pm M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOYA PETTIEGREW/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights