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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 01/09/2026, in which claims 1-3 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the specification to overcome the drawing objections. Accordingly, the drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the specification to overcome the specification objections. Accordingly, the specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the title of the invention to overcome the objection to the title. Accordingly, the objection to the title has been withdrawn.
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 limitations use 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:
“an engine controller” (claims 1-2)
“a brake controller” (claims 1-2)
“a travel-control target selector” (claims 1-2)
“a preceding-vehicle change determiner” (claim 1)
“an instruction determiner” (claims 1-2)
“a tracking prohibition determiner” (claims 2-3)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (page 12, lines 20-27: “The vehicle control apparatus 10 includes an object detector 11, an operation determiner 12, a travel-control target selector 13, a preceding-vehicle change determiner 14, a tracking prohibition determiner 15, and an instruction determiner 16. The vehicle control apparatus 10 includes an ECU that is comprised of one or more known microcomputers that include, for example, at least one CPU, at least one ROM, at least one RAM, and at least one flash memory.”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saito et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0174230 A1 (hereinafter Saito).
Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a vehicle control apparatus (Saito Fig. 2)
for performing acceleration/deceleration assistance for an own vehicle traveling in an own lane to accordingly perform tracking control that causes the own vehicle to track a preceding vehicle detected in front of the own vehicle or detected to a front left side or front right side of the own vehicle (see at least Saito [0065]: “During the execution of ACC, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 400 uses a monitoring region 430. The monitoring region 430 is a detection region of an adjacent vehicle (for example, the adjacent vehicles 402 to 404) and a cut-in vehicle at the time of executing ACC.”; Saito Fig. 4 shows vehicles 401, 402, and 404 are preceding vehicles),
the vehicle control apparatus comprising: an engine controller configured to control an engine installed in the own vehicle; a brake controller configured to control a brake system installed in the own vehicle (see at least Saito [0035]: “The vehicle control device 108 obtains information outside the vehicle 100 from the sensors 109, and transmits a command value for realizing control such as automated driving to the engine 101, the brake devices 110, the electric power steering 111, and the like.”);
a travel-control target selector configured to select a tracking-control target that is a target of the tracking control (see at least Saito [0083]-[0084]: “In step S602, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 determines whether there is another vehicle (adjacent vehicle) in the adjacent lane 510A and in the monitoring region 530. In a case where the adjacent vehicle is present (S602: true (TRUE)), the process proceeds to step S603. In a case where there is no adjacent vehicle (S602: false (FALSE)), determination of a cut-in vehicle and acceleration correction of the own vehicle based on the determination are not performed. In step S603, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 acquires a relative speed between the own vehicle 500 and the adjacent vehicle 502 in the advancing direction.”);
a preceding-vehicle change determiner configured to: determine whether the tracking-control target is an adjacent preceding vehicle that is traveling ahead of the own vehicle in a lane adjacent to the own lane of the own vehicle (see at least Saito [0083]-[0084]: “In step S602, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 determines whether there is another vehicle (adjacent vehicle) in the adjacent lane 510A and in the monitoring region 530. In a case where the adjacent vehicle is present (S602: true (TRUE)), the process proceeds to step S603. In a case where there is no adjacent vehicle (S602: false (FALSE)), determination of a cut-in vehicle and acceleration correction of the own vehicle based on the determination are not performed. In step S603, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 acquires a relative speed between the own vehicle 500 and the adjacent vehicle 502 in the advancing direction.”; Saito Fig. 5(B) shows vehicle 502 is ahead of the own vehicle 500 in an adjacent lane);
determine, in response to determination that the tracking-control target is the adjacent preceding vehicle that is traveling ahead of the own vehicle in the adjacent lane, whether the adjacent preceding vehicle is likely to be changed as an own-lane preceding vehicle that will travel ahead of the own vehicle in the own lane (see at least Saito [0084]: “In step S603, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 acquires a relative speed between the own vehicle 500 and the adjacent vehicle 502 in the advancing direction. The relative speed in the advancing direction is used in step S605 and the like that will be described later in order to determine a possibility that the adjacent vehicle 502 cuts in to the own vehicle lane 510B.”);
and an instruction determiner configured to: calculate a target level of acceleration/deceleration of the own vehicle in accordance with determination of whether to perform the tracking control of the own vehicle with respect to the tracking-control target (see at least Saito [0090]: “In a case where the relative position between the own vehicle 500 and the adjacent vehicle 502 in the advancing direction is constant, a trigger for correcting the acceleration of the own vehicle 500 may be managed by using a flag such as a cut-in possibility flag or a first predetermined time elapse flag.”);
and determine, based on the calculated target level acceleration/deceleration of the own vehicle, one or more control instructions for the own vehicle (see at least Saito [0057]: “In a case where the adjacent vehicle starts to cut in to the own vehicle lane or after the adjacent vehicle has cut in, the target acceleration of the own vehicle may be corrected by the target acceleration calculation unit 206 on the basis of whether or not a value of the relative position, the relative distance, the relative speed, or the relative acceleration in the advancing direction or the lateral direction of the adjacent vehicle or the cut-in vehicle is within a certain range.”),
when it is determined that, with the adjacent preceding vehicle selected as the tracking-control target and an operated acceleration request for the own vehicle having been inputted to the vehicle control apparatus, the adjacent preceding vehicle is likely to be changed as an own-lane preceding vehicle (see at least Saito [0055]-[0056]: “The lane change detection unit 205 detects a relative relationship between a vehicle in the adjacent lane which is a target object and the own vehicle, detected by the various sensors, the inter-vehicle distance calculation unit 203, and the relative speed calculation unit 204, and determines a possibility that the adjacent vehicle changes the lane to (or cuts in) an own vehicle lane…In a case where it is determined that there is a possibility that the adjacent vehicle cuts in, the target acceleration calculation unit 206 that will be described later corrects a target acceleration. For example, in a case where the own vehicle performs inter-vehicle distance control with respect to a preceding vehicle, the correction of the target acceleration may include switching to vehicle speed control, reduction (deceleration) of the target acceleration, or acceleration restriction.”),
the engine controller and the brake controller perform acceleration/deceleration of the own vehicle to perform the tracking control of the own vehicle with respect to the adjacent preceding vehicle that causes the own vehicle to maintain a distance to the adjacent preceding vehicle (see at least Saito [0081]: “In FIG. 5 (C), the adjacent vehicle 502 is traveling toward the own vehicle lane 510B beyond the white line threshold value 540. When the adjacent vehicle 502 exceeds the white line threshold value 540, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 determines that the adjacent vehicle 502 has started a lane change to the own vehicle lane 510B (cut-in between the own vehicle 500 and the preceding vehicle 501). In this case, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 sets the adjacent vehicle 502 as a new preceding vehicle and starts inter-vehicle distance control with respect to the new preceding vehicle 502. That is, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 controls acceleration/deceleration of the own vehicle 500 such that the inter-vehicle distance D1 between the own vehicle 500 and the new preceding vehicle 502 is maintained to be the target inter-vehicle distance.”),
when it is determined that, with the adjacent preceding vehicle selected as the tracking-control target, (i) the operated acceleration request for the own vehicle has been inputted to the vehicle control apparatus and (ii) the adjacent preceding vehicle is unlikely to be changed as an own-lane preceding vehicle, the vehicle control apparatus being configured to terminate the tracking control of the own vehicle with respect to the adjacent preceding vehicle (see at least Saito [0100]-[0101]: “In a case where the second predetermined time has elapsed (S613: true), it is determined that there is no possibility of cut-in of the adjacent vehicle 502, and the process proceeds to step S614…In step S614, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 switches the travel control of the own vehicle 500 from the vehicle speed control to the inter-vehicle distance control. At that time, the preceding vehicle 501 that is the same target of the previous inter-vehicle distance control is set as the target of the inter-vehicle distance control.”; [0090]-[0091]: “In a case where the relative position between the own vehicle 500 and the adjacent vehicle 502 in the advancing direction is constant, a trigger for correcting the acceleration of the own vehicle 500 may be managed by using a flag such as a cut-in possibility flag or a first predetermined time elapse flag. In step S606, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 switches the travel control of the own vehicle 500 from the inter-vehicle distance control to the vehicle speed control.”; Saito Fig. 6 shows step S606 is performed before step S614; under broadest reasonable interpretation tracking with respect to the adjacent preceding vehicle is terminated because, after determining there is no possibility of the adjacent vehicle cutting-in to the lane, the target of inter-vehicle distance control is switched back to the preceding vehicle 501 instead of the previous target of adjacent preceding vehicle 502).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Yamamoto et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0074492 A1 (hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 2, Saito discloses a vehicle control apparatus (Saito Fig. 2)
for performing acceleration/deceleration assistance for an own vehicle traveling in an own lane to accordingly perform tracking control that causes the own vehicle to track a preceding vehicle detected in front of the own vehicle or detected to a front left side or front right side of the own vehicle (see at least Saito [0065]: “During the execution of ACC, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 400 uses a monitoring region 430. The monitoring region 430 is a detection region of an adjacent vehicle (for example, the adjacent vehicles 402 to 404) and a cut-in vehicle at the time of executing ACC.”; Saito Fig. 4 shows vehicles 401, 402, and 404 are preceding vehicles),
the vehicle control apparatus comprising: an engine controller configured to control an engine installed in the own vehicle; a brake controller configured to control a brake system installed in the own vehicle (see at least Saito [0035]: “The vehicle control device 108 obtains information outside the vehicle 100 from the sensors 109, and transmits a command value for realizing control such as automated driving to the engine 101, the brake devices 110, the electric power steering 111, and the like.”);
a travel-control target selector configured to select a tracking-control target that is a target of the tracking control (see at least Saito [0083]-[0084]: “In step S602, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 determines whether there is another vehicle (adjacent vehicle) in the adjacent lane 510A and in the monitoring region 530. In a case where the adjacent vehicle is present (S602: true (TRUE)), the process proceeds to step S603. In a case where there is no adjacent vehicle (S602: false (FALSE)), determination of a cut-in vehicle and acceleration correction of the own vehicle based on the determination are not performed. In step S603, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 acquires a relative speed between the own vehicle 500 and the adjacent vehicle 502 in the advancing direction.”);
wherein the engine controller and the brake controller performs acceleration/deceleration of the own vehicle to perform the tracking control of the own vehicle with respect to the tracking control target that causes the own vehicle to maintain a distance to an adjacent preceding vehicle (see at least Saito [0081]: “In FIG. 5 (C), the adjacent vehicle 502 is traveling toward the own vehicle lane 510B beyond the white line threshold value 540. When the adjacent vehicle 502 exceeds the white line threshold value 540, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 determines that the adjacent vehicle 502 has started a lane change to the own vehicle lane 510B (cut-in between the own vehicle 500 and the preceding vehicle 501). In this case, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 sets the adjacent vehicle 502 as a new preceding vehicle and starts inter-vehicle distance control with respect to the new preceding vehicle 502. That is, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 controls acceleration/deceleration of the own vehicle 500 such that the inter-vehicle distance D1 between the own vehicle 500 and the new preceding vehicle 502 is maintained to be the target inter-vehicle distance.”);
a tracking prohibition determiner configured to: terminate, when determining that an operated acceleration request for the own vehicle has been inputted to the vehicle control apparatus with the adjacent preceding vehicle selected as the tracking-control target, the tracking control of the own vehicle with respect to the adjacent preceding vehicle (see at least Saito [0100]-[0101]: “In a case where the second predetermined time has elapsed (S613: true), it is determined that there is no possibility of cut-in of the adjacent vehicle 502, and the process proceeds to step S614…In step S614, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 switches the travel control of the own vehicle 500 from the vehicle speed control to the inter-vehicle distance control. At that time, the preceding vehicle 501 that is the same target of the previous inter-vehicle distance control is set as the target of the inter-vehicle distance control.”; [0090]-[0091]: “In a case where the relative position between the own vehicle 500 and the adjacent vehicle 502 in the advancing direction is constant, a trigger for correcting the acceleration of the own vehicle 500 may be managed by using a flag such as a cut-in possibility flag or a first predetermined time elapse flag. In step S606, the vehicle control device of the own vehicle 500 switches the travel control of the own vehicle 500 from the inter-vehicle distance control to the vehicle speed control.”; Saito Fig. 6 shows step S606 is performed before step S614; under broadest reasonable interpretation tracking with respect to the adjacent preceding vehicle is terminated because, after determining there is no possibility of the adjacent vehicle cutting-in to the lane, the target of inter-vehicle distance control is switched back to the preceding vehicle 501 instead of the previous target of adjacent preceding vehicle 502);
and an instruction determiner configured to: calculate a target level of acceleration/deceleration of the own vehicle in accordance with determination of whether to perform the tracking control of the own vehicle with respect to the tracking-control target (see at least Saito [0090]: “In a case where the relative position between the own vehicle 500 and the adjacent vehicle 502 in the advancing direction is constant, a trigger for correcting the acceleration of the own vehicle 500 may be managed by using a flag such as a cut-in possibility flag or a first predetermined time elapse flag.”);
and determine, based on the calculated target level acceleration/deceleration of the own vehicle, one or more control instructions for the own vehicle (see at least Saito [0057]: “In a case where the adjacent vehicle starts to cut in to the own vehicle lane or after the adjacent vehicle has cut in, the target acceleration of the own vehicle may be corrected by the target acceleration calculation unit 206 on the basis of whether or not a value of the relative position, the relative distance, the relative speed, or the relative acceleration in the advancing direction or the lateral direction of the adjacent vehicle or the cut-in vehicle is within a certain range.”).
Saito fails to expressly disclose prohibiting the tracking control until a first period has elapsed since an own vehicle passed the adjacent preceding vehicle. However, Yamamoto teaches
determine whether a predetermined first period has elapsed since the own vehicle passed the adjacent preceding vehicle (see at least Yamamoto [0049]: “For example, when a specified location or the entirety of the vehicle 10 has passed through a predetermined position (a lane start position or the like) of a new lane that is entered into after making the right or left turn, it can be judged that the right or left turn has been completed.”);
and prohibit the tracking control of the own vehicle with respect to any vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane until it is determined that the predetermined first period has elapsed since the own vehicle passed the adjacent preceding vehicle (see at least Yamamoto [0079]: “If a transition is made from step S22 to step S23, the automatic driving control unit 82 initiates (resumes) automatic driving at a first point in time. Since the driver positively performs the steering operation at the time of turning to the right or left, there is a possibility that manual driving can be continued for a while immediately after turning to the right or left. Therefore, in this instance, the point in time that switching takes place from manual driving to automatic driving is delayed.”; under broadest reasonable interpretation tracking control is prohibited when manual driving is continued and the transition to automatic driving is delayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the apparatus disclosed by Saito with the prohibiting tracking taught by Yamamoto with reasonable expectation of success. Yamamoto is directed towards the related field of temporarily stopping and resuming automatic driving. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Saito with Yamamoto to prevent the driver from being confused (see at least Yamamoto [0012]: “Further, since automatic driving is not stopped again immediately after having been initiated, it is possible to prevent the driver from being confused.”).
Regarding claim 3, Saito in combination with Yamamoto teach all elements of the vehicle control apparatus according to claim 2 as explained above. Yamamoto further teaches wherein:
the tracking prohibition determiner is configured to, when determining that a forward adjacent preceding vehicle traveling ahead of the adjacent preceding vehicle has been detected before lapse of the first period since the own vehicle passed the adjacent preceding vehicle, continue prohibition of the tracking control of the own vehicle with respect to any vehicle traveling in the adjacent lane until it is determined that a predetermined second period has elapsed since the own vehicle passed the adjacent preceding vehicle (see at least Yamamoto [0085]: “The vehicle control device 20 further comprises the obstacle recognition unit 100 adapted to recognize an obstacle in front of the vehicle 10. Regardless of the aforementioned condition, if the obstacle is recognized by the obstacle recognition unit 100 (step S8: NO), then the automatic driving control unit 82 does not initiate automatic driving. In the event that an obstacle is present in front of the vehicle 10 after having made a right or left turn, it is more efficient for manual driving to be continued as is, and to carry out a contact avoidance action, rather than carrying out such a contact avoidance action by way of automatic driving after having switched from manual driving to automatic driving.”; Yamamoto Fig. 3 shows that if an obstacle is detected in step S8, the process returns to step S3 instead of continuing the process to initiate automatic driving; under broadest reasonable interpretation tracking control is prohibited when manual driving is continued and the transition to automatic driving is delayed).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J SLOWIK whose telephone number is (571)270-5608. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI: 0900-1700.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/ELIZABETH J SLOWIK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662