DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on ----2/12/2026 for application 18/626,501. Claim 1 – 20 are pending and have been examined.
Claim 1 – 5 and 12 – 15 are amended.
Claim rejection of 7, 9, 17 and 19 under et U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn. These claims are objected.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/12/2026 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ye, CN112641445.
Applicant stated in page 12 – 13 regarding Claim 1 and 11 that “the recorded number of head nods in Kin does not involve evaluation of a behavioral performance of the driver”, “The underlying concept of the present invention is to personalize driving warning alerts by accumulating historical correlations between a driver's driving behavior and the driver's facial expressions. Accordingly, the collected historical behavioral performance records are further subjected to positive or negative attribute adjustments (i.e., the evaluation) based on subsequent vehicle driving conditions.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kin teaches a plurality of predefined dangerous events, each with its own counter: “the driver state can be a number indicating a frequency of head nods (e.g., the number of head nods over a period of time) … the threshold can be set to a value to determine whether the frequency of head nods over a period of time indicate a drowsy or non-drowsy driver”, “head looks from a forward-looking direction to a non-forward-looking direction … the threshold can be set to a value to determine whether the driver is attentive or distracted” (0447 – 0448). Kim further illustrated how the behavior performance of the driver relating to these pre-determined dangerous events are evaluated/recognized (Fig. 37 & 0366). Thus, within BRI, Kim fulfills the claimed limitation. In addition, “FIGS. 70 and 71 illustrate schematic views of methods of alerting a drowsy driver using visual, audible, and tactile feedback for a driver” (0526) which do not conflict with the number count. Examiner further note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, Ye reference teaches that “the current early warning reliable state can be marked, the system can record the marking accuracy, continuously self-learn and correct the preset threshold state set, continuously iterate and optimize the real data model matching the physiological parameters and behaviors of the driver, and correct the early warning accuracy” (Ye translation page 14). The evaluation of historic driver behavior are used to update current/future warning threshold. Thus, Ye also fulfill the claimed limitation. For the current office action and in light of the applicant’s amendment, the evaluation in claim 1 is interpreted as post warning evaluation taught by Ye.
Applicant further stated in page 13 that “claims 1 and 11 require employing the historical behavioral performance record to determine whether to issue an immediate warning output in response to the occurrence of the specific dangerous event. However, as disclosed in FIGS. 69-71 of Kin, the action of determining whether the driver is drowsy is not triggered by an occurrence of a specific dangerous event, so Kin does not meet the claimed limitation.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the “historical behavioral performance”, within BRI, involves continuous monitoring of the driver and evaluate/recognize dangerous events such as head nods and/or look aways . Kim’s system counts head nods over a past (history) period of time to determine if the current head nods pass the threshold and triggers a warning and thus fulfill the claimed limitation. Fig. 69 – 71 illustrate different forms/levels of warnings.
The rest of the arguments are moot arguments 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.
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.
Such claim limitation is:
“an event detection module … detecting …” in Claim 1. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at [0014] of the instant application as program codes to be executed by a processor.
“a behavior determination module … identifying …” in Claim 1. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at [0015] of the instant application as program codes to be executed by a processor.
“a processing module … controlling …” in Claim 1. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at [0017] of the instant application as realized using a processor.
“a storage module … stores …” in Claim 11. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at [0013] of the instant application as a non-transitory storage medium, such as a flash memory module, a hard disk drive, a solid state drive, etc.
“a warning module … issue …” in Claim 11. Structure for this limitation maybe found at least at [0016] of the instant application which “may include a buzzer … a speaker .. a display screen …”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 – 3, 8, 10 – 13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kin et al., (hereinafter Kin), EP3158392 in view of Ye et al., (hereinafter Ye), CN112641445.
Claim 1. Kin discloses: A personalized driving early warning method implemented by a computer system that is installed in a vehicle (fig. 22 & 0266, “computer system” in a vehicle) and that is electrically connected to an event data recorder and a driver monitoring recorder of the vehicle (0500, “the systems and methods for responding to driver state can also include determining one or more vehicular states and modifying the control of one or more vehicle systems based on the driver state and/or the vehicular state, or any combination of one or more of said states”, “the vehicular state can describe a risk surrounding the vehicle environment … a vehicular state can be characterized as a hazard, a hazard level, a risk level, among others”; i.e., the system monitors/records hazard events of vehicle and driver states) said personalized driving early warning method comprising steps of:
A) by an event detection module of the computer system, detecting, based on a driving footage captured by the event data recorder, whether there is currently a specific dangerous event in a state of motion of the vehicle (0598, “In some cases, for example, the response system 188 receives information from a remote sensing device (such as a camera, lidar or radar) for detecting the presence of one or more objects”);
B) by a behavior determination module of the computer system, identifying, based on an in-vehicle driver monitoring footage captured by the driver monitoring recorder, one of a facial expression feature and a behavioral feature of a driver of the vehicle in response to the event detection module has detecting that there is currently the specific dangerous event in the state of motion of the vehicle (0125, “a camera (e.g., the optical sensor 162, FIG. 1A) (event data recorder) can generate images of eye movement, facial expressions, positioning or posture of the individual”; at least fig. 145 illustrated that the potential hazard event and the driver state monitoring happens simultaneously; Examiner notes that “when” clause recites conditional statement however the condition is not required to happen by the claim, under BRI, the actions in step B are not required by the claim. Step C and onward requires the action of step B and thus are not required by the claim);
C) by the behavior determination module, after obtaining a behavior identification result by successfully identifying said one of the facial expression feature and the behavioral feature of the driver in step B), determining whether the behavior identification result conforms to a predefined positive behavior or a predefined negative behavior in terms of driving safety, so as to obtain a behavior determination result (refer to the mapping above & Fig. 33 & 0347, “the response system 188 can analyze the movement of eyes 3304 to determine if a driver is in a normal state or a drowsy (e.g., distracted) state”); and
D) by a processing module of the computer system, based on the behavior determination result (and a threshold) of the driver that is stored in a storage module of the computer system, controlling a warning module of the computer system to perform one of a first action and a second action that is aligned with an up-to-date behavioral pattern of the driver, where the first action is that the warning module does not issue any immediate warning output, and the second action is that the warning module issues an immediate warning output to notify the driver of the specific dangerous event (refer to the mapping & 0447, “the driver state can be a number indicating a frequency of head nods (e.g., the number of head nods over a period of time) … , the driver state can be a number of head looks from a forward-looking direction to a non-forward-looking direction”; i.e., based on the recorded number of driver behavior over the past period of time, the system determines up-to-date if warning should be issued; fig. 69 – 71 & 0526, “FIGS. 70 and 71 illustrate schematic views of methods of alerting a drowsy driver using visual, audible, and tactile feedback for a driver.”),
Kin does not explicitly teach:
based on the behavior determination result and a historical behavioral performance record (threshold) of the driver
where the historical behavioral performance record contains, for each of a plurality of predefined dangerous events that was detected by the computer system in the past, an evaluation of a behavioral performance of the driver in response to the predefined dangerous event that was detected.
Ye, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
based on the behavior determination result and a historical behavioral performance record (threshold) of the driver … where the historical behavioral performance record contains, for each of a plurality of predefined dangerous events that was detected by the computer system in the past, an evaluation of a behavioral performance of the driver in response to the predefined dangerous event that was detected (Ye, translation page 14, “The driver can process the early warning after receiving the early warning, the current early warning reliable state can be marked, the system can record the marking accuracy, continuously self-learn and correct the preset threshold state set, continuously iterate and optimize the real data model matching the physiological parameters and behaviors of the driver, and correct the early warning accuracy.” i.e., Ye teaches that the threshold of the driver warning is self-adjusting learned from past data. Kin teaches having thresholds for each predefined dangerous behavior. The combination renders obviousness of the claimed limitation. Examiner notes that the historic behavioural performance records, within BRI, includes past performances of driver on time domain as taught by Kin and the updated threshold state sets of Ye’s teaching that is derived from the past performance records. The evaluation of whether a warning needs be initiated (evaluation of a historic performance of the driver) is stored in the historical behavior performance record.).
Kin and Ye both teach driver attention detection for the driving safety and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the adaptive threshold on early warning taught by Ye in the system of Kin to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification to improve the warning accuracy (Ye, translation page 14).
Claim 2. Kin and Ye combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: the historical behavioral performance record records a number of instances of positive performance by the driver when the driver encountered the specific dangerous event in the past (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & Kin, 0445, “the driver state can be number indicating a pattern and/or frequency (number of instances of behavior performance) of monitoring information over a period of time”; 0766, “ECU 12902 can automatically check and/or determine a driver state at a predetermined time interval to determine if there is a change in driver state” i.e., system makes decision based on driver’s negative performance over a period of time. The period of time includes a predetermined number of intervals and thus the positive performance is known.);
wherein the immediate warning output is in one of a plurality of predefined warning types, and the predefined warning types include a standard warning, an enhanced warning that has a warning effect stronger than a warning effect of the standard warning, and a diminished warning that has a warning effect weaker than the warning effect of the standard warning (Kin, Fig. 115 & 0616, “the response system 188 can set the warning frequency and intensity. This can be determined using the driver state index in some cases. In particular, as the driver state increases due to the increased drowsiness of the driver, the warning state frequency and intensity can be increased”; i.e., the system control warning intensity based on the frequency of the dangerous/negative performance of the driver. The warning intensity/range/type are predefined as illustrated in fig. 115, either low intensity/diminishing warning, standard/medium intensity or high intensity/enhanced warning); and
wherein step D) includes sub-steps of:
D-1) by the processing module, in response to the behavior determination result indicating that the behavior identification result conforms to the predefined negative behavior, controlling the warning module to output the enhanced warning that serves as the immediate warning output; and D-2) by the processing module, in response to the behavior determination result indicating that the behavior identification result conforms to the predefined positive behavior, controlling, based on the number of instances of positive performance as recorded in the historical behavioral performance record, the warning module to perform one of the first action where the warning module does not issue any immediate warning output, and the second action which is executed in a manner where the warning module outputs the diminished warning that serves as the immediate warning output (refer to the mapping above, the number of positive performance and the number of negative performance over a period of time are reverse indicator. The more the number of positive performance, the less the number of negative performance. Kin, Fig. 115 illustrated the warning intensity based on the driver state index. The higher the negative performance, the higher the driver state index and thus higher warning intensity coefficient. When the driver state index is 1, the warning intensity coefficient is 0% and thus does not produce warning. In this case, driver state index 2.5 and above may conform to predefined negative behavior, thus the warning is intense. Driver state index below 2.5 may confirm to the predefined positive behavior and thus either perform no warning or diminished warning. Since the driver state index may be represented by the number of negative/positive performance (0445), thus, the warning intensity can be based on the number of instances of positive performance).
Claim 3. Kin and Ye combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 2. The combination further teach: wherein, in sub-step D-2):
In response to the number of instances of positive performance being not smaller than a predetermined number, the processing module controls the warning module to perform the first action; and in response to the number of instances of positive performance being smaller than the predetermined number, the processing module controls the warning module to perform the second action in the manner where the warning module outputs the diminished warning that serves as the immediate warning output (refer to the mapping in Claim 2, the warning intensity including diminished and 0% (no immediate warning/first action) can be determined by the number of positive performance of the driver over a period of time).
Claim 8. Kin and Ye combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: after the processing module controls the warning module to perform the first action where the warning module does not issue any immediate warning output in step D), a step of: E) by the processing module, determining whether the performing of the first action was appropriate for the driver based on post-event state of motion of the vehicle that occurs after step C), and updating the historical behavioral performance record based on the determination on whether the performing of the first action was appropriate for the driver (refer to the mapping of Claim 1 & Ye, translation page 14, “driver can process the early warning after receiving the early warning, the early warning reliable state (warning appropriate or not) can be marked”, “self-learn and correct the preset threshold state set”. Examiner notes that Ye did not explicitly teach: “by the processing module, determining …”. However, “The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.)” In reVenner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (MPEP 2144.04 III). In addition, it is the processing system/module to recognize/determine the driver’s response or input and to update the historic record. Thus, within BRI, fulfill the claimed limitation).
Claim 10. Kin & Ye combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 1. The combination further teach: wherein step B) includes sub-steps of:
identifying the facial expression feature of the driver based on the in-vehicle driver monitoring footage immediately after the event detection module has detected that there is currently the specific dangerous event in the state of motion of the vehicle; and following the identifying of the facial expression feature of the driver, identifying the behavioral feature of the driver based on the in-vehicle driver monitoring footage (refer to the mapping in Claim 1 & Kin, at least fig 146, 148, 150 illustrated that the system performs facial/head movement detection immediately after a potential dangerous event is detected. System analyze and identify the behavior of the driver based on in-vehicle camera system).
Claim 11 is a personalized driving early warning system claim that includes limitations recited in Claim 1 and a part of Claim 2. Claim 11 is rejected with the same reason.
Claim 12 – 13, 18 and 20 are corresponding personalized driving early warning system claim of Claim 2 – 3, 8 and 10. These claims are rejected with same reason.
Claim(s) 4 – 6, 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kin et al., (hereinafter Kin), EP3158392 in view of Ye et al., (hereinafter Ye), CN112641445 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Koichi, JP2006350697.
Claim 4. Kin and Ye combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 2. The combination does not explicitly teach:
E) by the processing module, in response to the behavior determination module fails to identify any of the facial expression feature and the behavioral feature of the driver in step B), controlling the warning module to output the standard warning.
Koichi, in the same field of endeavor, explicitly teach:
E) by the processing module, in response to the behavior determination module fails to identify any of the facial expression feature and the behavioral feature of the driver in step B), controlling the warning module to output the standard warning (Koichi, translation page 5, “A failure indicator 6 that is sometimes lit and an electronic control unit (hereinafter referred to as ECU) 7 that performs forward careless driving suppression control”; i.e., when the recognition module fails, a warning is issued and the function is suspended; translation page 2 – 3, “the alarm device 5 can be implemented in various modes such as a voice guide or a configuration in which the driver's seat is vibrated to alert the driver. As the failure indicator 6, a lighting lamp such as an LED provided on an instrument meter panel (not shown) is used. However, a numerical indicator or the like that displays an error code indicating the type of failure may be used”; i.e., the failure warning is a standard warning separate from the alert that reduce the drowsiness of the driver. Examiner notes that the form and intensity of the alert/warning is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (MPEP 2144.04 V.B) ).
Kin (in view of Ye) and Koichi both teach driver attention detection with false positive prevention for the driving safety and are analogous. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable likelihood of success to further include the alert and the details on the failure detection taught by Koichi in the system of Kin (in view of Ye) to achieve the claimed teaching. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this modification so that “control burden is reduced, and erroneous detection of a careless state in front is reduced, and the detection accuracy is improved” (Koichi, translation page 7).
Claim 5. Kin, Ye and Koichi combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 4. Kin further teach: wherein the enhanced warning is one of a highest level warning and a second-highest level warning, where the highest level warning has a warning effect stronger than a warning effect of the second-highest level warning; wherein, in sub-step D-1): in response to the predefined negative behavior being categorized as a predefined high-risk negative behavior, the processing module controls the warning module to output the highest level warning that serves as the immediate warning output; and in response to the predefined negative behavior being categorized as a predefined low-risk negative behavior, the processing module controls the warning module to output the second-highest level warning that serves as the immediate warning output (refer to the mapping in Claim 2 & Kim fig. 115, the system produce warning intensity based on the driver state index which represents danger/risk level of the driver. In this case, the driver index between 3 and 4, as illustrated in fig. 115, could be pre-defined as a low-risk negative behavior and index of 4 and above could be pre-defined as a high risk negative behavior. The corresponding warning intensity/level in these range are highest range and second-highest range).
Claim 6. Kin, Ye and Koichi combination teaches all the limitation of Claim 5. Ye further teach: after the warning module issues the immediate warning output in step D), a step of: F) by the processing module, determining whether the issuance of the immediate warning output was necessary for the driver based on post-event state of motion of the vehicle after the issuance of the immediate warning output, and updating the historical behavioral performance record based on the determination on whether the issuance of the immediate warning output was necessary for the driver (refer to the mapping of Claim 1 & Ye, translation page 14, the system record the necessity of the early warnings given to the driver; Ye, translation page 15, “after the early warning processing is performed, driver a driver needs to be prompted to go to a safe parking area for parking and rest“; i.e., vehicle’s motion of follows the prompt to park and rest (motion of the vehicle) is a confirmation that the warning is not unnecessary).
The reason for combination is same as Claim 1.
Claim 14 – 16 are the corresponding personalized driving early warning system claim of Claim 4 – 6. These claims are rejected with the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7, 9, 17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome any pending rejections and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Specifically, consider steps in Figure 2 and Paragraph 0031 – 0036 of the instant application, none of the prior fairly discloses either along or combination teaches counting the positive and negative performance based on the warning necessity detected by post-event state of motion of the vehicle described in Claim 7, 9, 17 and 19.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Zhang et al., CN111339074, which teaches a threshold value generation method for early warning system for hardware devices that collect historic data to dynamically generate a threshold value.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIEN MING CHOU whose telephone number is (571)272-9354. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, HITESH PATEL can be reached on 571-270-5442. 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.
/SHIEN MING CHOU/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/9/26
Prosecution Insights