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 .
STATUS OF CLAIMS
This action is in response to the Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 10/23/2025. Applicant amended claim 10. Claims 10-19 are pending and are examined below.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS AND ARGUMENTS
In regards to the claim rejections under § 101, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 10, Applicant argues that the hardware elements “steering wheel sensor” and “electronic control unit” render the claim as patent eligible because the claims now cannot be interpreted as merely performing judgments over obtained data without overly generalizing and ignoring the detailed claim elements.
Applicant additionally argues that the limitation “automatically outputting, with the electronic control unit of the driver assistance system, a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining, based on information from the steering wheel sensor, that the driver does not have the hands on the steering wheel and that the future driving situation is the critical driving situation, wherein the takeover request is output before the future critical driving situation is reached” cannot be considered as insignificant extra-solution activity as it is an activity that is integral to the claim, not merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims which is incidental to the primary process or product.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Examiner respectfully submits that the hardware elements “steering wheel sensor” and “electronic control unit” constitute generic computer components that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The MPEP indicates that performing a mental process on a generic computer or a computer environment still recites a mental process. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).)
Second, the claim language at issue does constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. To begin, the language of “determining that the driver does not have the hands on the steering wheel and that the future driving situation is the critical driving situation” analogizes to a mental process. The exact language that constitutes an insignificant extra-solution activity is “automatically outputting a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle … wherein the takeover request is output before the future critical driving situation is reached.” The foregoing constitutes an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere addition of a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (i.e., outputting a takeover request alert) previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The MPEP outlines that the foregoing is not enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(A.)) Finally, the additions of an electronic control unit and a steering wheel sensor in the claim language at issue constitute mere additions of generic computing components for carrying out the recited mental processes and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 101 are maintained.
In regards to the claim rejections under § 103, Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
As to amended claim 10, Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggest in Harda of performing actions such as requesting a driver to take manual control of a vehicle based in part on whether a driver has a hand on the steering wheel. Therefore, Applicant argues that Harda does not make up for Nickolaou’s deficiency regarding checking whether a driver of the vehicle has hands on a steering wheel of the vehicle, and outputting a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining that the driver does not have the hands on the steering wheel.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Recall:
Nickolaou discloses: automatically outputting, with the electronic control unit of the driver assistance system, a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining that the future driving situation is the critical driving situation, wherein the takeover request is output before the future critical driving situation is reached (“As the vehicle 10 approaches the deceleration zone 404, the intelligent override module 82 activates an initial signal to the driver, for example by flashing a light (or other indication type) and/or provides additional non-visual alerting signal such as a vibrating seat or sound via control signals to alert the driver that the driving automation system 70 will disengage and to alert the driver of the need to take over control of the vehicle 10.” ¶ 34; see also ¶ 39 and FIG. 5.)
Harda teaches:
checking, with a steering wheel sensor of the driver assistance system, whether a driver of the vehicle has hands on a steering wheel of the vehicle (“The vehicle control arrangement 1 further comprises a hands-on-wheel detecting unit 19 configured to detect if presence exists of at least one hand 21 on a steering wheel 23 of the road vehicle 3.” ¶ 94.)
automatically outputting, with the electronic control unit of the driver assistance system, a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining, based on information from the steering wheel sensor, that the driver does not have the hands on the steering wheel (“The velocity control arrangement 5 is configured to perform a reduction of velocity of the road vehicle 3 in case presence of an upcoming curve section 15 is detected and no presence of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23 is detected …. [A]n occupant of the vehicle 3 … will have more time available to regain control of the vehicle 3 in case such unexpected faulty steering interventions or unexpected loss of automatic steering occurs when traveling through the curve section 17.” ¶ 95. Additionally, “The vehicle control arrangement 1 may further comprise a human machine interface 28 [HMI] arranged to output to a driver environment 29 of the road vehicle 3 a request to place at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23 in case presence of an upcoming curve section is detected, and no presence is detected of at least one hand on the steering wheel.” ¶ 101; see also ¶ 100 which explains that a reduction of velocity precedes the HMI output.)
Summarizing the foregoing, it is critical to note that Nickolaou establishes that a takeover request may be automatically output to a driver before a future critical driving situation is reached. Harda then provides the teaching that a request may be output to a driver to place their hands on a steering wheel if it is detected that their hands are not on a steering wheel in order to be able to take over the vehicle with manual control. Harda’s reduction of velocity analogizes to a takeover request because it is a non-visual alerting signal which prompts an operator to place their hands on a steering wheel – such follows Nickolaou’s established definition of a takeover request; hence a PHOSITA would also recognize Harda as teaching a takeover request. Harda para. [0101] provides further context that the reduction of velocity is accompanied by an HMI output to alert a driver to place their hands on a steering wheel, thus further establishing that Harda teaches that a takeover request to a driver is output upon determining that the driver does not have the hands on the steering wheel. Therefore, a PHOSITA would have been motivation to combine Nickolaou and Harda to yield the claim limitation at issue with a reasonable expectation of success because both references aim to address the issue of enabling a driver to perform manual control after disengagement of automatic control in response to a driving event. That is, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to add Harda’s “hands on steering wheel” takeover request onto Nickolaou’s manual lateral control request to further ensure that a driver is able to successfully perform a takeover, hence enhancing safety and increasing the probability of success of Nickolaou’s invention.
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 103 are maintained.
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.
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: “driver assistance system is configured to carry out the method” in claim 17.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function at least includes: electronic control unit (PGPUB ¶ 35.)
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.
Because these claim limitation(s) 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 as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have 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 U.S.C. § 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.
Claim(s) 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims fail to pass the Alice/Mayo test for determining patent eligibility.
The patent eligibility test is performed below for independent claim 10.
Step 1—Does the claim fall within a statutory category?
Claim 10: Yes, the claim recites a process.
Step 2A, Prong One—Is a judicial exception recited?
Claim 10 is provided below with the abstract idea indicated in bold and additional elements without bold.
10. A method for operating a driver assistance system of a vehicle, the method comprising:
activating a driver assistance function of the driver assistance system in which at least partially automated lateral control of the vehicle is carried out,
checking, with a steering wheel sensor of the driver assistance system, whether a driver of the vehicle has hands on a steering wheel of the vehicle,
determining, with an electronic control unit of the driver assistance system, route course data which describe a future driving situation for the vehicle,
assessing, with the electronic control unit of the driver assistance system, based on the route course data, whether the future driving situation is a critical driving situation which will lead to deactivation of the activated driver assistance function, and
automatically outputting, with the electronic control unit of the driver assistance system, a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining, based on information from the steering wheel sensor, that the driver does not have the hands on the steering wheel and that the future driving situation is the critical driving situation, wherein the takeover request is output before the future critical driving situation is reached.
The above shows: yes, a judicial exception is recited. But for the additional elements, the claim limitation pertaining to performing checks, determinations and assessments are a processes which can practically be performed in the human mind with or without the use of a physical aid. Specifically, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim encompasses performing judgments over obtained data. The courts have held such forms of observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to represent the abstract idea of a mental process. As a result, the bolded limitations represent a mental process. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(III).)
Step 2A, Prong Two—Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
No. The claims as a whole merely use generic computer components — i.e., a driver assistance system, steering wheel sensor and electronic control unit — that are recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Therefore, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B—Does the claim provide an inventive concept?
No. The additional elements of the claims amount to either:
Insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of well-understood and conventional activity:
activating a driver assistance function of the driver assistance system in which at least partially automated lateral control of the vehicle is carried out
The foregoing constitutes extra-solution activity because the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitation encompasses merely sending a signal for activating a function of a system. Such does not necessarily carry out a positive actuation of structure in the form of vehicle control which would, in contrast to the instant claimed invention, provide an inventive concept.
automatically outputting a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle
The foregoing constitutes an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere addition of a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (i.e., outputting a takeover request alert) previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The MPEP outlines that the foregoing is not enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(A.))
Claims 11–19 depend from claim 10 but do not render the claimed invention patent eligible because they are directed to additional mental steps:
an assessment with regard to the deactivation is carried out;
detection of a roadway is determined
route course data are determined
or insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., gathering data):
sensor data from an environmental sensor of the driver assistance system are received.
digital map data are received
deactivation data … are received
information … is output to the driver
Claims 10–19 do not pass the patent eligibility test. Accordingly, claims 10–19 are rejected under § 101.
CLAIM REJECTIONS—35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 10–19 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Nickolaou et al. (US20190018409A1; “Nickolaou”) in view of Harda et al. (US20170267248A1; “Harda”).
As to claim 10, Nickolaou discloses method for operating a driver assistance system of a vehicle, the method comprising:
activating a driver assistance function of the driver assistance system in which at least partially automated lateral control of the vehicle is carried out (“The vehicle 10 is a vehicle equipped with a driving automation system 70 …. The driving automation system 70 may have a Level Three capability, referring to the driving mode specific performance by an Automated Driving System (ADS) of the entire dynamic driving task.” ¶ 18 and FIG. 2. NOTE: Per the ordinary understanding of vehicle automation levels, Level Three capability would necessarily entail at least partially automated lateral control of the vehicle as an entire dynamic driving task necessarily comprises lateral control. ),
determining, with an electronic control unit of the driver assistance system, route course data which describe a future driving situation for the vehicle (A vehicle comprises a “controller 34” – see at least ¶ 23 and FIG. 1. Continuing, “the method starts with the vehicle 10 receiving sensor data 602 and analyzing the sensor data to locate any upcoming road features 604.” ¶ 39 and FIG. 5.),
assessing, with the electronic control unit of the driver assistance system, based on the route course data, whether the future driving situation is a critical driving situation which will lead to deactivation of the activated driver assistance function (The vehicle may determine whether “an upcoming road feature requires an override of the DAS 606 [driving automation system].” ¶ 39 and FIG. 5.), and
automatically outputting, with the electronic control unit of the driver assistance system, a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining that the future driving situation is the critical driving situation, wherein the takeover request is output before the future critical driving situation is reached (“As the vehicle 10 approaches the deceleration zone 404, the intelligent override module 82 activates an initial signal to the driver, for example by flashing a light (or other indication type) and/or provides additional non-visual alerting signal such as a vibrating seat or sound via control signals to alert the driver that the driving automation system 70 will disengage and to alert the driver of the need to take over control of the vehicle 10.” ¶ 34; see also ¶ 39 and FIG. 5.).
Nickolaou fails to explicitly disclose:
checking, with a steering wheel sensor of the driver assistance system, whether a driver of the vehicle has hands on a steering wheel of the vehicle, and
automatically outputting a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining, based on information from the steering wheel sensor, that the driver does not have the hands on the steering wheel.
Nevertheless, Harda teaches:
checking, with a steering wheel sensor of a driver assistance system, whether a driver of the vehicle has hands on a steering wheel of the vehicle (“The vehicle control arrangement 1 further comprises a hands-on-wheel detecting unit 19 configured to detect if presence exists of at least one hand 21 on a steering wheel 23 of the road vehicle 3.” ¶ 94.), and
automatically outputting a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining that the driver does not have the hands on the steering wheel (“The velocity control arrangement 5 is configured to perform a reduction of velocity of the road vehicle 3 in case presence of an upcoming curve section 15 is detected and no presence of at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23 is detected …. [A]n occupant of the vehicle 3 … will have more time available to regain control of the vehicle 3 in case such unexpected faulty steering interventions or unexpected loss of automatic steering occurs when traveling through the curve section 17.” ¶ 95. Additionally, “The vehicle control arrangement 1 may further comprise a human machine interface 28 [HMI] arranged to output to a driver environment 29 of the road vehicle 3 a request to place at least one hand 21 on the steering wheel 23 in case presence of an upcoming curve section is detected, and no presence is detected of at least one hand on the steering wheel.” ¶ 101; see also ¶ 100 which explains that a reduction of velocity precedes the HMI output. NOTE: Harda’s reduction of velocity analogizes to a takeover request because it is a non-visual alerting signal which prompts an operator to place their hands on a steering wheel – such follows Nickolaou’s established definition of a takeover request; hence a PHOSITA would also recognize Harda as teaching a takeover request)
Nickolaou discloses: a method for operating a driver assistance system of a vehicle, the method comprising at least the steps of: assessing whether the future driving situation is a critical driving situation which will lead to deactivation of an activated driver assistance function, and outputting a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining that the future driving situation is the critical driving situation. Harda teaches: automatically outputting a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining that the driver does not have the hands on the steering wheel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nickolaou to include the features of: checking, with a steering wheel sensor of a driver assistance system, whether a driver of the vehicle has hands on a steering wheel of the vehicle; and automatically outputting a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining that the driver does not have the hands on the steering wheel, as taught by Harda, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for providing a driver with “more time available to regain control of the vehicle 3 in case such unexpected faulty steering interventions or unexpected loss of automatic steering occurs when traveling through the curve section 17.” (Harda, ¶ 95.) Indeed, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to add Harda’s “hands on steering wheel” takeover request onto Nickolaou’s manual lateral control request to further ensure that a driver is able to successfully perform a takeover, hence enhancing safety and increasing the probability of success of Nickolaou’s invention.
As to claim 11, Nickolaou discloses: the future driving situation is a cornering and/or a turning maneuver and an assessment with regard to the deactivation is carried out during the cornering and/or during the turning maneuver in dependence on an expected functional quality of the driver assistance system (“With initial reference to FIG. 3, a three-way intersection is detected as a road feature 402 ahead of the vehicle 10.” ¶ 32 and FIG. 3. “At this point, the intelligent override module 82 determines that the road feature 402 requires overriding of the engaged driving automation system 70.” ¶ 33. Examiner Note: The foregoing analogizes to assessing an expected functional quality of the driver assistance system because it is assessed that the functional quality of the driver assistance system is insufficient for the turning situation such that overriding is required.).
As to claim 12, Nickolaou discloses: detection of a roadway is determined by an environmental sensor of the driver assistance system during the future driving situation based on the route course data and the assessment with regard to the deactivation is carried out in dependence on the detection (“The method starts with the vehicle 10 receiving sensor data 602 and analyzing the sensor data to locate any upcoming road features 604. If an upcoming road feature requires an override of the DAS 606, the system will calculate the approaching zone, the deceleration zone, the stop line and the transition zone 608. ” ¶ 39 and FIG. 5.).
As to claim 13, Nickolaou discloses: sensor data from an environmental sensor of the driver assistance system are received and the route course data are determined based on the sensor data (“The positioning system 76 processes sensor data along with other data to determine a position (e.g., a local position relative to a map, an exact position relative to lane of a road, vehicle heading, velocity, etc.) of the vehicle 10 relative to the environment. The guidance system 78 processes sensor data along with other data to determine a path for the vehicle 10 to follow. ” ¶ 30.).
As to claim 14, Nickolaou discloses: digital map data are received and the route course data are determined based on the map data (“The road feature may be identified with an electronic map.” ¶ 32.).
As to claim 15, Nickolaou discloses: deactivation data which describe deactivation of a driver assistance function of at least one other road user are received and the route course data are determined based on the deactivation data (“The intelligent override module 82 determines that the road feature 402 requires overriding of the engaged driving automation system 70 by, for example, comparing the detected road feature to a predetermined list of road features that may be encountered by the vehicle 10.” Emphasis added; ¶ 33. Examiner Note: A predetermined list of road features meets the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of deactivation data because said list constitutes data pertaining to when deactivation should be performed.).
As to claim 16, Nickolaou fails to disclose: information which describes a remaining distance and/or a remaining duration until the future critical driving situation is reached is output to the driver.
Nevertheless, Harda teaches: information which describes a remaining distance until the future critical driving situation is reached is output to the driver (“The human machine interface 28 may comprise a display arrangement, as is illustrated in FIG. 1 …. The request outputted to the driver environment 29 may comprise the distance remaining to the upcoming curve section 15, i.e. the distance d between the road vehicle 3 and the upcoming curve section 15.” ¶ 103 and FIG. 1.).
Nickolaou discloses: a method for operating a driver assistance system of a vehicle, the method comprising at least the steps of: assessing whether the future driving situation is a critical driving situation which will lead to deactivation of an activated driver assistance function, and outputting a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining that the future driving situation is the critical driving situation. Harda teaches: outputting a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining that the driver does not have the hands on the steering wheel, and information which describes a remaining distance until the future critical driving situation is reached is output to the driver.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nickolaou to include the feature of: information which describes a remaining distance until the future critical driving situation is reached is output to the driver, as taught by Harda, with a reasonable expectation of success because this feature is useful for notifying a driver of an upcoming critical driving situation, thereby enhancing safety.
As to claim 17, Nickolaou discloses: wherein the driver assistance system is configured to carry out the method according to claim 10 (“intelligent override system 100” – ¶ 18 and FIG. 1.).
As to claim 18, Nickolaou discloses: the vehicle comprising the driver assistance system according to claim 17 (“The vehicle 10 includes an intelligent override system 100” - ¶ 18 and FIG. 1.).
As to claim 19, Nickolaou discloses: wherein the vehicle is a passenger car (“vehicle 10” – see at least ¶ 18 and FIG. 1 which illustrates a passenger car.).
CONCLUSION
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon pertains to Applicant’s disclosure. Kunisa et al. (US20180059674A1) discloses: automatically outputting a takeover request to the driver for manual lateral control of the vehicle upon determining that the driver does not have the hands on the steering wheel (“The hands-on request unit 16 performs the hands-on request to switch the control of the vehicle M to a manual driving by the driver …. The hands-on request is a request to switch the driving of the vehicle M from the state in which the autonomous driving of the vehicle M is performed by the vehicle control apparatus 100 to the manual driving by the driver. The hands-on request unit 16 performs the hands-on request using, for example, a display panel or a speaker provided in the HMI 6.” ¶ 63.)
This action is 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mario C. Gonzalez whose telephone number is (571) 272-5633. The Examiner can normally be reached M–F, 10:00–6:00 ET.
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, Fadey S. Jabr, can be reached on (571) 272-1516. 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.
/M.C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights