DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations with the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to the Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The list of claims 14-22, 24 and 25 is pending. In the claim set filed 05/22/2026:
Claim(s) 14, 24 and 25 is/are the independent claim(s) observed in the instant application.
Claim(s) 14, 24 and 25 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 15-22 has/have been indicated as previously presented.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 23 has/have been indicated as cancelled.
Response to Arguments
With respect to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination(RCE) filed on 05/22/2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-22, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Therefore the rejection(s) of claim(s) 14-22, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 has/have been withdrawn.
Office Note: Due to applicant’s amendments, further claim rejections appear on the record as stated in the Non-Final Office Action below.
Non-Final Rejection
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a computing unit configured to ascertaining a maximum end speed of a motor vehicle before a start of a speed limit area” in claim 24.
Claim limitations: “a computing unit configured to ascertaining a maximum end speed of a motor vehicle before a start of a speed limit area” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder(s) such as “unit” respectively coupled with functional language: without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
In the specification, the applicant describes the structure of the “computing unit” as: “The object of the present invention is additionally solved by a control unit for a driver assistance system for controlling a longitudinal control of a motor vehicle, having a computing unit for carrying out the method according to the present invention. Such a control unit can thus be integrated into a motor vehicle so that the advantages described for the method can be achieved. The method according to the present invention described above can, for example, in particular be computer-implemented and thus embodied in software. The present invention therefore also relates to a computer program comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed on one or more computers, cause the computer or computers to carry out the described method” in at least page 6, lines: 25-30, for example.
Therefore, the examiner has interpreted the “computing unit” as including but not limited to generic computing components that in conjunction with software achieve the claimed functionality, for example.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In particular claim 19 recites: “wherein a predefined deceleration function is used for the deceleration;” however, claim 14, from which claim 19 depends already recites: “wherein the deceleration is estimated under the assumption of a constant deceleration.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is not mathematically possible for a value to be both a constant (i.e. a singular value that remains unchanged regardless of the circumstances) as well as a function (i.e. a mathematical relationship in which modifications to the input of the function will also impact the output of the function based on the functional relationship defined).
This is further reinforced by the Applicant’s specification, in particular page 4, line: 23 – page 5, line: 6, which recites: “In an advantageous development of the present invention, a constant deceleration is assumed in order to estimate the deceleration. It is therefore assumed that the motor vehicle decelerates with a constant deceleration value, starting from the maximum end speed. Although a constant deceleration is not normally performed, the use of a constant deceleration makes it easier to estimate the deceleration. This again significantly reduces the computing complexity.
Alternatively, according to an example embodiment of the present invention, a predefined deceleration function is used for the deceleration. These deceleration functions are based on real decelerations.”
The use of the alternative language highlighted above reinforces the Examiner’s position that the additional limitation recited in claim 19 renders and indefinite claim construction. Cancelling claim 19 or amending claim 14 to recite both alternatives may provide appropriate ways to overcome the above rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 from which claim 18 depends already recites: “wherein the deceleration is estimated under the assumption of a constant deceleration starting;” therefore, claim 18 reciting: “wherein a constant deceleration is assumed in order to estimate the deceleration” and nothing more does not provide limitations further narrowing the claim limitations from claim 14.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 14-17, 20-22, 24 and 25 is/are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The allowable subject matter found in the claim(s) 14, 24 and 25 that has not been found to have been anticipated or taught in the prior art, in combination with the other claim limitations is as follows:
“estimating a time to the reduced speed limit area based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed limit, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area, wherein the time is estimated from the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area and from an average of the current motor vehicle speed and the speed limit value;”
And “estimating a deceleration so that, based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed increase, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area, the speed limit value is followed by the motor vehicle at the start of the reduced speed limit area, wherein the deceleration is estimated under the assumption of a constant deceleration starting from the maximum end speed over the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area such that the motor vehicle reaches the speed limit value at the start of the reduced speed limit area.”
The closest prior art reference is SEBASTIEN et al. (German Patent Publication 102018210648A1), referenced as Sebastien moving forward. Sebastien is also a system/method for automated longitudinal guidance operation in a motor vehicle with a detection system; however, Sebastien does not specifically state a system/method with the limitations including:
“estimating a time to the reduced speed limit area based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed limit, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area, wherein the time is estimated from the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area and from an average of the current motor vehicle speed and the speed limit value;”
And “estimating a deceleration so that, based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed increase, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area, the speed limit value is followed by the motor vehicle at the start of the reduced speed limit area, wherein the deceleration is estimated under the assumption of a constant deceleration starting from the maximum end speed over the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area such that the motor vehicle reaches the speed limit value at the start of the reduced speed limit area.”
Another prior art reference is DÜSER (United States Patent Publication 2020/0346659 A1), referenced as Düser moving forward. Düser is also a system/method for generating a dynamic speed profile of a motor vehicle; however Düser does not specifically state a system/method with the limitations including:
“estimating a time to the reduced speed limit area based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed limit, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area, wherein the time is estimated from the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area and from an average of the current motor vehicle speed and the speed limit value;”
And “estimating a deceleration so that, based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed increase, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area, the speed limit value is followed by the motor vehicle at the start of the reduced speed limit area, wherein the deceleration is estimated under the assumption of a constant deceleration starting from the maximum end speed over the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area such that the motor vehicle reaches the speed limit value at the start of the reduced speed limit area.”
A third prior art reference is Kelly (United States Patent Publication 2017/0197619 A1), referenced as Kelly moving forward. Kelly is also a system/method for automatically controlling the speed of a vehicle in accordance with a target speed value; however Kelly does not specifically state a system/method with the limitations including:
“estimating a time to the reduced speed limit area based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed limit, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area, wherein the time is estimated from the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area and from an average of the current motor vehicle speed and the speed limit value;”
And “estimating a deceleration so that, based on the current motor vehicle speed, the speed increase, and the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area, the speed limit value is followed by the motor vehicle at the start of the reduced speed limit area, wherein the deceleration is estimated under the assumption of a constant deceleration starting from the maximum end speed over the distance to the start of the reduced speed limit area such that the motor vehicle reaches the speed limit value at the start of the reduced speed limit area.”
Therefore, these references either independently or in combination fail to anticipate or teach the limitations as cited above. Therefore, claim(s) 14, 24 and 25 contain(s) allowable subject matter and any claim(s) that depend(s) there from is/are also found to contain allowable subject matter.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
SHIN (United States Patent Publication 2010/0161195 A1) discloses: A method is provided for automatically transitioning a cruise control speed from a current speed zone to a next speed zone. A location at which the speed zone limit changes from the current speed limit to the next speed limit forward of a driven vehicle is determined. A speed profile is determined for changing the vehicle speed from the current speed limit to the next speed limit. The speed profile includes non-linear changes in the vehicle speed between the current speed zone and the next speed zone for eliminating abrupt changes in the vehicle speed. A relative location is determined for initiating the non-linear changes in the speed of the vehicle. The non-linear changes are actuated in the speed of the vehicle at the relative location for gradually changing the speed to the next speed limit.
Morisaki et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0019097 A1) discloses: A control system for a vehicle includes a rotary electric machine and an electronic control unit. The rotary electric machine is configured to generate regenerative braking force at a wheel by generating electric power with the use of power from the wheel during braking of the vehicle. The electronic control unit is configured to acquire information including a target stopping position of the vehicle and execute deceleration control for controlling a deceleration of the vehicle by controlling regenerative power generation up to the target stopping position. The electronic control unit is configured to prohibit the deceleration control when a predetermined driving mode set in advance in response to input through driver's operation is selected from among a plurality of driving modes having specific acceleration/deceleration characteristics.
Um et al. (United States Patent Publication 2015/0105993 A1) discloses: An apparatus and method for controlling a speed in an excess speed enforcement section are provided. The method includes determining one of a target speed, a lower limit speed, and a speed limit as a final target speed using a relationship between a target speed, a lower limit speed, and a speed limit. A required acceleration is calculated based on the final target speed and the vehicle speed and the vehicle speed is adjusted using the required acceleration.
TUDOSIE (United States Patent Publication 2016/0244062 A1) discloses: A method for anticipatory or predictive operation of a motor vehicle having a drive control system by which drive-relevant components of the drive-train are adjusted, and a detection system by which a travel route and anticipated driving time to a specified destination as well as the current position of the vehicle are determined. By way of the detection system and based on topographical information, a driving resistance profile of the route is prepared, to parameterize the drive control system such that the route is driven in a specifiable manner. If a need arises during the journey, a nominal arrival time or a travel route is specified or modified and, in accordance with the specified or changed nominal arrival time or route, the drive control system is dynamically re-parameterized so that the vehicle reaches its destination at the time concerned with regard to an efficient mode of operation.
Yoon (United States Patent Publication 2017/0001638 A1) discloses: Disclosed herein are methods for automatically adjusting a speed of a vehicle capable of allowing the vehicle to arrive at a destination within a time desired by a driver in consideration of a desired arrival time to the destination, a distance to the destination, a current traffic volume, or the like. A method for adjusting a speed of a vehicle in a system for adjusting a speed of a vehicle may include a driver of the vehicle setting a destination, and the system for adjusting a speed of a vehicle searching a path to the destination and calculating a distance to the destination and a current traffic volume to calculate an arrival time to the destination. The method may further include the driver setting a desired arrival time to the destination, and the system for adjusting a speed of a vehicle deciding whether or not the vehicle arrives at the destination within the desired arrival time.
KNOLLER et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0015320 A1) discloses: A longitudinally guiding driver assistance system in a motor vehicle includes a detection system for detecting currently applying events and relevant events lying ahead, which require an adaptation of the permissible maximum speed, and a function unit which, when detecting a relevant event, while taking into account the location of the relevant event lying ahead, determines a location-dependent point in time, whose reaching causes the function unit to initiate an output of prompt information for permitting an automatic adaptation of the currently permissible maximum speed to a new permissible maximum speed. The function unit is designed, in the case of an activation of the longitudinally guiding driver assistance system, while taking into account a detected currently applying event, to initiate a first output of prompt information for permitting an automatic first setting of the currently applying permissible maximum speed as the new permissible maximum speed.
ÓMEACHAIR et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0186375 A1) discloses: A method of controlling the speed of a vehicle, especially an automobile, is responsive to information concerning a route and traffic. The method identifies at least a portion of an anticipated route, based on planned route data from a navigation system and/or based on data from a repeat journey logger. The method determines an optimal braking or accelerating point based on the anticipated route and outputs a sign to a driver to adjust the vehicle speed in accordance with the optimal braking or accelerating point. The method also records speed profiles of the vehicle along routes followed in a repeat journey logger and uses these speed profiles to determine an optimal braking or accelerating point. Instead of, or as well as outputting a sign to the driver, the method can adjust the speed profile of the vehicle in accordance with the optimal braking or acceleration point.
YOON et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0222483 A1) discloses: A vehicle and a control method of the vehicle are provided. The vehicle includes an engine management system to drive an engine to adjust a driving torque of the engine to accelerate the vehicle, a communicator to receive road gradient information, and a controller configured to control the engine management system such that running speed of the vehicle follows a target speed. The controller predicts an increase amount of speed of a next downhill section based on the road gradient information, and determines a start point of coasting control of a current section for maximizing a coasting distance based on the predicted speed increase amount.
KIM (United States Patent Publication 2020/0108717 A1) discloses: The present disclosure relates to a speed control apparatus and a speed control method. Specifically, the present disclosure provides a speed control apparatus including: a driver propensity data manager configured to store acceleration and a speed change completion position per speed limit zone type as driver propensity data in the state in which a forward vehicle following function is not activated; a speed limit zone type determinator configured to determine a type of a speed limit zone using navigation information; a speed comparator configured to determine whether the current speed of a vehicle is greater than a speed limit in the speed limit zone according to the type of the speed limit zone; and a speed controller configured to identify acceleration and a speed change completion position corresponding to the speed limit zone from the driver propensity data according to the type of the speed limit zone and to control the speed of the vehicle by calculating a speed change start position of the vehicle using the acceleration and the speed change completion position when the current speed of the vehicle is greater than the speed limit in the speed limit zone.
Wolff et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0223435 A1) discloses: A vehicle control system determines an upper non-zero limit on deceleration of a vehicle to prevent rollback of the vehicle down a grade being traveled up on by the vehicle. The upper non-zero limit on deceleration is determined by the controller based on a payload carried by the vehicle, a speed of the vehicle, and a grade of a route being traveled upon by the vehicle. The controller is configured to monitor the deceleration of the vehicle, and to automatically prevent the deceleration of the vehicle from exceeding the upper non-zero limit by controlling one or more of a brake or a motor of the vehicle. The controller also is configured to one or more of actuate the brake or supply current to the motor of the vehicle to prevent rollback of the vehicle while the vehicle is moving up the grade at a non-zero speed.
JOKELA et al. (United States Patent Publication 2021/0009128 A1) discloses: The present disclosure relates to a method of generating a target operational speed band (53; 63; 67) for a host vehicle (1) travelling along a route. A first time-dependent obstacle (15-n, 18-n) is identified at a first location on the route. The first time-dependent obstacle (15-n, 18-n) is identified as hindering progress of the host vehicle (1) during a first time period (11). The first time-lin dependent obstacle (15-n, 18-n) is defined in a two-dimensional speed against distance map (50, 60). A first speed trajectory (51, 52; 61; 65, 66) is determined from a first point to a second point within the two-dimensional speed against distance map (50, 60). The second point represents the first location on the route and the determined first speed trajectory (51, 52; 61; 65, 66) represents the host vehicle (1) arriving at the first location at a first arrival time. The target operational speed band (53; 63; 67) is determined such that the first speed trajectory (51, 52; 61; 65, 66) forms one of an upper limit and a lower limit of the target operational speed band (53; 63; 67). The first arrival time is outside said first time period (11). The present disclosure also relates to a controller (2) for generating a target operational speed band (53; 63; 67); and to a vehicle (1).
ZHU (United States Patent Publication 2021/0370941 A1) discloses: A driving environment is perceived based on sensor data obtained from a plurality of sensors mounted on an ADV. A first set of features is extracted from the sensor data representing the driving environment, where the first set of features include one or more obstacles moving relative to the ADV. A precaution notification is generated by applying a precautionary slowdown predictive model to the first set of features and a second set of features determined based on internal states of the ADV. In response to the precaution notification, a speed planning is performed to lower a speed limit of the ADV to a predetermined percentage of the speed limit. The ADV is controlled to drive autonomously according to the lowered speed limit to perform a precautionary slowdown.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI N BEDEWI whose telephone number is (571)272-5753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday - 6:00 am - 11:00 am & 12:00pm - 5:00 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, Scott A. Browne can be reached on (571-270-0151). 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.
/RAMI NABIH BEDEWI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3666C
Prosecution Insights