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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations 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:
“a data safety unit operatively couped to the processor and configured to perform the integrity check” in claim 12 wherein the data safety unit is interpreted as a processor or as a semiconductor package as supported by the specification paragraph [0034] and [0040]
“an exception-handler unit operable to output data” in claim 14 wherein the exception handler unit is interpreted as a portion of the data safety unit, or as supported by the specification paragraph [0048] [0085]
“the data safety unit modifies the parameter data” in claim 18 wherein the data safety unit is interpreted as a processor or as a semiconductor package as supported by the specification paragraph [0034] and [0040]
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them from being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moustafa et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2022/0126864 A1 hereinafter “Moustafa”).
Regarding claim 1 Moustafa discloses:
A method comprising: executing, by a processor communicatively coupled to a vehicle network, (Moustafa [0167] wherein the vehicle is connected to various communication networks) at least one application that generates parameter data to cause a vehicle operation performed by at least one vehicle subsystem coupled to the vehicle network; (Moustafa [0173] wherein the vehicle uses processors connected with an external system or network to operate) conducting, by the processor, an integrity check on the parameter data that verifies whether the parameter data will cause the vehicle operation to maintain a safety envelope around the vehicle; (Moustafa [0217] [0362] wherein the system takes information of the sensors, surrounding, and other information to determine the safe level of operation i.e. verifying information to support a safe motion provide or envelope in the selected operating mode) responsive to determining that the parameter data does not satisfy the integrity check by verifying that the parameter data will not cause the vehicle operation to maintain the safety envelope around the vehicle, (Moustafa [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the envelope is determined for motion limits, and when actions are outside of a behavior to maintain the motion envelope the behavior is altered or not allowed) modifying, by the processor, the parameter data such that the vehicle safety envelope is maintained during performance of the vehicle operation; (Moustafa [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the envelope is determined for motion limits, and when actions are outside of a behavior to maintain the motion envelope the behavior is altered or not allowed) and outputting, by the processor, the modified parameter data on the vehicle network for causing the vehicle subsystem to perform the vehicle operation in a way that maintains the vehicle safety envelope. (Moustafa [0332] [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the behavior of the vehicle is maintained for a motion envelope, and outputting the best vehicle operation to maintain the envelope or safe vehicle operation).
Regarding claim 2 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Moustafa further discloses:
The method of claim 1, the method further comprising: responsive to determining that additional parameter data satisfies the integrity check by verifying that the additional parameter data will cause the vehicle operation to maintain the safety envelope around the vehicle, (Moustafa [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the envelope is determined for motion limits, and when actions are outside of a behavior to maintain the motion envelope the behavior is altered or not allowed) refraining, by the processor, from modifying the additional parameter data; (Moustafa [0379] wherein when the system determines situations that may be an error, but the control signal is aligned with keeping the required vehicle behavior, overriding the control parameter to allow the behavior to continue i.e. refraining from modifying the required control parameter of the vehicle) and outputting, by the processor, the additional parameter data on the vehicle network for causing the vehicle subsystem to perform the vehicle operation. (Moustafa [0332] [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the behavior of the vehicle is maintained for a motion envelope, and outputting the best vehicle operation to maintain the envelope or safe vehicle operation).
Regarding claim 3 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Moustafa further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein causing the vehicle subsystem to perform the vehicle operation in a way that maintains the vehicle safety envelope includes performing at least one minimum risk maneuver that results in a minimum safe condition of the vehicle. (Moustafa [0487-0490] wherein the vehicle maintains a safe operation based on minimum distances and collision avoidance situations).
Regarding claim 4 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Moustafa further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: using, by the processor, a data safety unit coupled to the processor to intercept the parameter data prior to being output on the vehicle network, wherein determining whether the parameter data satisfies the integrity check includes causing the data safety unit to perform the integrity check on the intercepted parameter data. (Moustafa [0182] [0297] [0986-0987] wherein the system includes various sensors connected to a system manager used to check and validate vehicle parameters to operate the autonomous vehicle).
Regarding claim 5 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 4 and Moustafa further discloses:
The method of claim 4, wherein determining whether the parameter data satisfies the integrity check further includes: storing, by the processor, the parameter data within at least one array of registers included in the data safety unit; (Moustafa [0226] [1010] wherein the vehicle includes arrays of sensors and storage in the form of a data reservoir or to external devices to control the autonomous vehicle) and responsive to storing the parameter data within the array of registers, receiving, by the processor, data from the data safety unit that indicates whether the parameter data stored within the array of registers satisfies the integrity check. (Moustafa [0226] [0282] wherein the system stores and shared information, validates the information, and uses it to operate the vehicle).
Regarding claim 7 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 and Moustafa further discloses:
The method of claim 5, wherein receiving data from the data safety unit includes receiving a reason for the parameter data not satisfying the integrity check, the method further comprising: notifying, by the processor, the application or the vehicle subsystem about the reason for the parameter data not satisfying the integrity check by outputting an exception on the vehicle network instructing the application or the vehicle subsystem the reason for the parameter data not satisfying the integrity check. (Moustafa [0985-0986] wherein when the safety check is conducted factors such as the weather or location of the vehicle can be used to further update and modify parameters of the autonomous vehicle why displaying scores and changes of the vehicle i.e. notifications of changes based on the conditions and confidence of the vehicle and user are used when safety levels are not met for a current condition).
Regarding claim 8 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Moustafa further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the parameter data such that the vehicle safety envelope is maintained includes at least one of: clipping a portion of the parameter data to a threshold value for maintaining the vehicle safety envelope; setting a portion of the parameter data to a fixed value for maintaining the vehicle safety envelope; (Moustafa [0362] wherein certain vehicle behaviors are maintained to remain within a motion envelope) or setting a portion of the parameter data to a previous value of the parameter data that satisfied the integrity check. (Moustafa [0544] wherein the vehicle automatically reverts to a previous safe operating mode).
Examiner notes that due to the “at least one” language only one of the alternate limitations is needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 9 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Moustafa further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the parameter data satisfies the integrity check includes using one or more of a predetermined rationality, plausibility, proportionality, or correlation factor to verify whether at least one of: (Moustafa [0808] [01368] wherein the vehicle uses various information redundancies to correlate with the sensor data, or correlates with other vehicles to verify information) portions of the parameter data satisfy an acceptable range of values associated with the parameter data; (Moustafa [0324-0327] wherein sensor data is collected and scored to be within a threshold value or range when determining if the data should be used) the portions of the parameter data satisfy an acceptable change in values relative to previous values obtained from corresponding portions of previous parameter data (Moustafa [0849] wherein the vehicle determines previous data and differences in the previous data with current information to determine if values are appropriate or if they contain noise) or the portions of the parameter data satisfy a minimum value or a maximum value associated with the parameter data. (Moustafa [0487-0490] wherein safety profiles are determined as models using a minimum value such as minimum safe distances based on velocities and accelerations).
Examiner notes that due to the “one or more of” language only one of the alternate limitations is needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 10 Moustafa discloses:
A system comprising: at least one vehicle subsystem configured to perform at least one vehicle operation based on parameter data received from a vehicle network; (Moustafa [0167] wherein the vehicle is connected to various communication networks) and a processor communicatively coupled to the vehicle network and operable to: (Moustafa [0173] wherein the vehicle uses processors connected with an external system or network to operate) execute at least one application that generates the parameter data; (Moustafa [0173] wherein the vehicle uses processors connected with an external system or network to operate) conduct an integrity check on the parameter data that verifies whether the parameter data will cause the vehicle operation to maintain a vehicle safety envelope around the vehicle; (Moustafa [0217] [0362] wherein the system takes information of the sensors, surrounding, and other information to determine the safe level of operation i.e. verifying information to support a safe motion provide or envelope in the selected operating mode) responsive to determining that the parameter data does not satisfy the integrity check by verifying that the parameter data will not cause the vehicle operation to maintain the safety envelope around the vehicle: (Moustafa [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the envelope is determined for motion limits, and when actions are outside of a behavior to maintain the motion envelope the behavior is altered or not allowed) modify the parameter data such that the vehicle safety envelope is maintained during performance of the vehicle operation; (Moustafa [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the envelope is determined for motion limits, and when actions are outside of a behavior to maintain the motion envelope the behavior is altered or not allowed) and output the modified parameter data on the vehicle network for causing the vehicle subsystem to perform the vehicle operation in a way that maintains the vehicle safety envelope; (Moustafa [0332] [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the behavior of the vehicle is maintained for a motion envelope, and outputting the best vehicle operation to maintain the envelope or safe vehicle operation) and responsive to determining that the parameter data satisfies the integrity check by verifying that the parameter data will cause the vehicle operation to maintain the safety envelope around the vehicle: (Moustafa [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the envelope is determined for motion limits, and when actions are outside of a behavior to maintain the motion envelope the behavior is altered or not allowed) refrain from modifying the parameter data; and output the parameter data on the vehicle network for causing the vehicle subsystem to perform the vehicle operation. (Moustafa [0379] wherein when the system determines situations that may be an error, but the control signal is aligned with keeping the required vehicle behavior, overriding the control parameter to allow the behavior to continue i.e. refraining from modifying the required control parameter of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 11 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Moustafa further discloses:
The system of claim 10, wherein causing the vehicle subsystem to perform the vehicle operation in a way that maintains the vehicle safety envelope includes performing at least one minimum risk maneuver that results in a minimum safe condition of the vehicle. (Moustafa [0487-0490] wherein the vehicle maintains a safe operation based on minimum distances and collision avoidance situations).
Regarding claim 12 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Moustafa further discloses
The system of claim 10, wherein the system further comprises: a data safety unit operatively coupled to the processor and configured to perform the integrity check. (Moustafa [0182] [0297] [0986-0987] wherein the system includes various sensors connected to a system manager used to check and validate vehicle parameters to operate the autonomous vehicle).
Regarding claim 13 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 and Moustafa further discloses:
The system of claim 12, wherein: the processor and the data safety unit are implemented on a single system on chip; or the processor and the data safety unit are implemented on different chips. (Moustafa [1011-1016] wherein the system is run on a processor with a shipset, or a system on a single chip).
Regarding claim 14 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 and Moustafa further discloses:
The system of claim 12, wherein the data safety unit comprises: at least one array of registers operable to store the parameter data; an observation unit operable to implement the integrity check of the parameter data based on values of the parameter data stored within the array of registers; and an exception-handler unit operable to output data that indicates whether the parameter data stored within the array of registers satisfies the integrity check. (Moustafa [0182] [0297] [0986-0987] wherein the system includes various sensors connected to a system manager used to check and validate vehicle parameters to operate the autonomous vehicle).
Regarding claim 16 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 and Moustafa further discloses:
The system of claim 14, wherein when the data from the exception-handler unit indicates a reason for the parameter data not satisfying the integrity check, the processor is operable to notify the application or the vehicle subsystem about the reason for the parameter data not satisfying the integrity check by outputting an exception on the vehicle network instructing the application or the vehicle subsystem the reason for the parameter data not satisfying the integrity check. (Moustafa [0985-0986] wherein when the safety check is conducted factors such as the weather or location of the vehicle can be used to further update and modify parameters of the autonomous vehicle why displaying scores and changes of the vehicle i.e. notifications of changes based on the conditions and confidence of the vehicle and user are used when safety levels are not met for a current condition).
Regarding claim 17 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 and Moustafa further discloses:
The system of claim 14, further comprising: latching the modified parameter data in the at least one array of registers until the at least one application outputs the parameter data to be within a threshold value. (Moustafa [0281-0282] wherein the system uses local or external registers, validating information stored to ensure the meet a certain trustworthiness threshold).
Regarding claim 18 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 and Moustafa further discloses:
The system of claim 12, wherein the data safety unit modifies the parameter data such that the vehicle safety envelope is maintained includes at least one of: clipping a portion of the parameter data to a threshold value for maintaining the vehicle safety envelope; setting a portion of the parameter data to a fixed value for maintaining the vehicle safety envelope; (Moustafa [0362] wherein certain vehicle behaviors are maintained to remain within a motion envelope) or setting a portion of the parameter data to a previous value of the parameter data that satisfied the integrity check. (Moustafa [0544] wherein the vehicle automatically reverts to a previous safe operating mode).
Examiner notes that due to the “at least one” language only one of the alternate limitations is needed to fully teach the claim.
Regarding claim 19 Moustafa discloses:
A processing device comprising: a processor core including a network interface with at least one subsystem (Moustafa [0167] wherein the vehicle is connected to various communication networks) that performs at least one operation based on parameter data received from the processor core; (Moustafa [0173] wherein the vehicle uses processors connected with an external system or network to operate) and a data safety unit operatively coupled to the processor core and configured to intercept the parameter data from the network interface to determine whether the parameter data satisfies an integrity check, (Moustafa [0182] [0297] [0986-0987] wherein the system includes various sensors connected to a system manager used to check and validate vehicle parameters to operate the autonomous vehicle) the processor core being operable to: execute at least one application that generates the parameter data; (Moustafa [0173] wherein the vehicle uses processors connected with an external system or network to operate) cause the data safety unit to conduct an integrity check on the parameter data that verifies whether the parameter data will cause a safety envelope to be maintained during performance of the operation; (Moustafa [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the envelope is determined for motion limits, and when actions are outside of a behavior to maintain the motion envelope the behavior is altered or not allowed) responsive to the parameter data not satisfying the integrity check by verifying that the parameter data will not cause a safety envelope to be maintained during performance of the operation: (Moustafa [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the envelope is determined for motion limits, and when actions are outside of a behavior to maintain the motion envelope the behavior is altered or not allowed) modify the parameter data such that a safety envelope is maintained during performance of the operation; and output the modified parameter data to the network interface for causing the subsystem to maintain the safety envelope while performing the operation; (Moustafa [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the envelope is determined for motion limits, and when actions are outside of a behavior to maintain the motion envelope the behavior is altered or not allowed) and responsive to the parameter data satisfying the integrity check by verifying that the parameter data will cause a safety envelope to be maintained during performance of the operation: (Moustafa [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the envelope is determined for motion limits, and when actions are outside of a behavior to maintain the motion envelope the behavior is altered or not allowed) refrain from modifying the parameter data; (Moustafa [0379] wherein when the system determines situations that may be an error, but the control signal is aligned with keeping the required vehicle behavior, overriding the control parameter to allow the behavior to continue i.e. refraining from modifying the required control parameter of the vehicle) and output the parameter data to the network interface for causing the subsystem to maintain the safety envelope while performing the operation. (Moustafa [0332] [0362] [0376-0381] wherein the behavior of the vehicle is maintained for a motion envelope, and outputting the best vehicle operation to maintain the envelope or safe vehicle operation).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moustafa in view of Lynam et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2012/0062743 A1 hereinafter “Lynam”).
Regarding claim 20 Moustafa discloses all of the limitations of claim 19 but does not appear to explicitly disclose:
… wherein the processing device and the data safety unit are implemented within a single semiconductor package.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vehicle controls Lynam discloses:
“wherein the processing device and the data safety unit are implemented within a single semiconductor package.” (Lynam [0075] wherein the safety systems and processor are on a semiconductor water substrate).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the semiconductor package of Lynam with the system of Moustafa with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a means for operating safety devices of a vehicle, such as a controller and safety control into a single semiconductor package for confined, central control schemes for the vehicle (Lynam [0075]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Prior art fails to disclose or render obvious claim 6 disclosing a system for indicating if mirror copies satisfy an integrity check.
Regarding claim 6 the relevant art Moustafa in view of Lynam discloses a vehicle control system (Moustafa [0173]) that controls safety systems and an envelope around the vehicle (Moustafa [0217] [0362] while maintaining the data stores maintains a safe and valid operation (Moustafa [0226] [1010] [0282]) but fails to disclose storing and validating mirror copies of the parameters of the vehicle. Specifically, the relevant art fails to disclose “The method of claim 5, wherein: the at least one array of registers comprises multiple arrays of registers included in the data safety unit; the storing parameter data within the at least one array of registers includes storing mirror copies of the parameter data in each of the multiple arrays of registers; and data from the data safety unit indicates whether each of the mirror copies of the parameter data satisfies the integrity check”.
Claim 15 is objected to for similar reasons as those found above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0242153 A1 discloses a customized autonomous vehicle driving mode, based on simulations and stored driving parameters to adjust the behavior based on a safety threshold
US 2022/0055664 A1 discloses autonomous perception systems to identify a safety envelope
US 2021/0039669 A1 discloses a means for validating vehicle operations based on operating parameter information
US 2019/0056736 A1 discloses a system for operating an autonomous vehicle based on optimized space cushions
KR 102670950 B1 discloses an autonomous controller for a vehicle identifying abnormalities and safety controls for the vehicle
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656