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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-7 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 03 September 2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application 2022033550 filed in Japan on 04 March 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has NOT filed a certified copy of the Japanese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. The Applicant must provide the certified copy of the Japanese priority document directly to the office or have the office electronically retrieve the certified copy into the file wrapper through the priority document exchange program.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 should be amended to recite “wherein further includes lighting information ... and passability information ...” to keep a consistent claim language since claim 1 previously recites “traffic light identification data including lane information ..., traffic light information ..., and confidence information ...”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 should be amended to recite “... by statistically processing classification result data acquired through the provisional process” to complete the sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 should be amended to recite “... in the integration process ...”. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “data generation unit” in claim set 1-6 and “data storage unit” in claim 7.
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. See Figure 1, page 4 and page 7 of Applicant’s as-filed specification.
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
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.
Claims 1-7 are 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.
Claims 1 and 7 recite “the traffic light”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for such limitation in the claims. The connection or lack thereof to the previously recited plurality of traffic lights is unclear, to the Examiner. Did Applicant mean to recite “[[the]] a traffic light among the plurality of traffic lights”.
Claim 3 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “classification result data acquired the provisional process”. The connection, or lack thereof, between the “classification result data” and the previously recited a provisional process of “classifying ...” is unclear, to the Examiner. For example, is the classification result data directly related to the classifying recited in the claim or could it be any classification result data acquired through the provisional process which based on Applicant’s specification includes various steps.
Claim 4 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “a plurality of pieces of classification result data acquired through the provisional process”. The connection, or lack thereof, between the “plurality of pieces of classification result data” and the previously recited a provisional process of “classifying ...” and “classification result data” is unclear, to the Examiner. For example, is the plurality of pieces of classification result data directly related to the classifying recited in claim 3 or could it be any plurality of pieces of classification result data acquired through the provisional process which based on Applicant’s specification includes various steps and is the classification result data of claim 3 part of the plurality of pieces of classification result data or not .
Claim 6 is indefinite because of the recited limitation “wherein the data generation unit is capable of generating the traffic light information for the traffic lights recognized by the vehicle”. 1) It is unclear, to the Examiner, what Applicant specifically means by “capable of”; for example, is it to be interpreted differently than the “configured to” language consistently used in the other claims? 2) “the traffic lights” uses different wording than “the plurality of traffic lights” previously recited; therefore, such limitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis as the connection or lack thereof is unclear, to the Examiner.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 and 7 are directed to device(s). Therefore, claims 1 and 7 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1 and 7 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
A data generation device comprising:
a data generation unit configured to generate data, the data generation unit being further configured to generate, as the data, traffic light identification data including lane information for identifying a lane in which a vehicle is traveling, traffic light information for identifying a plurality of traffic lights installed at an intersection to which the lane is connected, and confidence information indicating a degree of confidence set for each of the plurality of traffic lights, the traffic light identification data having a data structure that allows the traffic light that should be trusted to be identified based on the degrees of confidence set for the plurality of traffic lights depending on the lane in which the vehicle is traveling
Claim 7 recites:
A data storage device comprising: a data storage unit configured to store data, the data storage unit being further configured to store, as the data, traffic light identification data including lane information for identifying a lane in which a vehicle is traveling, traffic light information for identifying a plurality of traffic lights installed at an intersection to which the lane is connected, and confidence information indicating a degree of confidence set for each of the plurality of traffic lights, the traffic light identification data having a data structure that allows the traffic light that should be trusted to be identified based on the degrees of confidence set for the plurality of traffic lights depending on the lane in which the vehicle is traveling
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, generating data and storing data in the context of these claims encompasses a person looking at data collected (received, detected, etc.) and forming a simple judgement (determination, analysis, comparison, memorizing, remembering, etc.) either mentally or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A data generation device comprising:
a data generation unit configured to generate data, the data generation unit being further configured to generate, as the data, traffic light identification data including lane information for identifying a lane in which a vehicle is traveling, traffic light information for identifying a plurality of traffic lights installed at an intersection to which the lane is connected, and confidence information indicating a degree of confidence set for each of the plurality of traffic lights, the traffic light identification data having a data structure that allows the traffic light that should be trusted to be identified based on the degrees of confidence set for the plurality of traffic lights depending on the lane in which the vehicle is traveling
Claim 7 recites:
A data storage device comprising: a data storage unit configured to store data, the data storage unit being further configured to store, as the data, traffic light identification data including lane information for identifying a lane in which a vehicle is traveling, traffic light information for identifying a plurality of traffic lights installed at an intersection to which the lane is connected, and confidence information indicating a degree of confidence set for each of the plurality of traffic lights, the traffic light identification data having a data structure that allows the traffic light that should be trusted to be identified based on the degrees of confidence set for the plurality of traffic lights depending on the lane in which the vehicle is traveling
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (processor) to perform the process. In particular, “A data generation device comprising: a data generation unit configured to ..., the data generation unit being further configured to” and “A data storage device comprising: a data storage unit configured to ..., the data storage unit being further configured to” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements and/or additional limitations in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). The device(s) and processor(s) are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1 and 7 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claims 2-6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-7 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Max (US20190392706A1) in view of Liu (CN111008609A – translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Max discloses a data generation device (see at least abstract) comprising: a data generation unit configured to generate data (see at least abstract), the data generation unit being further configured to generate, as the data, traffic light identification data (see at least abstract and [0074]) including lane information for identifying a lane in which a vehicle is traveling (see at least [0044], [0046] and [0074]), traffic light information for identifying a plurality of traffic lights installed at an intersection to which the lane is connected (see at least Figure 1, [0044] and [0074]), the traffic light identification data having a data structure that allows the traffic light that should be trusted to be identified depending on the lane in which the vehicle is traveling (see at least [0053], [0054] and [0074]).
Max does not explicitly disclose traffic light identification data further including confidence information indicating a degree of confidence set for each of the plurality of traffic lights; the traffic light identification data having the data structure that allows the traffic light that should be trusted to be identified based on the degrees of confidence set for the plurality of traffic lights depending on the lane in which the vehicle is traveling. However, Liu teaches traffic light identification data further including confidence information indicating a degree of confidence set for each of the plurality of traffic lights; the traffic light identification data having the data structure that allows the traffic light that should be trusted to be identified based on the degrees of confidence set for the plurality of traffic lights depending on the lane in which the vehicle is traveling (see at least [0069], [0073], [0077]-[0088], [0091]; “comprehensive matching value”, “degree of matching”, “matching matrix”, “confidence level/matrix”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Max to incorporate the teachings of Liu which teaches traffic light identification data further including confidence information indicating a degree of confidence set for each of the plurality of traffic lights; the traffic light identification data having the data structure that allows the traffic light that should be trusted to be identified based on the degrees of confidence set for the plurality of traffic lights depending on the lane in which the vehicle is traveling since they are both directed to assigning lights to respective lanes and incorporation of the teachings of Liu would increase accuracy of the traffic light identification data and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 2, Max as modified by Liu discloses wherein the data generation unit includes in the traffic light identification data lighting information indicating a lighting state of each of the plurality of traffic lights and passability information indicating whether the vehicle is allowed to pass through the intersection (see at least Max [0045], [0050], [0051], [0046] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 3, Max discloses wherein the data generation unit is configured to perform a provisional process of classifying each of the plurality of traffic lights recognized by the vehicle into an own signal which corresponds to the lane in which the vehicle is traveling or a non-own signal which does not correspond to the lane in which the vehicle is traveling (see at least [0035]-[0044], [0047] and [0067]-[0072]) and a definitive process (see at least [0074]).
Max fails to explicitly disclose wherein the definitive process is further a process of setting the degrees of confidence by statistically processing classification result data acquired the provisional process. However, Liu teaches wherein the definitive process is further a process of setting the degrees of confidence by statistically processing classification result data acquired the provisional process (see at least [0069], [0073], [0077]-[0088], [0091]; “first matching value”, “second matching value”, “comprehensive matching value”, “confidence level/matrix”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Max to incorporate the teachings of Liu which teaches wherein the definitive process is further a process of setting the degrees of confidence by statistically processing classification result data acquired the provisional process since they are both directed to assigning lights to respective lanes and incorporation of the teachings of Liu would increase accuracy of the traffic light identification data and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 4, Max as modified by Liu discloses wherein the data generation unit is configured to perform an integration process of integrating a plurality of pieces of classification result data acquired through the provisional process prior to the definitive process (see at least Max [0035]-[0044], [0047] and [0067]-[0072]), and in that integration process, integrate the traffic light information pertaining to a same traffic light and integrate the lane information pertaining to a same lane (see at least Max [0047] and [0067]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 5, Max fails to disclose wherein the data generation unit is configured to make the degree of confidence lower than a predefined criterion value unavailable for reference. However, Liu teaches wherein the data generation unit is configured to make the degree of confidence lower than a predefined criterion value unavailable for reference (see at least [0083], [0084] and [0091]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Max to incorporate the teachings of Liu which teaches wherein the data generation unit is configured to make the degree of confidence lower than a predefined criterion value unavailable for reference since they are both directed to assigning lights to respective lanes and incorporation of the teachings of Liu would increase accuracy of the traffic light identification data and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Regarding claim 6, Max as modified by Liu discloses wherein the data generation unit is capable of generating the traffic light information for the traffic lights recognized by the vehicle (see at least Max [0035]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 7, Max discloses a data storage device (see at least abstract) comprising: a data storage unit configured to store data (see at least abstract), the data storage unit being further configured to store, as the data, traffic light identification data (see at least abstract and [0074]) including lane information for identifying a lane in which a vehicle is traveling (see at least [0044], [0046] and [0074]), traffic light information for identifying a plurality of traffic lights installed at an intersection to which the lane is connected (see at least Figure 1, [0044] and [0074]), the traffic light identification data having a data structure that allows the traffic light that should be trusted to be identified depending on the lane in which the vehicle is traveling (see at least [0053], [0054] and [0074]).
Max does not explicitly disclose traffic light identification data further including confidence information indicating a degree of confidence set for each of the plurality of traffic lights; the traffic light identification data having the data structure that allows the traffic light that should be trusted to be identified based on the degrees of confidence set for the plurality of traffic lights depending on the lane in which the vehicle is traveling. However, Liu teaches traffic light identification data further including confidence information indicating a degree of confidence set for each of the plurality of traffic lights; the traffic light identification data having the data structure that allows the traffic light that should be trusted to be identified based on the degrees of confidence set for the plurality of traffic lights depending on the lane in which the vehicle is traveling (see at least [0069], [0073], [0077]-[0088], [0091]; “comprehensive matching value”, “degree of matching”, “matching matrix”, “confidence level/matrix”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified Max to incorporate the teachings of Liu which teaches traffic light identification data further including confidence information indicating a degree of confidence set for each of the plurality of traffic lights; the traffic light identification data having the data structure that allows the traffic light that should be trusted to be identified based on the degrees of confidence set for the plurality of traffic lights depending on the lane in which the vehicle is traveling since they are both directed to assigning lights to respective lanes and incorporation of the teachings of Liu would increase accuracy of the traffic light identification data and thereby increase reliability of the overall system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please observe the prior arts cited in the attached PTO-892 form. Specifically Examiner points to [0022], [0039]-[0045] and [0050]-[0053] of Klomp (DE102020211017B3 – translation attached).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR MOTAZEDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30a.m. - 6:30p.m..
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at (313) 446-4821. 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.
/SAHAR MOTAZEDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667