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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 12/17/2024.
2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and are addressed below.
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
4. Applicant claims a DE application with priority date back to 1/18/2024, this date is considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Applicant filed two IDSs on 12/17/2024 and on 1/29/2025; they are considered.
Drawing Objection
6. The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention (i.e., Localization requirements for autonomous vehicles). Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Specification
7. The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to pending claims is ineffective because this 2019 NPL paper already teaches applicant's claimed concept (i.e., Reid et al NPL paper "Localization Requirements for Autonomous Vehicles").
Claim interpretations
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.
8. Claimed term “and/or” clearly requires an option (“and” OR “or”) when practice this invention.
9. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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 “...one device configured to control a system...” (see applicant’s claim 10, line 2), 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 (i.e., claim 10, line 6) 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.
10. 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: “...one device configured to control a system.....” (see pending claim 10, line 9; claim 17, line 4 “an integrity monitoring submodule that is configured to...”).
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.
11. 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.
12. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
A. Dependent claims 2-9, and 18-19 are objected because they are dependent on their rejected based claims 1, and 8.
B Pending claim 19 is duplicated.
Claimed Rejections 35 U.S.C. 112-
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
13. Claims 1, 10, 11, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 13. first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. (claims 1, 10, 11, 14, and 17-19).
How to obtain/calculate a maximum expected error to practice this invention (see claim 1 line 6; claim 10 line 7-8, claim 11 line , claim 14 lines 8-9, and claim 17 line 8)
How to obtain/calculate a maximum permissible error (see dependent claims 1 line 10; claim 10 line ; claim 11 line 15; claim 14, line 8’ claims 17 lines 5-6;
Accordingly, Applicant fails to disclose “such full, clear, concise, and exact terms”, “such full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to “of carrying out his invention”.
14. 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
Independent claims 11, and 17 are Lacking of Antecedent Basis
A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The claimed term “comprising the step” (see pending independent claim 11, line 4), and “at least the geometry of roads” (see pending claim 11, line 6),
The claimed term “the determined maximum expected errors” (see pending independent claim 17, line 8), and “at least the geometry of roads” (see pending claim 11, line 6),
The claimed term “compute instances” in claim 17 is unclear – there is no clarification for this term: “instances” .
Claim 19 is a duplication of claim 18.
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.
15. Independent claims 1, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (i.e., at most, applicant claims about using a generic computer to practice a mental process).
101 Analysis - Step 1: Claims 1, 10-11, 14, and 17-19 are directed to “a process”, “an apparatus/structure”, and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”; therefore, they 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.
Representative claims 1, and 18-19 include limitation(s) that recites an abstract idea (emphasized below):
Applicant claims a concept for processing vehicle pose information, comprising features:
determining a pose of the vehicle; and maximum expected errors of the pose
- querying a service for position-dependent, or orientation of that vehicle-for maximum permissible errors (i.e., look-up a database) ;
determining whether the maximum expected errors are within the maximum permissible errors; and
if the maximum expected errors exceed maximum permissible errors initiating an alert.
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). Accordingly, a method that claims about above steps is an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) (underlined) 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, (underlined) when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of using a device/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 (i.e., merely comparing different values to see acceptable/unacceptable parameters: a mathematical concept), 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 claimed abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, those claims recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis — Step 2A, Prong II
According to the 2019 PEG, the claim is 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 generic computer/processor 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 specific “practical application.”
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does 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 (e.g., claims 18-19 are using generic computer components). Generally applying an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving/obtaining data, comparing, and outputting estimated data are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that these claimed activities are all conventional, and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data for a ship is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner from the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int'l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere pre/post-solution activity is a well understood, routine, and conventional function (see claims 1, 10-11, 14, and 17-19).
Independent claims 10-11, 14, and 17-19 include insignificant generic components to practice the invention (i.e., using processors, interfaces, a driving assistance system, and a non-transitory storage medium to implemented a process of claim 1), having similar features or having extra non-significant limitations in the claimed bodies, their claimed concept are analyzed as above claim 1.
16. Dependent claims 2-9, and 12-13, 17 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are also directed to non-statutory subject matter by incorporating their independent claim’ deficiencies; those claims are also ineligible under 35 USC 101 because they do not include extra significant further for the claimed features.
17. In summary, claims 1-14, and 17-19 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
18. Claims 1-5, 9, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid’s “Localization Requirement for Autonomous Vehicles” – hereafter “Reid’s NPL.
A. Per claim 1: Reid’s NPL teaches a method for processing vehicle pose information (see Reid’s NPL page 3 a drawing for “Geometry Bounds” in Fig. 4) in an at least partially automated vehicle (i.e., “autonomous vehicle” see Reid’s NPL page 3 col. I, 2nd para) , a driving assistance system of the vehicle (see Reid’s NPL page 2 col. I, last paragraph) comprising features:
- determining, based at least in part on measurement data gathered by at least one sensor that is carried by the vehicle (see Reid’s NPL page 3 col. I, 3rd paragraph) as well as maximum expected errors of at least the pose (e.g., “At any given time, the vehicle will have an estimate of its maximum position error in each direction. These are known as protection levels and are depicted in Figure 1”see Reid’s NPL page 1 , col. I, 4th para.);
- querying, based at least in part on the position comprised in the determined pose an alert limit service for position-dependent, (e.g., consulting with another source to check if “within an acceptable range/requirement”, see Reid’s NPL page 7 , col. I, TABLE II.);
dependent, maximum permissible errors (e.g., “Longitudinal, lateral, and vertical localization error bounds (alert limits)” see Reid’s NPL the abstract, pg. 1 col. I, 4th para.);
- determining whether the maximum expected errors are within the maximum permissible errors ( e.g., using Reid’s NPL page 7 , col. I, TABLE II.for comparisons); and if the maximum expected errors exceed the maximum permissible errors ,
initiating at least one remedial action (e.g., switching to “a manual mode” to control that vehicle if an expected value is exceeding a requirement of Table II when using Reid’s NPL page 7 , col. I, TABLE II.for comparisons).
Reid’s NPL does not expressly disclose about claimed terms “maximum permissible error” and “maximum expected errors”; however, similar meanings are used such as “maximum allowable protection levels in each direction” and “the vehicle will have an estimate of its maximum position error in each direction” )” see Reid’s NPL, pg. 1 col. I, 4th para.);:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Reid’s NPL with equivalent expressions for “maximum permissible error” and “maximum expected errors” to ensure a safe operation are initiated if exceeding an alert limit.
B. Per claims 17-19: Claims 17-19 are implemented structures from a method of claim 1 into a non-transitory computer readable medium, these claims require of using a computer having a non-transitory computer readable medium containing similar limitations as in claim 1 (see Reid’s NPL page 6 Fig. 10); therefore, similar rejections for 35 USC 103 are also applied.
C. Per claim 2: Applicant requires that : if the maximum expected errors are within the maximum permissible error computing
based at least in part on the determined pose, an actuation signal and actuating
the vehicle, the driving assistance system, with the actuation signal.
The examiner submits that if there are no error, a signal to make a vehicle continues its trajectory is normally generated (e.g., a vehicle is currently within a safe protection level (see Reid’s NPL, pg.11 col. I, Fig. 16)
Per claim 3: Applicant requires that : the alert limit service comprises database in which maximum permissible errors are stored
Reid’s NPL suggests that idea with each type of vehicle’s maximum acceptable dimensions; they are used for comparisons to generate an alert signal (see Reid’s NPL, pg.8 col. I,TABLE V)
Per claim 4: Applicant requires that a database is located on board the vehicle; Reid’s NPL, pg.7 col. I,TABLE II suggests this claimed idea.
Per claim 5: Applicant requires maximum permissible errors are stored in a database; Reid’s NPL suggests this limitation (see Reid’s NPL, pg.7 col. I,TABLE II) representing:the strictest possible maximum permissible errors that may be rendered more lenient by maximum permissible errors (e.g., permitting a relax/broader range before alarming depending on a certain intent of use) , or using exactly parameters from required Reid’s NPL TABLE V (see Reid’s NPL, pg.8 col. I,TABLE V).
G. Per claim 9 : Reid’s NPL disclose “Longitudinal and vertical requirements are more forgiving”
“The other important factor is road width, which typically ranges from3.6meters on standard freeways to2.7meters on limited residential streets” (see Reid’s NPL page 8, col. II, last para.) and “Longitudinal and vertical requirements are more forgiving, with numbers in the 0.4 meters (95%) range, with pointing requirements in each direction of 0.5 degrees (0.01 radians) (95%). Operations on local roads require lateral and longitudinal accuracies in the 0.1 meters (95%) range with pointing requirements of 0.17 degrees (3 milliradians) (95%)”(see Reid’s NPL page 13, col. II, 1st para.).
Reid’s NPL also teaches “The update rate can be throttled based on speed, slowing during low speed driving to save compute and power, and to increase range.”; therefore, adjusting/modifying data ranges is appreciated by one of skill in the art at the time of invention was made.
19. Claims 6-8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reid’s NPL in view of Shimamura (US Pat. 11718976B2).
The rationales and reference to reject claim 1 are incorporated.
Per claim 6: Reid’s NPL does not retrieve required data via a cloud service; however, Shimamura suggests that idea (see Shimamura col. 12 lines 39-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Reid’s NPL with Shimamura’s suggestion to retrieve current data in real-time by utilizing a reliable distributed network – which task has been a successful expectation.
B. Per claim 7 : Reid’s NPL already discloses that real-time data are used (see Reid’’s NPL page 14, col. I, 3rd para); because there are contingent limitations in this method - Applicant requires two “if” condition in this claim “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (see MPEP 2111.04 II. Contingent Limitations
Then a limitation of “if the information is found to be still accurate, using it to determine the sought
maximum permissible errors “ is suggested by Reid’s NPL (pg 14 TABLEs IX, and X) . to determine a worst-case difference/error).
C. Per claim 8 : Reid’s NPL and Shimamura already disclose that real-time data are used (e.g., using data from a cloud service, see Reid’s NPL page 14, col. I, 3rd para and see Shimamura col. 12 lines 39-41);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Reid’s NPL with Shimamura’s suggestion to select data from a cloud services first, if not possible using a database onboard a vehicle because data from a cloud service is most updated data comparing to onboard vehicle’s data.
Per claims 11- 12 : Reid’s NPL already discloses a relationship of accidents/(an undesired event) of road motor vehicle without using localization data (see Reid’s NPL pg.5 Fig. 9, and with LOCALIZATION - vehicle’s pose to increase safety on pg. 6 Fig. 10)).
Per claim 13 : Reid’s NPL also discloses steps wherein an undesired event comprises entry of the vehicle into an area where other traffic participants have priority (e.g., a YIELD area before “entering a freeway”, see Reid’s NPL pg. 12 col. I, 2nd paragraph) );
Per claim 14 : Reid’s NPL in view of Shimura also suggests a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing a computer program (see Shimura FIG. 14), to: determine maximum permissible errors by querying the maximum permissible errors (e.g., using a database for comparison, see Reid’s NPL pg. 7 col. I, Table II), compare the determined maximum expected errors with the maximum permissible
errors (e.g., using Table II for comparison against parameters, see Reid’s NPL pg. 7 col. I, Table II, and last para graph); and if the maximum expected errors exceed the maximum permissible errors, cause a disengaging of the autonomous operation of the vehicle, or the driving assistance system (e.g., using “driver assistant feature”, see Reid’s NPL pg. 2 col. I, last paragraph) and cause the one or more computers to perform a method according to claim 1 (“the target level of safety is used to allocate appropriate integrity risk to each element of the system including localization.” see Reid’s NPL pg. 3 col. I, 2nd para graph);
Conclusion
20. Pending claims 1-14, and 17-19 are rejected are rejected.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 10:30AM- 6:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664