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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: a, 3, 11, 15, 18, and 21. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶ 50 line 1 reads "The radar transmitter include" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "The radar transmitter includes" to improve clarity.
¶ 102 line 3 reads "grid correspond thereto" which appears to be a conjugation error and should read "grid corresponding thereto" to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the contents of claims 4, 11, and 18 do not appear to be clearly detailed within the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 line 2, claim 8 lines 10-11, and claim 15 lines 15-16 read "over time, on the dynamic occupancy grid map" which appears to be a punctuation error and should read "over time on the dynamic occupancy grid map" to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“Track” is being interpreted as a footprint of a tracked object in light of Figure 6A with shown tracks 7, 11, and 19 and ¶ 74 which discloses the ellipse and track share the same centroid in Figure 5.
“Around the ellipse” is being interpreted in light of at least ¶ 74 wherein the ellipse and track share the same centroid in Figure 5. Since there is no explicit antecedent basis for the track centroid being around an exterior of the ellipse in any other manner within the specification, examiner interprets “around the ellipse” as meaning “inside the ellipse” (i.e. “around” the ellipse’s contents) as this appears to be the most reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
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:
In claim 1, the "object detector" in the limitation "an object detector calculating a measurement " invokes 112(f) as "detector" is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the calculation of a measurement.
In claim 1, the "shape estimator" in the limitation "a shape estimator estimating a shape" invokes 112(f) as "estimator" is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the estimation of a shape.
In claim 1, the "occupancy probability updater" in the limitation "an occupancy probability updater ellipse-fitting the shape" invokes 112(f) as "updater" is a term that does not have definite structure which enables ellipse fitting a shape.
In claim 1, the "compensator" in the limitation "a compensator compensating for a position of the host vehicle" invokes 112(f) as "compensator" is a term that does not have definite structure which enables the compensation for a position of a vehicle.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification does not show any positively recited structure for the generic placeholders detailed above (see 112(b) rejection below). For the purpose of examination, the structure for these generic placeholders will be interpreted as a processor performing software programs in light of at least ¶ 11 wherein a processor is disclosed as performing each of the recited functions.
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.
Claim limitation “object detector” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As detailed in the claim interpretation section above, no positive structural recitation is provided within the specification for the recited limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
Claim limitation “shape estimator” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As detailed in the claim interpretation section above, no positive structural recitation is provided within the specification for the recited limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
Claim limitation “occupancy probability updater” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As detailed in the claim interpretation section above, no positive structural recitation is provided within the specification for the recited limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
Claim limitation “compensator” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As detailed in the claim interpretation section above, no positive structural recitation is provided within the specification for the recited limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following:
calculating a measurement based on a reception signal received from a radar sensor and
detecting an object around a host vehicle;
estimating a shape of a target vehicle when the target vehicle is detected;
ellipse-fitting the shape of the target vehicle to a point cloud and
updating an occupancy probability of a grid for the target vehicle of a dynamic occupancy grid map (DOGM) based on the fitted shape; and
compensating for a position of the host vehicle over time, on the dynamic occupancy grid map.
The limitation recited above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a memory and processor, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person can mentally, or with pen and paper, calculate a measurement based on a radar sensor signal (a); observe an object in a host vehicle’s environment (b); estimate the shape of the object if the object is a vehicle (c); imagine an ellipse bounding the detected vehicle (d); draw, with pen and paper, or imagine an area wherein the detected vehicle occupies a sub area based on the imagined bounding ellipse (e); and adjust the drawn/imagined area based on a changing position of the host vehicle over time (f). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the memory and processor is/are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using (a) generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitation of receiving radar signals is an insignificant extra pre-solution activity of mere data gathering. Mere data gathering cannot form an inventive concept.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor and memory are generically recited as detailed above. A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. The limitation of receiving radar signals is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) indicated that the transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function, and if the radar signals are instead received from memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicated that the reception of data from memory is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function. See MPEP § 2106(d)(II). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do(es) not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claim(s) is/are directed towards additional aspects of the abstract idea.
To overcome the 101 rejection, examiner recommends providing an explicitly recited step of vehicle control beyond general linking and well understood, routine, and conventional functions (e.g. mere display). While claim 15 generically recites that the vehicle control device controls the vehicle, this limitation is recited within the preamble and thus is not given patentable weight to overcome the rejection as it acts as a mere intended use of the vehicle control device. I.e. the vehicle control device is intended to be used to control the vehicle by creating a DOGM, but there is no patentable recitation of real vehicle control.
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.
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ng et al. US 20210354729 A1 (hereinafter Ng).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15;
Ng teaches
A vehicle control device controlling a vehicle by creating a dynamic occupancy grid map (see at least Abstract), comprising:
at least one memory (¶ 0023 “memory”) including a computer program instruction (¶ 0023 “instructions stored in memory”); and
at least one processor (¶ 0023 “processor”) executing the computer program instruction (¶ 0023 “various functions may be carried out by a processor executing instructions stored in memory”), wherein the at least one processor:
calculates a measurement based on a reception signal (¶ 0035-0036 discloses using sensor data for state determination such as, for example, distance estimation) received from a radar sensor (¶ 0025 “RADAR sensor” as one of the sensors) and detects an object around a host vehicle (¶ 0026 disclose object detection using sensor data);
estimates a shape of a target vehicle when the target vehicle is detected (¶ 0058 “a size (e.g., an actual size of the actor) or representative size (e.g., a shape around and/or including the actor) of the actor may be determined”; see at least ¶ 0025 wherein actors are exemplified as vehicles);
ellipse-fits the shape of the target vehicle (¶ 0058 discloses fitting a shape around an actor, including an ellipse or circle) to a point cloud (¶ 0059-0060 discloses “points in space” that the shape occupies which examiner understands as the shape being applied to a point cloud; see also ¶ 0180 for positive albeit brief recitation of a point cloud) and updating an occupancy probability of a grid for the target vehicle of a dynamic occupancy grid map (DOGM) based on the fitted shape (¶ 0059 discloses determining an occupied set and an occupied trajectory based on the fitted actor shape; see also ¶ 0108 wherein the location of other vehicles is output on an occupancy grid); and
compensates for a position of the host vehicle over time, on the dynamic occupancy grid map (¶ 0066 discloses that the vehicle has an occupied trajectory during movement wherein collision risk can be determined from).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16; Ng teach all of claims 1, 8, and 15 as detailed above.
Ng further teaches
updating the occupancy probability of the grid for the target vehicle (¶ 0059 discloses determining an occupied set and an occupied trajectory based on the fitted actor shape; see also ¶ 0108 wherein the location of other vehicles is output on an occupancy grid) only when a track of the target vehicle is present in the dynamic occupancy grid map (examiner understands this limitations to be relatively broad such that any detectable vehicle, such as those having their location output on the occupancy grid map of ¶ 0108, satisfy this limitation; since all actors in at least ¶ 0058-0060 cited above are detectable (see at least ¶ 0025), the limitation is taught).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17; Ng teach all of claims 2, 9, and 16 as detailed above.
Ng further teaches that
updating the occupancy probability fits the shape of the target vehicle to a point cloud used to update the track (¶ 0058 discloses fitting a shape around an actor, including an ellipse or circle; examiner understands the fitted shape equivalent to an “updated track” as it resembles the occupied footprint of the actor and fully encompasses the actor as detailed in ¶ 0060).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18; Ng teach all of claims 2, 9, and 16 as detailed above.
Ng teaches that
updating the occupancy probability fits a center position of the track to the point cloud around the ellipse (considering the track centroid as being a true centroid of the vehicle, since the fit shape fully encompasses the vehicle as detailed in ¶ 0059, the centroid for the actor inherently is positioned somewhere around the ellipse’s contents, i.e. “around the ellipse”; if instead the fit shape of ¶ 0058-0060 is considered the track, since the track and shape are the same embodiment, the centroids are inherently the same).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Nakaue et al. JP 2001307075 A (hereinafter Nakaue; a translated copy has been provided by the examiner which the examiner relies upon).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19; Ng teach all of claims 1, 8, and 15 as detailed above.
Ng does not teach that
updating the occupancy probability fits a center of the ellipse to be positioned within a predetermined distance from a center of the target vehicle updated at a previous time.
Nakaue teaches that
updating the occupancy probability fits a center of the ellipse to be positioned within a predetermined distance from a center of the target vehicle updated at a previous time (¶ 0014 discloses a new center of gravity for an object is determined as a center of gravity that is within a predetermined distance from a center of gravity at a previous time; see also Abstract wherein the same process is discussed in context of a centroid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ng to incorporate the teachings of Nakaue such that the centroid of the fit shape of Ng can be a centroid of an object as determined by Nakaue wherein the current time centroid is determined by comparing a collection of centroids to a centroid at previous time wherein the centroid within a predetermined range is set as the new centroid as taught by Nakaue. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve accuracy of centroid determination by ignoring erroneous detections that may represent roadside structures as taught by Nakaue (¶ 0015).
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. US 20230417895 A1 (hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20; Ng teach all of claims 1, 8, and 15 as detailed above.
Ng does not teach that
estimating the shape estimates the shape of the target vehicle using extended object tracking (EOT).
Suzuki teaches that
estimating the shape estimates the shape of the target vehicle using extended object tracking (EOT) (¶ 0003 discloses performing EOT to estimate a target object’s state including shape; see also ¶ 0055 wherein EOT is implemented for recognition and tracking and ¶ 0059 wherein the target object state is schematized as an ellipse after state determination).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ng to incorporate the teachings of Suzuki such that the actor of Ng can have its shape determined using EOT prior to ellipse fitting as taught by Suzuki. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve path planning and robustness of the applied method.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of “Numerically Stable Direct Least Squares Fitting of Ellipses” by Halir et al. (hereinafter Halir).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Ng teach all of claims 1, 8, and 15 as detailed above.
Ng does not teach that
updating the occupancy probability calculates a center of the ellipse based on a least squares method.
Halir teaches that
updating the occupancy probability calculates a center of the ellipse based on a least squares method (Abstract discloses obtaining an ellipse fitting of a set of data points using least squares; Figures 3 and 4 discloses ellipse fitting in this manner results in a center of the ellipse).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified Ng to incorporate the teachings of Halir such that the ellipse fitting of Ng can be performed utilizing the least squares method of Halir. This modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success to improve simplicity, stability, and robustness of the fitting as disclosed in Halir (Conclusion).
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ansari US 20160357187 A1 teaches ellipse fitting an object after object shape determination.
Elamir et al. US 20250389847 A1 teaches ellipse fitting an object.
Hafner et al. US 20230150532 A1 teaches ellipse fitting an object using least squares.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Tiffany Schoech whose telephone number is (571)272-2937. The examiner can normally be reached 4:45 am - 3:15 pm PT Monday - Thursday.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/A.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669