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 .
Introduction
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed October 28, 2024 and October 20, 2025 have been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 6 the arrows are inconsistent and there are multiple overlapping lines (e.g., arrow to box 420a goes to box 422a instead of box 420a while arrow to box 420b goes to box 402b and the line going to box 404 has different shading and multiple lines when there should only be one).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses implied language (“is provided”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 0013 and 0100 state that the predetermined distance can be based on a width of at least one of the original lane and target lane, but there is no disclosure on how it is being done making it unclear how the predetermined distance would be adjusted based on the lane width.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, “the method of claim 15” should read “the method of claim 16”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 9, lines 1-2, the limitation "wherein the predetermined distance is based on a width of at least one of the original lane and the target lane" renders the claim indefinite as the scope is unclear because the spec doesn’t provide any detail on how this would be done.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tosaka (JP 2004314804).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Tosaka discloses a computer system comprising processing circuitry and a computer-implemented method configured to:
determine that a turn indicator of a host vehicle is activated (Tosaka, [0023], regarding receiving a turn signal switch signal from a turn signal switch);
obtain a cross-over distance between the host vehicle and a cross-over lane line during a lane change from an original lane over the cross-over lane line to a target lane (Tosaka, [0037], regarding the distance to the while line is calculated & [0020], regarding white line recognition signals being recognizing while lines from the captured images and estimating the distance between the vehicle and white line);
determine that the cross-over distance is at least as great as a predetermined distance (Tosaka, [0038], regarding determining whether the while line has passed beyond the center of the vehicle); and
cancel the turn indicator (Tosaka, [0039], regarding cancelling the turn signal).
Regarding claim 2, Tosaka discloses the computer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line is a lateral distance extending in a direction being perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the cross-over lane line (Tosaka, [0037-0038], regarding calculating the distance to the while line and determining whether the while line has passed beyond the center of the vehicle & Fig. 6 regarding the while line being parallel with the longitudinal direction of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 3, Tosaka discloses the computer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line is a distance between a center of the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line (Tosaka, [0037-0038], regarding calculating the distance to the while line and determining whether the while line has passed beyond the center of the vehicle).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Tosaka discloses the computer system and method as claimed in claims 1 and 15, respectively, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
obtain the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line by measuring the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line (Tosaka, [0037], regarding calculating the distance to the while line).
Regarding claim 8, Tosaka discloses the computer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the predetermined distance is a fixed value (Tosaka, [0038], regarding determining whether the while line has passed beyond the center of the vehicle).
Regarding claim 14, Tosaka discloses a vehicle comprising the computer system of claim 1 (Tosaka, [0007], regarding a vehicle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5-7 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosaka in view of Miklos (US 2019/0318174).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, in an alternative method, Tosaka discloses the computer system and method as claimed in claims 1 and 15, but does not teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
obtain the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line by measuring a margin distance between the host vehicle and a distant lane line of the target lane.
Miklos teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
obtain the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line by measuring a margin distance between the host vehicle and a distant lane line of the target lane (Miklos, Fig. 2 regarding D3, D2, and W2. The distance to D2 can be calculated by taking the measurement D3 and subtracting it from W2).
Tosaka and Miklos are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane line measurement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tosaka to incorporate measuring the distance to the distant lane line, as disclosed by Miklos, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the distance from the vehicle to the far lane line.
Regarding claim 6, Tosaka in view of Miklos teaches the computer system as claimed in claim 5. Tosaka further teaches a failed attempt to measure the cross-over distance between eh host vehicle and the cross-over lane line (Tosaka, [0028], regarding proceeding to step S6 if the white line is not recognized).
Miklos teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
measure the margin distance between the host vehicle and a distant lane line of the target lane (Miklos, Fig. 2 regarding D3, D2, and W2. The distance to D2 can be calculated by taking the measurement D3 and subtracting it from W2).
Tosaka and Miklos are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane line measurement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tosaka, as modified, to incorporate measuring the distance to the distant lane line, as disclosed by Miklos, when the crossover distance cannot be determined, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the distance from the vehicle to the lane line.
Tosaka, as modified, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
measure the margin distance between the host vehicle and a distant lane line of the target lane as a response to a failed attempt to measure the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Tosaka in view of Miklos teaches the computer system and method as claimed in claims 5 and 16, respectively. Miklos further teaches wherein the cross-over distance is obtained by subtracting the measured margin distance from a target lane width (Miklos, Fig. 2 regarding D3, D2, and W2. The distance to D2 can be calculated by taking the measurement D3 and subtracting it from W2).
Tosaka and Miklos are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane line measurement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tosaka, as modified, to incorporate measuring the distance to the lane line by subtracting the distance to the far lane line from the lane width, as disclosed by Miklos, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the distance from the vehicle to the lane line.
Regarding claim 17, Tosaka discloses the method as claimed in claim 15, further comprising a failed attempt to measure the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line (Tosaka, [0028], regarding proceeding to step S6 if the white line is not recognized), but does not disclose measuring the margin distance between the host vehicle and a distant lane line of the target lane.
Miklos teaches measuring the margin distance between the host vehicle and a distant lane line of the target lane (Miklos, Fig. 2 regarding D3, D2, and W2. The distance to D2 can be calculated by taking the measurement D3 and subtracting it from W2).
Tosaka and Miklos are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane line measurement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tosaka, as modified, to incorporate measuring the distance to the distant lane line, as disclosed by Miklos, when the crossover distance cannot be determined, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the distance from the vehicle to the lane line.
Tosaka, as modified, teaches measuring the margin distance between the host vehicle and a distant lane line of the target lane as a response to a failed attempt to measure the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosaka in view of Ma (US 2018/0229768).
Regarding claim 9, Tosaka discloses the computer system as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the predetermined distance is based on a width of at least one of the original lane and the target lane.
Ma teaches wherein the predetermined distance is based on a width of at least one of the original lane and the target lane (Ma, [0022] & Fig. 7A regarding an adaptive-threshold that is based on the lane-width).
Tosaka and Ma are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane line measurement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tosaka to incorporate adding a buffer to the lane line threshold based on the lane-width, as disclosed by Ma, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of detecting when the vehicle has performed a lane change.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosaka in view of Shimizu (JP 2009166734).
Regarding claim 10, Tosaka discloses the computer system as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain a change in distance between the host vehicle and a lane line during a lane change from an original lane over the cross-over lane line to a target lane;
determine that the change in distance is at least as great as a predetermined change in distance; and
cancel the turn indicator based on the change in distance being at least as great as the predetermined change in distance.
Shimizu teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain a change in distance between the host vehicle and a lane line during a lane change from an original lane over the cross-over lane line to a target lane (Shimizu, [0025] regarding the change rate z of the value y indicating the distance with respect to the travel distance x is calculated);
determine that the change in distance is at least as great as a predetermined change in distance (Shimizu, [0025] & Fig. 5 regarding the rate change z1 to -z1 indicating the same lane when the value of the change rate z deviates from the lane travel change rate range B, it is estimated that the rate of change z is out of the travel lane. By having the change rate z move to -z2 a lane change is detected.); and
cancel the turn indicator based on the change in distance being at least as great as the predetermined change in distance (Shimizu, [0041] regarding turning off the turn signal when it is determined that the lane change has been completed).
Tosaka and Shimizu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane change determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tosaka to incorporate determining a lane change based on a change in distance, as disclosed by Shimizu, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of having a secondary method of determining the vehicle has changed lanes.
Regarding claim 11, Tosaka in view of Shimizu teaches the computer system as claimed in claim 10. Shimizu further teaches wherein the change in distance represents a change of lane line from a left lane line of the original lane to a left lane line of the target lane, or from a right lane line of the original lane to a right lane line of the target lane (Shimizu, [0023] regarding the change in the value y when the vehicle changes one lane from the first lane on the left to the second lane on the right, [0025] regarding the change rate z of the value y indicating the distance with respect to the travel distance x is calculated, & [0019] regarding the value y indicating the distance between the left edge of the image and the left edge of the lane boundary line, thereby determining the position of the vehicle relative to the driving lane. As the vehicle changes lanes from left to right, the value y would indicate the distance to the left driving line in the left lane at the start and the left driving line in the right lane after the lane change).
Tosaka and Shimizu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane change determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tosaka, as modified, to incorporate determining a lane change based on a change in distance, as disclosed by Shimizu, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of having a secondary method of determining the vehicle has changed lanes.
Regarding claim 12, Tosaka in view of Shimizu teaches the computer system as claimed in claim 11. Shimizu further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine that a distance between the host vehicle and the left or right lane line is within a tolerance interval based on the obtained change in distance (Shimizu, Fig. 5 regarding determining the value y is back within the range A. The vehicle's distance to the lane line y will have moved from the middle of the range A down to zero, to the width of the lane line, and back down to within the range A. Therefore, the tolerance A is determined by factoring in change in distance as it represents the vehicle is within the lane.).
Tosaka and Shimizu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane change determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tosaka, as modified, to incorporate determining the distance to the lane line is within a range, as disclosed by Shimizu, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of verifying the lane change has occurred.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosaka in view of Miklos and Shimizu.
Regarding claim 13, Tosaka discloses the computer system as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line is a lateral distance extending in a direction being perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the cross-over lane line (Tosaka, [0037-0038], regarding calculating the distance to the while line and determining whether the while line has passed beyond the center of the vehicle & Fig. 6 regarding the while line being parallel with the longitudinal direction of the vehicle); and
the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line is a distance between a center of the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line (Tosaka, [0037-0038], regarding calculating the distance to the while line and determining whether the while line has passed beyond the center of the vehicle); and
the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line by measuring the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line and (Tosaka, [0037], regarding calculating the distance to the while line);
a failed attempt to measure the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line (Tosaka, [0028], regarding proceeding to step S6 if the white line is not recognized); and
wherein the predetermined distance is a fixed value (Tosaka, [0038], regarding determining whether the while line has passed beyond the center of the vehicle).
Tosaka does not disclose wherein:
the processing circuity is further configured to:
obtain the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line by measuring a margin distance between the host vehicle and a distant lane line of the target lane;
measure the margin distance between the host vehicle and a distant lane line of the target lane as a response to a failed attempt to measure the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line, wherein the cross-over distance is obtained by subtracting the measured margin distance from a target lane width;
obtain a change in distance between the host vehicle and a lane line during a lane change from an original lane over the cross-over lane line to a target lane;
determine that the change in distance is at least as great as a predetermined change in distance;
cancel the turn indicator based on the change in distance being at least as great as the predetermined change in distance, wherein the change in distance represents a change of lane line from a left lane line of the original lane to a left lane line of the target lane, or from a right lane line of the original lane to a right lane line of the target lane;
determine that a distance between the vehicle and the left or right lane line is within a tolerance interval based on the obtained change in distance; and
re-determine, for a subsequent position of the host vehicle during the lane change, that the distance between the vehicle and the left or right lane line is within the tolerance interval.
Miklos teaches the processing circuity is further configured to:
obtain the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line by measuring a margin distance between the host vehicle and a distant lane line of the target lane;
measure the margin distance between the host vehicle and a distant lane line of the target lane as a response to a failed attempt to measure the cross-over distance between the host vehicle and the cross-over lane line, wherein the cross-over distance is obtained by subtracting the measured margin distance from a target lane width (Miklos, Fig. 2 regarding D3, D2, and W2. The distance to D2 can be calculated by taking the measurement D3 and subtracting it from W2);
Tosaka and Miklos are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane line measurement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tosaka, as modified, to incorporate measuring the distance to the lane line by subtracting the distance to the far lane line from the lane width, as disclosed by Miklos, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the distance from the vehicle to the lane line.
Shimizu teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to:
obtain a change in distance between the host vehicle and a lane line during a lane change from an original lane over the cross-over lane line to a target lane (Shimizu, [0025] regarding the change rate z of the value y indicating the distance with respect to the travel distance x is calculated);
determine that the change in distance is at least as great as a predetermined change in distance (Shimizu, [0025] & Fig. 5 regarding the rate change z1 to -z1 indicating the same lane when the value of the change rate z deviates from the lane travel change rate range B, it is estimated that the rate of change z is out of the travel lane. By having the change rate z move to -z2 a lane change is detected.);
cancel the turn indicator based on the change in distance being at least as great as the predetermined change in distance (Shimizu, [0041] regarding turning off the turn signal when it is determined that the lane change has been completed), wherein the change in distance represents a change of lane line from a left lane line of the original lane to a left lane line of the target lane, or from a right lane line of the original lane to a right lane line of the target lane (Shimizu, [0023] regarding the change in the value y when the vehicle changes one lane from the first lane on the left to the second lane on the right, [0025] regarding the change rate z of the value y indicating the distance with respect to the travel distance x is calculated, & [0019] regarding the value y indicating the distance between the left edge of the image and the left edge of the lane boundary line, thereby determining the position of the vehicle relative to the driving lane. As the vehicle changes lanes from left to right, the value y would indicate the distance to the left driving line in the left lane at the start and the left driving line in the right lane after the lane change);
determine that a distance between the vehicle and the left or right lane line is within a tolerance interval based on the obtained change in distance (Shimizu, Fig. 5 regarding determining the value y is back within the range A. The vehicle's distance to the lane line y will have moved from the middle of the range A down to zero, to the width of the lane line, and back down to within the range A. Therefore, the tolerance A is determined by factoring in change in distance as it represents the vehicle is within the lane.); and
re-determine, for a subsequent position of the host vehicle during the lane change, that the distance between the vehicle and the left or right lane line is within the tolerance interval (Shimizu, Fig. 5 regarding the value y line being within the range A just as it enters the range and at a time x4).
Tosaka and Shimizu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane change determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tosaka, as modified, to incorporate determining a lane change based on a change in distance, as disclosed by Shimizu, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of having a secondary method of determining the vehicle has changed lanes.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosaka in view of Au (US 2013/0265152).
Regarding claim 19, Tosaka discloses the method as claimed in claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 15.
Au teaches a computer program product comprising program code.
Tosaka and Au are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane change determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tosaka to incorporate a computer program comprising code, as disclosed by Au, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the vehicle has changed lanes.
Tosaka, as modified, teaches a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, Tosaka discloses the method as claimed in claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 15.
Au teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (Au, [0101] regarding computer-readable media).
Tosaka and Au are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lane change determination. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tosaka to incorporate a computer-readable media, as disclosed by Au, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining the vehicle has changed lanes.
Tosaka, as modified, teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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 BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665