DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final action is responsive to the application filed 11/12/2024.
In the application Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1, 7 and 13 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
5. Acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for foreign priority to 10-2023-0164224 (KR), filed 11/23/2023.
Drawings
6. The Drawings filed on 11/12/2024 have been approved.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7 and 13, including dependent claims 6, 12 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 & 13 respectively of co-pending application 18/945289 herein ‘289. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications teach a method for generating a predicted curvature by a vehicle control apparatus.
Claim 1 (see claims 1 of ‘289);
Claim 7 (see claim 7 of ‘289);
Claim 13 (see claim 13 of ‘289);
Claim 6 (see claim 6 of ‘289);
Claim 12 (see claim 12 of ‘289);
Claim 14 (see claim 14 of ‘289);
Current Application
Claim 1, A vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a rear wheel steering unit configured to steer rear wheels of a vehicle, to measure a rear wheel angle, and to generate a status signal;
a failure determination unit operatively connected to the rear-wheel steering unit and configured to determine a failure situation of the rear wheel steering unit based on the status signal; and
a curvature prediction unit operatively connected to the failure determination unit and configured to generate a predicted curvature of a traveling route of the vehicle based on the failure situation,
wherein the curvature prediction unit is configured to generate the predicted curvature based on the rear wheel angle.
(note: Independent claims 7 and 13 recites similar language has in claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale).
‘289 Application
1. A vehicle control apparatus, comprising:
a rear-wheel steering unit configured to steer rear wheels of a vehicle, to measure a rear wheel angle, and to generate a status signal;
a failure determination unit operatively connected to the rear-wheel steering unit and configured to determine a failure situation of the rear-wheel steering unit based on the status signal;
a curvature prediction unit operatively connected to the failure determination unit and configured to generate a predicted curvature of a traveling route of the vehicle based on the failure situation; and
a position prediction unit operatively connected to the curvature prediction unit and configured to generate a predicted position of the vehicle based on the predicted curvature,
wherein the curvature prediction unit generates the predicted curvature based on the rear wheel angle.
The ‘289 application discloses all the underlined elements and recites additional limitations of a position prediction unit. Claim 1 of the present application differs from the ‘289 application only in that Claim 1 does not recite the position prediction unit. As the ‘289 application fully encompasses all the limitations of claim 1 and merely adds an additional element, Claim 1 is not patentably distinct from the ‘289 application. Accordingly, Claim 1 is rejected under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. This rejection may be overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37CFR. 1.321.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term “means” or “step” triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term “means,” examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term “means”). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.”. 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 elements in this application that use “configured to” in combination with generic placeholder are interpreted to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites: “failure determination unit…configured to determine a failure situation…” & “curvature prediction unit…configured to generate a predicted curvature…”
The terms “failure determination unit” & “curvature prediction unit” are generic placeholders that do not denote a specific structure recognized in the art, but instead serve as nonce words for performing the recited functions. The linking words “configured to determine a failure situation” & “configured to generate a predicted curvature” are the functional trigger language that define the claimed elements solely by the functions they perform, rather than by any recited structure. The claim does not specify any particular hardware architecture, circuitry, or algorithm by which these functions are carried out. As such, the claim fails to recite sufficient structure to avoid means-plus-function interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification that performs the function of determining a failure situation includes one or more processors executing the failure determination logic described in paragraphs 31-34, including receiving status signal from the rear wheel steering unit indicating whether rear wheel steering operates normally and whether a rear wheel angle is measurable, and determining the failure situation based on those conditions, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification that perform the function of generating a predicted curvature includes one or more processors executing the curvature prediction algorithm described in paragraphs 35-41 and 48-53 which includes:
generating a predicted curvature using Ackermann geometry model based on a rear wheel angle and a front wheel angle when the rear wheel angle is measurable (see Equations 5-7)
generating a predicted curvature based on a yaw rate and vehicle speed when the rear wheel angle is not measurable (see Equation 8)
Accordingly, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the scope of the “failure determination unit” and the “curvature prediction unit” limitations are limited to the corresponding structures and algorithms disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to “A vehicle control apparatus…” (machine). Claim 7 is directed to “A method…” (process). Claim 13 is directed to “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium…” (manufacture). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claims 7 and 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]).
Claim 1. A vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a rear wheel steering unit configured to steer rear wheels of a vehicle, to measure a rear wheel angle, and to generate a status signal [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment] & [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, pre-solution activity, data gathering];
a failure determination unit operatively connected to the rear-wheel steering unit and configured to determine a failure situation of the rear wheel steering unit based on the status signal [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment] & [mental process]; and
a curvature prediction unit operatively connected to the failure determination unit and configured to generate a predicted curvature of a traveling route of the vehicle based on the failure situation [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment] & [mathematical concept],
wherein the curvature prediction unit is configured to generate the predicted curvature based on the rear wheel angle [mathematical concept].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute a “mathematical concept” & “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claims describe failure determination which involves evaluation/judgement that could be performed mentally. For example, a human can observe a status signals (ex: dashboard light) to decide “is this a failure situation” and conclude that the system has failed. Furthermore, curvature prediction involves mathematical relationships via calculating predicted turning radius/curvature from wheel angles using geometry/kinematic equations which are standard in vehicle dynamics.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the limitations of “a rear wheel steering unit configured to steer” & “a failure determination unit operatively connected” & “a curvature prediction unit operatively connected”. The Examiner submits that these limitations describe physical hardware components within a specific technological field of “vehicle control” and amount to a field of use. The rear-wheel steering unit is a generic vehicle component used only as a data source. The claim does not recite any action that applies the predicted curvature to control or modify vehicle operation. Thus, the additional elements merely confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding the additional limitations of “to measure a rear wheel angle, and to generate a status signal” fall under insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to pre-solution activity and data gathering that collects operational data via measuring rear wheel angle (sensors) and generating a signal that are then fed into the abstract idea. The claims steps amount to collecting, analyzing and outputting information, which 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) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claims 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 “to generate a status signal” & “based on the status signal”, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component for the application of data via use of signal to determine failure. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See 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) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 2 and 8, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims recite use of a mathematical equation to calculate predicted curvature which
can be performed with pen and paper and thereby constitutes an abstract idea that falls under a mental process and mathematical concepts. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 3 and 9, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims recite gathering and reporting information regarding the operational status and measurability of a steering unit which constitutes Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering -pre-solution activity, as it occurs prior to any alleged solution and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 4-5 and 10-11, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims recite conditional logic for selecting which data is used to perform the abstract calculation of predicted curvature thereby controlling computation and not the vehicle itself, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 6, 12 and 14, - does describe significantly more than an abstract idea has the rear wheel steering unit is used to control the rear wheels using the predicted curvature.
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 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.
12. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eguchi (U.S. 5,554,969, filed Jan. 23, 1995) in view of OTA (U.S. Pub 2010/0250064, filed Mar. 22, 2010).
Regarding Independent claims 1, 7 and 13, Eguchi discloses A vehicle control apparatus comprising:
a rear wheel steering unit configured to steer rear wheels of a vehicle, to measure a rear wheel angle, and to generate a status signal (see col. 2, lines 1-6 & col. 7, lines 49-60, discloses rear road wheel steering mechanism including rear road wheel steering angle sensor that produces a sensor signal indicating direction and magnitude of rear road wheel steering angle via sensor 26);
a failure determination unit operatively connected to the rear-wheel steering unit and configured to determine a failure situation of the rear wheel steering unit based on the status signal (see col. 3, lines 60-67 & col. 4, lines 50-65 & col. 5, lines 28-36, discloses a first sensor monitoring means for monitoring the sensor signal value. Further determining that a failure in said rear road wheel steering angle sensor has occurred via (monitoring circuit 14d). Teaching monitoring sensor signal and calculation of deviations and determination of failure based on multiple criteria); Eguchi discloses the detection of failures in rear road wheel steering angle sensors thereby detecting and warning about failure. Eguchi is silent regarding any curvature prediction of a traveling route based on the failure.
OTA discloses:
a curvature prediction unit operatively connected to the failure determination unit and configured to generate a predicted curvature of a traveling route of the vehicle based on the failure situation (see paragraphs 39 & 112, discloses predicted turning curvature calculated on a basis of steering angle and the yaw rate. Further teaching the prediction of the travel trajectory on a basis of vehicle speed, steering angle and the yaw rate),
wherein the curvature prediction unit is configured to generate the predicted curvature based on the rear wheel angle (see paragraphs 31 & 112, discloses predicted turning curvature calculated on a basis of steering angle from steering angle sensor 105). At the time of the invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated methods for predicting turning curvature when rear wheel angle failures occur. When steering angle sensor failure causes “non-intentional vehicle behavior” outlined by Eguchi in col. 6, lines 45-55, predicting that behavior would improve vehicle safety and control.
Regarding Dependent claims 3 and 9, Eguchi discloses wherein the status signal includes whether or not the rear wheel steering unit operates normally and whether or not the rear wheel angle is measurable (see col. 8, lines 45-67, discloses generating sensor signals and monitoring flags and explicitly determining occurrence of failure in the rear wheel steering angle sensor. He discloses detecting conditions where sensor output is invalid [zero output, max output, offset deviation], which indicates measurability).
Regarding Dependent claims 6, 12 and 14, Eguchi discloses the detection of failures in rear road wheel steering angle sensors thereby detecting and warning about failure. Eguchi is silent regarding any curvature prediction and vehicle control based on the failure. OTA discloses wherein the rear wheel steering unit controls the rear wheels of the vehicle using the predicted curvature generated by the curvature prediction unit (see paragraph 30). At the time of the invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated methods for predicting turning curvature when rear wheel angle failures occur and controlling the rear wheels. When steering angle sensor failure causes “non-intentional vehicle behavior” outlined by Eguchi in col. 6, lines 45-55, predicting that behavior would improve vehicle safety and control.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 11 am to 7 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
1/18/2026