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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
The applicant's claim for benefit of Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/602,729 filed on 11/27/2023 has been received and acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230036945 A1 Bustin; Ronit et al. (hereinafter Bustin), in view of US 20220250645 A1 Koenig; Lukas et al. (hereinafter Koenig).
Regarding claim 1, Bustin discloses: A method for structuring a vehicular driving assistance system (see Bustin at least [0040] methods and systems are provided for scheduling and allocating non-monitoring periods for automated vehicles, systems or devices), the method comprising:
determining a function of the vehicular driving assistance system (see Bustin at least [0058] A module or modules 52 may be included to perform functions related to determination of user state, vehicle state and environmental conditions);
determining one or more state transitions for a state machine of the function of the vehicular driving assistance system (see Bustin at least [0073] Upon initiation of an allocated time period and initiation of an NDRT state, a transition module 98 transitions the vehicle from the monitoring state to the NDRT state), wherein the state machine comprises a plurality of states (see Bustin at least [0072] coordinating multiple NDRT states), and wherein the one or more state transitions cause the state machine to transition from a state of the plurality of states to a different state of the plurality of states (See Bustin at least [0073] a transition module 98 transitions the vehicle from the monitoring state to the NDRT state);
determining, based on the one or more state transitions, a current state of the plurality of states of the state machine (see Bustin at least [0065] the module 84 and/or 86 can be used to determine an amount of time for the user and the vehicle to transition from a “monitoring state” in which the driver is attentive to the road and vehicle system state, but is not physically controlling the vehicle, to a “manual state” or “driving state” in which the driver has active manual control).
Bustin does not teach: generating, based on the current state of the state machine, one or more outputs for the function of the vehicular driving assistance system.
However, Koenig teaches: generating, based on the current state of the state machine, one or more outputs for the function of the vehicular driving assistance system (see Koenig at least [0067] If a change is made into second state 335 as described above, which is designed as a “set” state, for example, an output function 340 is called up and [0068] This means that output function 340 sets above-mentioned system variable “targetSpeed” to the value of the system variable “speed” if the system variable does not exceed the maximum value 130).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin to include the outputs of Koenig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a state machine can make autonomous vehicle functions safer, as suggested by Koenig (see Koenig at least [0005] The provided FSM is advantageously adapted to the model checking, and in particular within the scope of the model checking as stated above, may contribute to the improvement of driving safety and reliability of the driving function in an automated or autonomous vehicle, as well as for system validation).
Regarding claim 2, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the vehicular driving assistance system comprises a driver monitoring system (see Bustin at least [0046] vehicle's driver monitoring system (DMS)).
Regarding claim 4, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of states comprises a run state (see Koenig at least [0069] Third state 350 is designed as an “active” state).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the states of Koenig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a state machine can make autonomous vehicle functions safer, as suggested by Koenig (see Koenig at least [0005] The provided FSM is advantageously adapted to the model checking, and in particular within the scope of the model checking as stated above, may contribute to the improvement of driving safety and reliability of the driving function in an automated or autonomous vehicle, as well as for system validation).
Regarding claim 5, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 4, further comprising, before generating the one or more outputs for the function, and responsive to the determined current state of the state machine not being the run state, determining the one or more outputs for the function based on a calibration parameter (see Koenig at least [0067] If a change is made into second state 335 as described above, which is designed as a “set” state, for example, an output function 340 is called up and [0068] This means that output function 340 sets above-mentioned system variable “targetSpeed” to the value of the system variable “speed” if the system variable does not exceed the maximum value 130).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the outputs of Koenig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a state machine can make autonomous vehicle functions safer, as suggested by Koenig (see Koenig at least [0005] The provided FSM is advantageously adapted to the model checking, and in particular within the scope of the model checking as stated above, may contribute to the improvement of driving safety and reliability of the driving function in an automated or autonomous vehicle, as well as for system validation).
Regarding claim 6, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 5, wherein determining the one or more outputs for the function based on the calibration parameter comprises overriding each of the one or more outputs for the function with a constant value (see Koenig at least [0068] This means that output function 340 sets above-mentioned system variable “targetSpeed” to the value of the system variable “speed” if the system variable does not exceed the maximum value 130; otherwise, it sets the value to 130).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the conditional function output override of Koenig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because testing such a safety-related feature in a state machine can make autonomous vehicle functions safer, as suggested by Koenig (see Koenig at least [0005] The provided FSM is advantageously adapted to the model checking, and in particular within the scope of the model checking as stated above, may contribute to the improvement of driving safety and reliability of the driving function in an automated or autonomous vehicle, as well as for system validation).
Regarding claim 8, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 4, further comprising, before generating the one or more outputs for the function, and responsive to the determined current state of the state machine being the run state, determining the one or more outputs for the function based on the run state and one or more inputs to the vehicular driving assistance system (see Koenig at least [0080] Fifth state 565 is designed as an “active” state, for example; i.e., an increase or decrease in the speed of vehicle 120 is requested by the user or driver).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the output determination based on vehicle driving assistance system input of Koenig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a determination that a user desires a speed change indicates the need for new outputs to a speed control vehicle system, as suggested by Koenig (see Koenig at least [0086] upon a successful check of the activation of a speed increase field or a speed increase button or a speed increase lever, etc., expressed by the system variable “speedPlusButtonRising” which is already preprocessed in first function 525, FSM 500 changes into sixth state 573, designed as an “IncreaseSpeed” state, and carries out a twelfth function 575 as an output function).
Regarding claim 9, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of states comprises an initialization state and a failure state (see Koenig at least [0066] starting state 315 is designed as an invalid starting state “invalid,”… first state 320, which is designed as “initialize,” and [0069] Third state 350 is designed as an “active” state).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the states of Koenig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a state machine can make autonomous vehicle functions safer, as suggested by Koenig (see Koenig at least [0005] The provided FSM is advantageously adapted to the model checking, and in particular within the scope of the model checking as stated above, may contribute to the improvement of driving safety and reliability of the driving function in an automated or autonomous vehicle, as well as for system validation).
Regarding claim 10, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more state transitions comprises processing image data captured by a camera disposed at a vehicle equipped with the vehicular driving assistance system (see Bustin at least [0052] The on-board computer system 30 may also include or communicate with devices for monitoring the user, such as interior cameras and image analysis components. Such devices may be incorporated into a driver monitoring system (DMS) and [0082] the user is monitored via a camera and/or other sensors to identify indications that the user would benefit from an NDRT).
Regarding claim 11, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 10, wherein the camera comprises a driver monitoring camera, and wherein the vehicular driving assistance system comprises a driver monitoring system (see Bustin at least [0052] The on-board computer system 30 may also include or communicate with devices for monitoring the user, such as interior cameras and image analysis components. Such devices may be incorporated into a driver monitoring system (DMS)).
Regarding claim 13, Bustin discloses: A method for structuring a vehicular driving assistance system (see Bustin at least [0040] methods and systems are provided for scheduling and allocating non-monitoring periods for automated vehicles, systems or devices), the method comprising:
determining a function of the vehicular driving assistance system (see Bustin at least [0058] A module or modules 52 may be included to perform functions related to determination of user state, vehicle state and environmental conditions);
determining one or more state transitions for a state machine of the function of the vehicular driving assistance system (see Bustin at least [0073] Upon initiation of an allocated time period and initiation of an NDRT state, a transition module 98 transitions the vehicle from the monitoring state to the NDRT state), wherein the state machine comprises a plurality of states (see Bustin at least [0072] coordinating multiple NDRT states), and wherein the one or more state transitions cause the state machine to transition from a state of the plurality of states to a different state of the plurality of states (See Bustin at least [0073] a transition module 98 transitions the vehicle from the monitoring state to the NDRT state);
determining, based on the one or more state transitions, a current state of the plurality of states of the state machine (see Bustin at least [0065] the module 84 and/or 86 can be used to determine an amount of time for the user and the vehicle to transition from a “monitoring state” in which the driver is attentive to the road and vehicle system state, but is not physically controlling the vehicle, to a “manual state” or “driving state” in which the driver has active manual control).
Bustin does not teach: wherein the plurality of states comprises a run state, an initialization state, and a failure state; and generating, responsive to the determined current state not being the run state, one or more outputs for the function of the vehicular driving assistance system based on a calibration parameter.
However, Koenig teaches: wherein the plurality of states comprises a run state, an initialization state, and a failure state (see Koenig at least [0066] starting state 315 is designed as an invalid starting state “invalid,”… first state 320, which is designed as “initialize,” and [0069] Third state 350 is designed as an “active” state); and
generating, responsive to the determined current state not being the run state, one or more outputs for the function of the vehicular driving assistance system based on a calibration parameter (see Koenig at least [0067] If a change is made into second state 335 as described above, which is designed as a “set” state, for example, an output function 340 is called up and [0068] This means that output function 340 sets above-mentioned system variable “targetSpeed” to the value of the system variable “speed” if the system variable does not exceed the maximum value 130).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin to include the states and outputs of Koenig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such a state machine can make autonomous vehicle functions safer, as suggested by Koenig (see Koenig at least [0005] The provided FSM is advantageously adapted to the model checking, and in particular within the scope of the model checking as stated above, may contribute to the improvement of driving safety and reliability of the driving function in an automated or autonomous vehicle, as well as for system validation).
Regarding claim 14, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 13, wherein the vehicular driving assistance system comprises a driver monitoring system (see Bustin at least [0046] vehicle's driver monitoring system (DMS)).
Regarding claim 15, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 13, wherein determining the one or more outputs for the function based on the calibration parameter comprises overriding each of the one or more outputs for the function with a constant value (see Koenig at least [0068] This means that output function 340 sets above-mentioned system variable “targetSpeed” to the value of the system variable “speed” if the system variable does not exceed the maximum value 130; otherwise, it sets the value to 130).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the conditional function output override of Koenig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because testing such a safety-related feature in a state machine can make autonomous vehicle functions safer, as suggested by Koenig (see Koenig at least [0005] The provided FSM is advantageously adapted to the model checking, and in particular within the scope of the model checking as stated above, may contribute to the improvement of driving safety and reliability of the driving function in an automated or autonomous vehicle, as well as for system validation).
Regarding claim 18, Bustin discloses: A method for structuring a vehicular driving assistance system (see Bustin at least [0040] methods and systems are provided for scheduling and allocating non-monitoring periods for automated vehicles, systems or devices), the method comprising:
determining a function of the vehicular driving assistance system (see Bustin at least [0058] A module or modules 52 may be included to perform functions related to determination of user state, vehicle state and environmental conditions);
determining one or more state transitions for a state machine of the function of the vehicular driving assistance system (see Bustin at least [0073] Upon initiation of an allocated time period and initiation of an NDRT state, a transition module 98 transitions the vehicle from the monitoring state to the NDRT state), wherein the state machine comprises a plurality of states (see Bustin at least [0072] coordinating multiple NDRT states), and wherein the one or more state transitions cause the state machine to transition from a state of the plurality of states to a different state of the plurality of states (See Bustin at least [0073] a transition module 98 transitions the vehicle from the monitoring state to the NDRT state);
determining, based on the one or more state transitions, a current state of the plurality of states of the state machine (see Bustin at least [0065] the module 84 and/or 86 can be used to determine an amount of time for the user and the vehicle to transition from a “monitoring state” in which the driver is attentive to the road and vehicle system state, but is not physically controlling the vehicle, to a “manual state” or “driving state” in which the driver has active manual control).
Bustin does not teach: wherein the plurality of states comprises a run state, an initialization state, and a failure state; and generating, responsive to the determined current state being the run state, one or more outputs for the function of the vehicular driving assistance system based on one or more inputs to the vehicular driving assistance system.
However, Koenig teaches: wherein the plurality of states comprises a run state, an initialization state, and a failure state (see Koenig at least [0066] starting state 315 is designed as an invalid starting state “invalid,”… first state 320, which is designed as “initialize,” and [0069] Third state 350 is designed as an “active” state); and
generating, responsive to the determined current state being the run state, one or more outputs for the function of the vehicular driving assistance system based on one or more inputs to the vehicular driving assistance system (see Koenig at least [0080] Fifth state 565 is designed as an “active” state, for example; i.e., an increase or decrease in the speed of vehicle 120 is requested by the user or driver).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the output determination based on vehicle driving assistance system input of Koenig. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a determination that a user desires a speed change indicates the need for new outputs to a speed control vehicle system, as suggested by Koenig (see Koenig at least [0086] upon a successful check of the activation of a speed increase field or a speed increase button or a speed increase lever, etc., expressed by the system variable “speedPlusButtonRising” which is already preprocessed in first function 525, FSM 500 changes into sixth state 573, designed as an “IncreaseSpeed” state, and carries out a twelfth function 575 as an output function).
Regarding claim 19, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 18, wherein the vehicular driving assistance system comprises driver monitoring system (see Bustin at least [0046] vehicle's driver monitoring system (DMS)).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bustin, in view of Koenig, and further in view of US 20240379206 A1 THOMPSON; BENJAMIN SIMON et al. (hereinafter Thompson).
Regarding claim 3, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 2.
Bustin and Koenig do not teach: wherein the function comprises a yawn detection function.
However, Thompson teaches: wherein the function comprises a yawn detection function (see Thompson at least [0095] At step 214, physical characteristics including face orientation, eye gaze direction, rate of eye blinking and yawning are detected… Some of the above features are used in combination with the determined emotional state of the patient in a configured finite state machine (FSM) 220).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the yawn detection of Thompson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because yawn detection in the context of vehicle systems provides for nonintrusive safety measures regarding driver awareness detection, as suggested by Thompson (see Thompson at least [0009] Driver monitoring systems (DMS) have used a camera to detect eye blinking, eye gaze and head poses to determine the state of the driver and trigger an alarm if drowsiness or disengagement is detected. A model for DMS has been developed that uses the fusion of information from an external sensor and an internal camera to detect drowsiness. A real-time system for nonintrusive monitoring and prediction of driver fatigue using eyelid movement, gaze movement, head movement, and yawning has also been described).
Claim(s) 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bustin, in view of Koenig, and further in view of US 12024183 B2 Tsuchiya; Ryo et al. (hereinafter Tsuchiya).
Regarding claim 7, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 5.
Bustin and Koenig do not teach: wherein determining the one or more outputs for the function based on the calibration parameter comprises passing the current state of the state machine as at least one of the one or more outputs.
However, Tsuchiya teaches: wherein determining the one or more outputs for the function based on the calibration parameter comprises passing the current state of the state machine as at least one of the one or more outputs (see Tsuchiya at least [col. 2, lines 23-30] the state transition table corresponding to the second state machine includes, as the condition of the state transition of the second state machine, the current state of the first state machine or the state to transition, and the second state machine receives the state of the first state machine input from the intermediate layer, refers to the state transition table, and outputs a signal for controlling the vehicle system).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the current state outputting state transitioning technique of Tsuchiya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such an arrangement of state machine processing simplifies the state transition process, as suggested by Tsuchiya (see Tsuchiya at least [col. 2, lines 34-36] According to the present invention, it is possible to realize a vehicle control device and a computer program capable of simplifying the design of the state transition).
Regarding claim 16, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 13.
Bustin and Koenig do not teach: wherein determining the one or more outputs for the function based on the calibration parameter comprises passing the current state of the state machine as at least one of the one or more outputs.
However, Tsuchiya teaches: wherein determining the one or more outputs for the function based on the calibration parameter comprises passing the current state of the state machine as at least one of the one or more outputs (see Tsuchiya at least [col. 2, lines 23-30] the state transition table corresponding to the second state machine includes, as the condition of the state transition of the second state machine, the current state of the first state machine or the state to transition, and the second state machine receives the state of the first state machine input from the intermediate layer, refers to the state transition table, and outputs a signal for controlling the vehicle system).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the current state outputting state transitioning technique of Tsuchiya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because such an arrangement of state machine processing simplifies the state transition process, as suggested by Tsuchiya (see Tsuchiya at least [col. 2, lines 34-36] According to the present invention, it is possible to realize a vehicle control device and a computer program capable of simplifying the design of the state transition).
Claim(s) 12, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bustin, in view of Koenig, and further in view of US 12534095 B2 Hayashi; Yusuke et al. (hereinafter Hayashi).
Regarding claim 12, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 1.
Bustin and Koenig do not teach: wherein determining the one or more state transitions comprises determining that each state transition of the one or more state transitions requires more than a threshold period of time to determine.
However, Hayashi teaches: wherein determining the one or more state transitions comprises determining that each state transition of the one or more state transitions requires more than a threshold period of time to determine (see Hayashi at least [col. 9, lines 56-61] the predetermined condition (the first condition) in the case of Level 4 is, for example, that a state in which the deceleration/stop button is pressed continues for a certain period of time or more. When the first condition is satisfied, the state transition from the normal automated driving state to the fail operation is determined).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the time threshold state transition determination of Hayashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because if a stimulus encouraging a transition of state exists for more than a threshold period of time, the state transition must be necessary for safety reasons and should be responded to, as suggested by Hayashi (see Hayashi at least [col. 9, lines 61-63] The fail operation is, for example, to safely decelerate and stop the vehicle).
Regarding claim 17, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 13.
Bustin and Koenig do not teach: wherein determining the one or more state transitions comprises determining that each state transition of the one or more state transitions requires more than a threshold period of time to determine.
However, Hayashi teaches: wherein determining the one or more state transitions comprises determining that each state transition of the one or more state transitions requires more than a threshold period of time to determine (see Hayashi at least [col. 9, lines 56-61] the predetermined condition (the first condition) in the case of Level 4 is, for example, that a state in which the deceleration/stop button is pressed continues for a certain period of time or more. When the first condition is satisfied, the state transition from the normal automated driving state to the fail operation is determined).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the time threshold state transition determination of Hayashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because if a stimulus encouraging a transition of state exists for more than a threshold period of time, the state transition must be necessary for safety reasons and should be responded to, as suggested by Hayashi (see Hayashi at least [col. 9, lines 61-63] The fail operation is, for example, to safely decelerate and stop the vehicle).
Regarding claim 20, Bustin and Koenig disclose: The method of claim 19.
Bustin and Koenig do not teach: wherein determining the one or more state transitions comprises determining that each state transition of the one or more state transitions requires more than a threshold period of time to determine.
However, Hayashi teaches: wherein determining the one or more state transitions comprises determining that each state transition of the one or more state transitions requires more than a threshold period of time to determine (see Hayashi at least [col. 9, lines 56-61] the predetermined condition (the first condition) in the case of Level 4 is, for example, that a state in which the deceleration/stop button is pressed continues for a certain period of time or more. When the first condition is satisfied, the state transition from the normal automated driving state to the fail operation is determined).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the state machine transition method disclosed by Bustin and Koenig to include the time threshold state transition determination of Hayashi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because if a stimulus encouraging a transition of state exists for more than a threshold period of time, the state transition must be necessary for safety reasons and should be responded to, as suggested by Hayashi (see Hayashi at least [col. 9, lines 61-63] The fail operation is, for example, to safely decelerate and stop the vehicle).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190248361 A1 FARRELL; David et al. recites a vehicle state machine with fault, active, and off states.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLE ROSE KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703) 756-1742. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 ET M-F.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ELLE ROSE KNUDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
2/4/26