DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/23/2026 has been entered. Claim 21 has been added. Claim 16 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 6, 7, and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 1-15 and 17-21 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-14, filed 03/23/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly found reference Zeng US 2010/01911391 A1 during an updated search.
Examiner concurs the previously presented reference combination fails to disclose or suggest the amended claim language. However, during an updated search the Zeng reference was found which discloses assigning a confidence level to an object and controls an autonomous vehicle accordingly. Therefore, the independent claims are now rejected under 35 USC 103 over the combination of Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng as shown in the rejection below. New claim 21 has also been rejected accordingly.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/17/2026 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “receiving, at a computing device…” in claim 1 and “a computing device…to perform functions…” in claim 20.
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, see [0018] and [0055].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 13, 15, 20, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kyutoku et al. “On-road Obstacle Detection by Comparing Present and Past In-vehicle Camera Images”, hereafter Kyutoku, further in view of Sato et al. “Change detection in streetscapes from GPS coordinated omni-directional image sequences”, hereafter Sato, further in view of Zeng US 2010/0191391 A1, hereafter Zeng.
Regarding claim 1, Kyutoku discloses a method (method) [abstract] comprising:
receiving, at a computing device (collision warning system) [section 1], an image of a road from a camera coupled to a vehicle, wherein the vehicle is navigating a path proximate to the road (in-vehicle camera images corresponding to each road on a street map) [section 2]; based on a current location of the vehicle,
obtaining a reference image, wherein the reference image depicts one or more background objects associated with the road (in-vehicle camera images corresponding to each road on a street map) [section 2];
aligning the image relative to the reference image (performs registration of road surface regions between frame ft1 and gt’…method makes correspondence of pixels in the road surface regions in the road surface regions between the present and the past images) [section 3.2];
based on aligning the image relative to the reference image, performing a comparison between the image and the reference image (detects obstacles by applying subtraction between the road surfaces after the registration) [section 3.3];
based on the comparison, determining one or more foreground objects (the regions with high differences are detected as obstacles) [section 3.3]; and
controlling the vehicle based on the one or more foreground objects (proposed method could detect general obstacles accurately at a distance enough to safely avoid them; detect forward obstacles from in-vehicle camera images. This technique is essential to realize a collision-warning system) [abstract; section 1].
However, while Kyutoku discloses detecting forward obstacles based on an image subtraction technique between present and past in-vehicle camera images that are captured at the same location (section 1) using Dynamic Time Warping (section 3.1), Kyutoku fails to explicitly disclose based on a current location of the vehicle, obtaining a reference image; determining a level of confidence in determining the foreground objects; and controlling the vehicle based on the level of confidence.
Sato, in an analogous environment, discloses based on a current location of the vehicle, obtaining a reference image (extract image sequences taken on the same route…we extract image sequences taken along the same route using such GPS coordinates. As a result, we can obtain images along the same route on various dates) [section 2.2.1]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to obtain a reference image based on a current location of a vehicle, as disclosed by Sato, with the invention disclosed by Kyutoku, the motivation being achieving quick map updates [abstract].
Further, Zeng in an analogous environment, further discloses determining a level of confidence in determining the foreground objects (a confidence between zero and one that the features identified within the image area correspond to a predetermined classified object. A threshold confidence can be set, defining the confidence required to identify a particular image area as indicating an object) [0049]; and
controlling the vehicle based on the level of confidence (collision threat assessment 120, collision counter-measures 150; object tracks are then input to the collision threat assessment module 120, where each track is assessed for a likelihood for collision…the likelihood for collision of an identified object is analyzed by collision counter-measures module 150) [FIG. 4].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to use an object confidence level, as disclosed by Zeng, with the invention disclosed by Kyutoku and Sato, the motivation being accuracy [0006].
Regarding claim 2, Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kyutoku further discloses the reference image is obtained from a storage (allow a system to collect and store in-vehicle camera images taken in past, and use the information for driving supports) [section 1].
Regarding claim 10, Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kyutoku further discloses the current location of the vehicle is provided to the computing device by a GPS module coupled to the vehicle (general GPS or D-GPS fitted to conventional car navigation systems) [section 1].
Regarding claim 13, Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kyutoku further discloses aligning the image relative to the reference image comprises: determining, by the computing device, a transform; and applying the transform to the image (makes correspondence of pixels in the road surface regions between the present and the past images by a projective transformation…using the Hough transform method) [section 3.2].
Regarding claim 15, Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kyutoku further discloses determining the one or more foreground objects comprises determining a difference between the image and the reference image (detection of general obstacles on a road by subtraction with past in-vehicle camera images) [section 3].
Regarding claim 20, computer readable medium claim 20 is drawn to the instructions corresponding to the method of claim 1. Therefore, computer readable medium claim 20 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of unpatentability as used above.
Regarding claim 21, Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kyutoku further discloses the one or more foreground objects comprises at least one of a moving object, an obstacle, or a road change (the regions with high differences are detected as obstacles) [section 3.3].
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng further in view of Luo et al. US 2011/0251768 A1, hereafter Luo.
Regarding claim 3, Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the combination fails to disclose controlling the vehicle based on the one or more foreground objects comprises at least one of: causing the vehicle to reduce speed, causing the vehicle to change lanes, causing the vehicle to change lanes, or causing the vehicle to follow another vehicle while keeping a predetermined safe distance.
Luo, in an analogous environment, discloses controlling the vehicle based on the one or more foreground objects comprises at least one of: causing the vehicle to reduce speed, causing the vehicle to change lanes, causing the vehicle to change lanes, or causing the vehicle to follow another vehicle while keeping a predetermined safe distance (plurality of images compares the references feature depiction and the comparison feature depiction and determines a longitudinal position of the vehicle related to the object based on the differences; the vehicle control system 100 operates by tracking a target vehicle and maintain the vehicle at a set distance to the target vehicle; the system can provide automatic control of speed of the vehicle to maintain the following distance to the target fully automatic control by the system 100) [abstract; 0017; 0053].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to use the automatically follow a vehicle by comparing image data from an in-vehicle camera, as disclosed by Luo, with the invention disclosed by the combination, the motivation being improved functionality [0003].
Claims 4-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng, further in view of Dudeck et al. US 2004/0090117 A1, hereafter Dudeck.
Regarding claim 4, Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the combination fails to disclose controlling the vehicle based on the one or more foreground objects comprises selecting or modifying a desired control strategy from a plurality of possible control strategies.
Dudeck, in an analogous environment, discloses controlling the vehicle (by means of signal transmission devices, these actuation signals are fed to various actuator devices for setting the vehicle brake and/or steering system) [0018] based on the one or more foreground objects comprises selecting or modifying a desired control strategy from a plurality of possible control strategies (as soon as it is detected in the brake and steering system that there is an obstacle in the current path of the vehicle, avoidance routes are determined in accordance with the stored avoidance strategy. The theoretically possible avoidance routes lead to the left and right of the obstacle, and in the exemplary embodiment two avoidance routes a and b on which the vehicle 1 can theoretically drive around the obstacle 3 are shown leading past the obstacle 3 on the left and right. However, the avoidance route a cannot be implemented in the exemplary embodiment owning to a restricted peripheral condition, as this route a leads onto the oncoming carriageway, which is generally not permitted. The only path which avoids the obstacle 3 is the avoidance route b which leads past the obstacle 3 on the right) [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made for a control unit to select a desired route/strategy from a plurality of route/strategies, as disclosed by Dudeck, with the invention disclosed by Kyutoku and Sato, the motivation being maximum safety [abstract].
Regarding claim 5, Kyutoku, Sato, and Dudeck address all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above.
Dudeck further discloses the plurality of possible control strategies comprise sets of rules that relate to various driving contexts (as soon as it is detected in the brake and steering system that there is an obstacle in the current path of the vehicle, avoidance routes are determined in accordance with the stored avoidance strategy. The theoretically possible avoidance routes lead to the left and right of the obstacle, and in the exemplary embodiment two avoidance routes a and b on which the vehicle 1 can theoretically drive around the obstacle 3 are shown leading past the obstacle 3 on the left and right. However, the avoidance route a cannot be implemented in the exemplary embodiment owning to a restricted peripheral condition, as this route a leads onto the oncoming carriageway, which is generally not permitted. The only path which avoids the obstacle 3 is the avoidance route b which leads past the obstacle 3 on the right) [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to select from a plurality of possible control routes that use rules for various driving contexts, as disclosed by Dudeck, with the invention disclosed by Kyutoku and Sato, the motivation being maximum safety [abstract].
Regarding claim 6, Kyutoku, Sato, and Dudeck address all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above.
Dudeck further discloses the plurality of possible control strategies comprises a default driving mode (an avoidance path (b, d) for driving around the obstacle (3) being automatically driven along in accordance with a stored avoidance strategy) [claim 1] and a defensive driving mode (stop the vehicle) [claim 1], wherein the defensive driving mode comprises at least one of: controlling the speed of the vehicle so as to follow another vehicle at a predetermined safe distance; turning-on lights; or stopping the vehicle (having a control unit in which actuation signals can be generated as a function of the vehicle state variables and the ambient conditions, it being possible to feed actuation signals to actuation devices in the vehicle in order to set the vehicle brake and/or the vehicle steering system, the distance between the current position of the vehicle and the obstacle as well as the expected braking distance in order to stop the vehicle being determined when there is an obstacle (3) in the path of the vehicle) [claim 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to select from a plurality of possible control routes that use rules for various driving contexts, as disclosed by Dudeck, with the invention disclosed by Kyutoku and Sato, the motivation being maximum safety [abstract].
Regarding claim 7, Kyutoku, Sato, and Dudeck address all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above.
Dudeck further discloses wherein selecting or modifying the desired control strategy comprises selecting or modifying the desired control strategy so as to cause a smooth transition from a first set of driving rules to a second set of driving rules (in the brake and steering system, the vehicle will advantageously continuously sense the surroundings, in particular at short cyclical intervals, and this ambient data recorded by means of the sensor unit is used to determine further driving strategies continuously or cyclically, and if appropriate carry them out) [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to select from a plurality of possible control routes that use rules for various driving contexts, as disclosed by Dudeck, with the invention disclosed by Kyutoku and Sato, the motivation being maximum safety [abstract].
Regarding claim 8, Kyutoku, Sato, and Dudeck address all of the features with respect to claim 7 as outlined above.
Dudeck further discloses the smooth transition is configured so as to not be perceivable by a passenger in the vehicle (determine further driving strategies continuously or cyclically, and if appropriate also carry them out) [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to select from a plurality of possible control routes that use rules for various driving contexts that are not perceivable by a passenger in a vehicle, as disclosed by Dudeck, with the invention disclosed by the combination, the motivation being maximum safety [abstract].
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kyutoku and Sato further in view of Bargman et al. US 2009/0005959 A1, hereafter Bargman.
Regarding claim 11, Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the combination fails to disclose the reference image is obtained based on orientation information of the vehicle.
Bargman, in an analogous environment, discloses the reference image is obtained based on orientation information of the vehicle (system may use accelerometers, gyroscopes, and/or wheel rotation sensors to track the movement of the vehicle; positioning system is for providing a current position of the vehicle with profiles and characteristics of objects being stored in relation to the detected position of the vehicle) [0003; 0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to use the positioning of a vehicle using accelerometers and gyroscopes, as disclosed by Bargman, with the invention disclosed by Kyutoku and Sato, the motivation being backup for when GPS signal is lost [0003]
Regarding claim 12, Kyutoku, Sato, and Bargman address all of the features with respect to claim 11 as outlined above.
Bargman further discloses the orientation information of the vehicle is provided to the computing device by an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) coupled to the vehicle (system may use accelerometers, gyroscopes, and/or wheel rotation sensors to track the movement of the vehicle; positioning system is for providing a current position of the vehicle with profiles and characteristics of objects being stored in relation to the detected position of the vehicle) [0003; 0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the positioning of a vehicle using accelerometers and gyroscopes, as disclosed by Bargman, with the invention disclosed by the combination, the motivation being backup for when GPS signal is lost [0003]
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kyutoku and Sato and Zeng further in view of Wixson et al. US 5,847,755, hereafter Wixson.
Regarding claim 14, Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng address all of the features with respect to claim 13 as outlined above.
However, the combination fails to disclose the transform comprises shifting or rotating pixels of the image.
Wixson, in an analogous environment, discloses the transform comprises shifting or rotating pixels of the image (compensation is achieved by shifting the current image an integer number of rows and columns so that, despite camera sway, it remains fixed in alignment to within one pixel with a reference image) [column 4, lines 13-15].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the pixel shifting, as disclosed by Wixson, with the invention disclosed by the combination, the motivation being image alignment [column 4, line 15].
Claims 9, 17, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kyutoku and Sato and Zeng further in view of Toyama US 2006/0034519 A1, hereafter Toyama.
Regarding claim 9, Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the combination fails to disclose the computing device is positioned remotely from the vehicle.
Toyama, in an analogous environment, discloses the computing device is positioned remotely from the vehicle (remote computer 150 may be a personal computer, a server) [0034].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a remote computing device, as disclosed by Toyama, with the invention disclosed by the combination, the motivation being a distributed computing environment [0030].
Regarding claim 17, Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the level of confidence is based on an accuracy level assigned to the reference image.
Toyama, in an analogous environment, discloses the level of confidence is based on an accuracy level assigned to the reference image (the frame processing module considers the entire frame and determines whether the actual background is adequately represented by the current background model assigned by the pixel processing module) [0011].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the object detection technique as taught by the combination to include the background maintenance technique as taught by Toyama. This modification would have been prompted in order to ensure that the background images are the most accurate representation of the actual background, thus minimizing false positives which would be caused by inaccurate background images [0003; 0011; 0013; 0039].
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is drawn to a computing device adapted to implement the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite one or more processors and a memory, which are not explicitly disclosed in Kyutoku or Sato or Zeng. Toyama, in an analogous environment, discloses one or more processors and a memory (processing unit 102, system memory 104) [FIG. 1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to use a processor and memory, as disclosed by Toyama, with the invention disclosed by the combination, yielding predictable results of using a processor and memory to perform digital functions.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kyutoku and Sato and Zeng further in view of Miller US 2004/0175041 A1, hereafter Miller.
Regarding claim 18, Kyutoku, Sato, and Zeng address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the level of confidence is based on differences in lighting conditions between the image and the reference image.
Miller, in an analogous environment, discloses the level of confidence is based on differences in lighting conditions between the image and the reference image (the reliability of the identification depends on whether the database includes photographs of [objects] which resemble the target taken with pose and lighting conditions that correspond to that of the target [object]) [0003].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the reliability test of the combination by basing the confidence on differences in lighting and camera pose, as taught by Miller. This modification would have been prompted in order to make more reliable identifications [0004].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ferguson et al. US 8.948.954 B1 discloses modifying vehicle behavior based on a confidence level with respect to lane estimation
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM EST.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
STEFAN GADOMSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2485
/STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights