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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/19/2026, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The claim objections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are not withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments alter the scope of the claims, therefore new prior art has been applied and applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant argues that Inomata does not teach the lane keeping assist function is not canceled when the turn signal is activated. Examiner agrees, however, Schwindt teaches this (Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”. The cited “any conditions” include when a turn signal is activated (however, not explicitly recited).
Applicant argues that the combination of Schwindt and Inomata does not teach not cancelling performing said departure suppression support operation when a vehicle is approaching from the rear, even when said turn signal of the host vehicle is blinking. Schwindt teaches when a vehicle is approaching from the rear, not allowing the vehicle to change lanes under any conditions (Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5). The cited “any conditions” include when a turn signal is activated (however, not explicitly recited).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the independent claims recite a practical application of applying a force in a direction for avoiding a lane departure.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt (US 20180025645 A1, cited in a previous office action) in view of Inomata (US 20160272202 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 1
Schwindt teaches:
A lane departure prevention apparatus comprising a control unit configured to perform (Schwindt – Paragraphs 0051-0052) “the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change”
said control unit is configured to permit performing said departure suppression support operation without cancelling performing said departure suppression support operation when a rear approaching vehicle that is positioned in said host lane and is approaching said host vehicle from behind is present, even when said turn signal of said host vehicle is in said blinking state (Schwindt – Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
Schwindt does not teach:
performing lane departure suppression support based on a condition that the host vehicle probably departs from the host lane; cancelling lane departure suppression support when a turn signal is blinking.
However, Inomata teaches:
as a departure suppression support operation, at least one of an alert generation operation to generate an alert to a driver of a host vehicle and a lane departure prevention operation to apply a force in a direction for avoiding a departure of said host vehicle from a host lane to said host vehicle, based on a departure prevention operation start condition being satisfied, the departure prevention operation start condition being a condition that is to be satisfied when there is a probability that said host vehicle departs from said host lane (Inomata – Paragraph 0029) “When it is determined that the own vehicle may depart from the lane, the alarm function refreshes the driver's attention to prevent the departure from the lane in a manner such that an alarm buzzer generates a sound, a display displays an alarm, or a small steering force is applied to the steering wheel for a short time”
cancel performing said departure suppression support operation when a turn signal of said host vehicle is in a blinking state (Inomata - Paragraph 0031) “a condition for interrupting the lane keeping assist function is set, when the traveling vehicle speed is out of a predetermined range, the white line is not recognized, the hands free state is detected in which the driver does not grip the steering wheel (the hands free detection state), or the turn signal is activated”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Schwindt with performing lane departure suppression support based on a condition that the host vehicle probably departs from the host lane, and cancelling departure suppression support when a turn signal is blinking of Inomata with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Schwindt and Inomata are both in the field of lane keeping assist. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety and reduces chances of a collision (Inomata – Paragraph 0013).
Claim 4
The combination of Schwindt and Inomata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Schwindt teaches:
said control unit is configured to (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052) “the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change”
perform said lane departure prevention operation as said departure suppression support operation (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
permit performing at least said lane departure prevention operation for preventing said host vehicle from departing to an overtaking lane with respect to said host lane without cancelling said lane departure prevention operation if said rear approaching vehicle is present, even when said turn signal of said host vehicle is in said blinking state (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
Claim 7
Schwindt teaches:
A lane departure prevention method comprising (Schwindt - Paragraph 0045, Fig. 5) “FIG. 5 sets forth in detail a method for operating the central controller 36 to provide lane assistance”
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 8
Schwindt teaches:
A non-transitory storage medium storing a program, said program causing a computer applied to a host vehicle to implement (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0039-0040) “the electronic controller 28 of the rear sensor unit 24 includes a processor that has an executable program stored in a memory, such as a read only memory (ROM). The electronic controller 28 also includes a random access memory (RAM) for storing information that is received through the communication bus 48. Non-transitory computer readable memory of the electronic controller 28”
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt and Inomata, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larsen (US 20210097312 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 2
The combination of Schwindt and Inomata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Schwindt teaches:
said control unit is configured to (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052) “the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change”
perform said lane departure prevention operation as said departure suppression support operation (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
permit performing at least said lane departure prevention operation for preventing said host vehicle from departing to said right adjacent lane without cancelling said lane departure prevention operation if it is determined that said rear approaching vehicle, even when said turn signal of said host vehicle is in said blinking state (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
Schwindt does not teach:
determining whether a rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes.
However, Larsen teaches:
determine whether or not said rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane of said host lane (Larsen - Paragraph 0020, 0030, Fig. 1) “The LKAS may be activated e.g. if an object is approaching the vehicle from the rear at a certain speed so that an overtaking maneuver can be expected”. Note: Larsen does not teach a rear approaching vehicle attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane or a left adjacent lane to the host lane, since the applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to said right adjacent lane (Larsen - Paragraph 0020, 0030, Fig. 1) “The LKAS may be activated e.g. if an object is approaching the vehicle from the rear at a certain speed so that an overtaking maneuver can be expected” Note: Larsen does not teach a rear approaching vehicle attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane or a left adjacent lane to the host lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Schwindt with determining whether a rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes of Larsen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Schwindt and Larsen are in the field of avoiding collisions through a lane keeping system. One would have been motivated to combine as this prevents vehicle collision (Larsen – Paragraph 0020).
Claim 3
The combination of Schwindt and Inomata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Schwindt teaches:
said control unit is configured to (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052) “the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change”
perform said lane departure prevention operation as said departure suppression support operation (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
and permit performing at least said lane departure prevention operation for preventing said host vehicle from departing to said left adjacent lane without cancelling said lane departure prevention operation if it is determined that said rear approaching vehicle, even when said turn signal of said host vehicle is in said blinking state (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052, Fig. 5) “if the rearwardly approaching nearby vehicle 54 is so close that an augmented chance of collision exists, the program advances to step 80. At step 80, the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change into at least one of the two adjacent lanes, such as the left lane, under any conditions”
Schwindt does not specifically state:
determining whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes.
However, Larsen teaches:
determine whether or not said rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a left adjacent lane of said host lane (Larsen - Paragraph 0020, 0030, Fig. 1) “The LKAS may be activated e.g. if an object is approaching the vehicle from the rear at a certain speed so that an overtaking maneuver can be expected” Note: Larsen does not teach a rear approaching vehicle attempting to change lanes to a left adjacent lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane or a left adjacent lane to the host lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to said left adjacent lane (Larsen - Paragraph 0020, 0030, Fig. 1) “The LKAS may be activated e.g. if an object is approaching the vehicle from the rear at a certain speed so that an overtaking maneuver can be expected” Note: Larsen does not teach a rear approaching vehicle attempting to change lanes to a left adjacent lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane or a left adjacent lane to the host lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Schwindt with determining whether a rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes of Larsen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Schwindt and Larsen are in the field of avoiding collisions through a lane keeping system. One would have been motivated to combine as this prevents vehicle collision (Larsen – Paragraph 0020).
Claim 5
The combination of Schwindt and Inomata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Schwindt teaches:
cancel a rightward departure prevention operation of said lane departure prevention operation, for preventing said host vehicle from departing from said host lane rightward (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078) “allows a lane change, and thus permits moving or steering of the host vehicle 20 to the left lane as desired”. Note: Schwindt teaches the claimed invention except for rightward/leftward departure prevention operation. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a rightward or leftward departure prevention operation, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both sides.
cancel a leftward departure prevention operation of said lane departure prevention operation, for preventing said host vehicle from departing from said host lane leftward (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0057-0058, 0078) “allows a lane change, and thus permits moving or steering of the host vehicle 20 to the left lane as desired” Note: Schwindt teaches the claimed invention except for rightward/leftward departure prevention operation. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a rightward or leftward departure prevention operation, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both sides.
Note: It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a rightward/leftward departure prevention operation or turn signal, and determine whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane or a left adjacent lane to the host lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1-3. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt, Inomata, and Larsen, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Zhu (US 20190071091 A1, cited in a previous office action).
Claim 6
The combination of Schwindt, Inomata, and Larsen teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as seen above.
Schwindt teaches:
said control unit is configured to (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052) “the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change”
Schwindt does not teach:
cancelling rightward/leftward departure prevention operating when the turn signal is blinking.
However Inomata teaches:
permit cancelling said rightward departure prevention operation, if said right turn signal of said host vehicle is in said blinking state (Inomata - Paragraph 0031) “a condition for interrupting the lane keeping assist function is set, when the traveling vehicle speed is out of a predetermined range, the white line is not recognized, the hands free state is detected in which the driver does not grip the steering wheel (the hands free detection state), or the turn signal is activated” Note: Inomata teaches the claimed invention except for a right/left lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to permit cancelling towards a right or left lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
and permit cancelling said leftward departure prevention operation, if said left turn signal of said host vehicle is in said blinking state (Inomata - Paragraph 0031) “a condition for interrupting the lane keeping assist function is set, when the traveling vehicle speed is out of a predetermined range, the white line is not recognized, the hands free state is detected in which the driver does not grip the steering wheel (the hands free detection state), or the turn signal is activated” Note: Inomata teaches the claimed invention except for a right/left lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to permit cancelling towards a right or left lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Schwindt with cancelling departure suppression support when a turn signal is blinking of Inomata with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Schwindt and Inomata are both in the field of lane keeping assist. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety and reduces chances of a collision (Inomata – Paragraph 0013).
Schwindt does not teach:
permit cancelling only when there is a right/left adjacent lane.
However, Zhu teaches:
only when there is said right adjacent lane to which said host vehicle can change lanes rightward from said host lane (Zhu - Paragraph 0047, Fig. 5) “there is another lane 412 is available adjacent to the current lane 411. Thus, user intention determination module 350 may determine that ADV 401 is intentionally moving to the right side in an attempt to change lane from current lane 411 to adjacent lane 412”
only when there is said left adjacent lane to which said host vehicle can change lanes leftward from said host lane (Zhu - Paragraph 0047, Fig. 5) “there is another lane 412 is available adjacent to the current lane 411. Thus, user intention determination module 350 may determine that ADV 401 is intentionally moving to the right side in an attempt to change lane from current lane 411 to adjacent lane 412” Note: Zhu teaches the claimed invention except explicit recitation of a left adjacent lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine a right or left adjacent lane, since applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Schwindt with permit cancelling only when there are right/left adjacent lanes of Zhu with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Schwindt and Zhu are in the field of lane keeping assist. One would have been motivated to combine as this recognizes driver’s intention and improves safety (Zhu – Paragraph 0003).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwindt, Inomata, and Larsen, as applied to claims 2 and 3 above, and further in view of Norwood (US 20180154894 A1).
Claim 9
The combination of Schwindt, Inomata, and Larsen teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as seen above.
Schwindt teaches:
The lane departure prevention apparatus according to : The lane departure prevention apparatus according to claim 2 (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052) “the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change”
Schwindt does not teach:
Determining the rear approaching vehicle is changing to the right adjacent lane based on image data of the vehicle’s blinker.
However, Norwood teaches:
said control unit is configured to determine that said rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to said right adjacent lane in one of cases of (Norwood - Paragraphs 0042, 0046, 0049, 0051) “overtaking detection unit 14 includes a camera which can detect that vehicle 4 moves toward or has moved to lane 5” Note: Larsen does not teach determining a rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane or a left adjacent lane to the host lane, since the applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
a case where it is confirmed that a right turn signal of said rear approaching vehicle is in a blinking state, based on backward image data (Norwood - Paragraphs 0042, 0046, 0049, 0051) “capture an image of the rear vehicle to determine its speed and position and/or an image of turn signal” Note: It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine the rear approaching vehicle’s blinker is a left or right blinker, since the applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both blinkers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Schwindt with determining a rear approaching vehicle is changing to a right adjacent lane based on image data of the vehicle’s blinker of Norwood with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Schwindt and Norwood both discuss a rear approaching and overtaking vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves the safety of vehicle lane changes (Norwood – Paragraph 0003).
Claim 10
The combination of Schwindt, Inomata, and Larsen teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as seen above.
Schwindt teaches:
The lane departure prevention apparatus according to : The lane departure prevention apparatus according to claim 3 (Schwindt - Paragraphs 0051-0052) “the central controller 36 does not permit or prevents the vehicle drive control 40 from moving or steering the host vehicle 20 to perform a lane change”
Schwindt does not teach:
Determining the rear approaching vehicle is changing to the left adjacent lane based on image data of the vehicle’s blinker.
However, Norwood teaches:
said control unit is configured to determine that said rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to said left adjacent lane in one of cases of (Norwood - Paragraphs 0042, 0046, 0049, 0051) “overtaking detection unit 14 includes a camera which can detect that vehicle 4 moves toward or has moved to lane 5” Note: Larsen does not teach determining a rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a left adjacent lane. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine whether the rear approaching vehicle is attempting to change lanes to a right adjacent lane or a left adjacent lane to the host lane, since the applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both lanes.
a case where it is confirmed that a left turn signal of said rear approaching vehicle is in a blinking state, based on backward image data (Norwood - Paragraphs 0042, 0046, 0049, 0051) “capture an image of the rear vehicle to determine its speed and position and/or an image of turn signal” Note: It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to determine the rear approaching vehicle’s blinker is a left or right blinker, since the applicant has not disclosed that solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with both blinkers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Schwindt with determining a rear approaching vehicle is changing to a left adjacent lane based on image data of the vehicle’s blinker of Norwood with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Schwindt and Norwood both discuss a rear approaching and overtaking vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves the safety of vehicle lane changes (Norwood – Paragraph 0003).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights