DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice on Prior Art Rejections
2. 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.
Status of Claims
3. This Office Action is in response to the applicant's arguments/amendments filed May 28, 2026. Claims 1-5 are canceled. Claims 6-8 are new. Claims 6-8 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
4. 35 USC § 103 rejection. Applicant's arguments/amendments filed May 28, 2026 regarding the 35 USC § 103 rejection have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The applicant’s arguments are only directed to the new claims and not the prior rejection of record. Based on the new features of the claims presented in the amendments, further search and/or consideration was required to examine the claims, so a new 35 USC § 103 ground(s) of rejection is made further in view of Juang et al, US 2021/0180958, presented in this Final Office Action. Therefore, the prior 35 USC § 103 rejection is withdrawn in view of the new added features in the amended claims.
Pursuant to MPEP 2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103, I. RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT, “The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992)”
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
5. 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: “a communication unit configured to transmit a signal”, in claims 6-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The examiner notes that there is no corresponding structure that performs the claimed function described.
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 § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
8. Claim 6 recite “a communication unit”. There is no description in the original specification filed 12/12/2024 of a communication unit. “[T]he algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.” MPEP § 2161.01. Because the specification fails to describe a communication unit and how the communication unit transmit signals to other vehicles, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 7-8 depend from claim 6 and therefore include the same limitation as claim 6 so they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
11. The term “determine whether there is a possibility” in claims 6-8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “determine whether there is a possibility” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Please provide a specific definition of the term by amending the claims or removing it from the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-8 depend from claim 6 and therefore include the same limitation as claim 6 so they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 of this title, 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.
13. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al, 10,834,552, in view of Ogino et al. US 2004/0128062, further in view of Bell et al. US 2010/0045488, hereinafter referred to as Saito, Ogino, and Bell, respectively.
Regarding claim 6, Saito discloses a traveling control system mounted on a first vehicle, the traveling control system comprising a communication unit configured to transmit a signal to a second vehicle and a third vehicle located around the first vehicle (See at least fig 1-24, col 5, lines 20-30, “Area information obtained in this way may be shared among vehicles and utilized to efficiently allow the vehicles to pass by each other. Various strategies may be deployed depending on a location of the vehicles vis-a-vis an obstruction or passing area, and analysis of this data may produce instructions to vehicle drivers on their windshield that may be followed to create a much more efficient overall traffic result”),
an information display configured to display information to a driver of the first vehicle (See at least fig 1-24 col 13, lines 54-60, “An overview of the disclosure herein discusses, among other things, use of a V2VN and/or a V2VN protocol in order to detect and store area information associated with a road, sharing/propagating the area information with other vehicles, processing the area information into an assistance assessment, and displaying results of the assistance assessment to a vehicle user”), and
a processor configured to: determine whether the first vehicle has entered a first road having a width less than a threshold value (See at least fig 1-24 col 7, lines, 65-67, “The narrow road segment to be processed is a segment that is found as having a certain length and a narrow width based on map information and thus vehicles 65 require assistance for passing by each other”);
in a case where it is determined that the first vehicle has entered the first road, notify, via the communication unit, the second vehicle and the third vehicle that the first vehicle has entered the first road (See at least fig 1-24 col 13, lines, 35-53, “passing by each other. This is achieved by sharing information, via a V2V network, about places where vehicles can and cannot pass by each other. When such information is shared in advance of a vehicle approaching an obstacle location”);
in a case where it is determined that the first vehicle has not entered the first road, determine whether the second vehicle has entered the first road (See at least fig 1-24 col 14, lines, 54-67, “A first group of cars 520 that are in a first V2VN 560a are in the first lane 505a, and the first car 520c in the group is just approaching the obstacle area in a west-to-east direction. A second 530 and third 540 group of cars are approaching the obstacle area in an opposite east-to-west direction, these groups 530, 540 belonging to a second 560b and third 560c V2VN, respectively. An overlap vehicle 530d, 540d is a member of both the second 530 and third 540 group of cars and the second 560b and third 560c V2VN”);
in a case where it is determined that the second vehicle has entered the first road, determine whether there is a possibility that the third vehicle will enter the first road (See at least fig 1-24 col 24, lines, 29-50, “approaching the predetermined distance 802, 802', both vehicles 520, 530 may stop and then perform the negotiation- in other words, both sides have a status of stop/NPending. In operation 652, the focus vehicle 520 may monitor an N-Pending status from the oncoming vehicle 530. When the oncoming vehicle's 530 status is N-Pending (654: YES), then, in operation 658, a temporary basic assessment of impossible to pass obstructed area”);
in a case where it is determined that there is no possibility that the third vehicle will enter the first road, display, on the information display, a first message indicating that the first vehicle is to wait in front of the first road (See at least fig 1-24 col 27, lines, 1-15, “The state of vehicle 530.1 becomes "stop" in case of FIG. 13C as state of vehicle 520 becomes "stop" in the case of FIG. llA. From the viewpoint of a user, the meaning of the state "stop" is 10 same in both cases (FIG. llA and FIG. 13C). The currently stopped vehicles 530 transition from a stop to a go-wait state (which may still be represented on the user interface by a red signal or other form of signal indicating that the vehicle 520 should remain stopped).”);
in a case where it is determined that there is a possibility that the third vehicle will enter the first road, calculate a first time needed for the first vehicle to reach the first road and a second time needed for the third vehicle to reach the first road (See at least fig 1-24 col 35, lines, 35-50, “wherein the passing information comprises a location and a time of detection of passing areas, the obstacle information comprises a location and a time of detection of obstacle areas, and the passing obstacle information comprises a location and a time of detection of passing-obstacle areas”);
determine whether the first time is greater than the second time; in a case where it is determined that the first time is greater than the second time, display, on the information display, the first message indicating that the first vehicle is to wait in front of the first road (See at least fig 1-24 col 23, lines, 35-50, “Conditions for which priority for proceeding may be given (prioritized conditions) may include: the location of the obstacle 507, current or projected waiting time, whether one is ascending or descending in altitude, a number of succeeding vehicles, congestion and/or a traffic signal state on the road located ahead, and having been in wait state ( or 35 a duration in a wait state) (return from waiting in line; see state <Ll>).”); and
in a case where it is determined that the first time is equal to or less than the second time, display, on the information display, a second message indicating that the first vehicle is to wait in front of the first road and that the first vehicle has a higher order of priority than the third vehicle regarding entry into the first road (See at least fig 1-24 col 23, lines, 35-50, “Conditions for which priority for proceeding may be given (prioritized conditions) may include: the location of the obstacle 507, current or projected waiting time, whether one is ascending or descending in altitude, a number of succeeding vehicles, congestion and/or a traffic signal state on the road located ahead, and having been in wait state ( or 35 a duration in a wait state) (return from waiting in line; see state <Ll>).”).
Saito fails to explicitly disclose determine whether the first vehicle has entered a first road.
However, Ogino teaches determine whether the first vehicle has entered a first road (See at least fig 1-17, ¶ 15, 55, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 17, “The request may a request to enter a narrow road when the second vehicle is also going to enter the narrow road. The request may be a request to stop entering a narrow road when the second vehicle is going to enter the narrow road from the other entrance. In this manner, a method according to another embodiment of one present invention ensures that the first vehicle and the second vehicle do not meet each other on the narrow road so that the first vehicle and the second vehicle can enter the narrow road from both entrances smoothly”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Saito and include determine whether the first vehicle has entered a first road as taught by Ogino because it would allow if vehicle A receives a response from vehicle B, vehicle A calculates an entry priority (using data such as the distance to the entry point, the time required to reach the point, and the number of subsequent vehicles) to determine the entry priority of vehicles A and B (Ogino ¶ 68).
Saito fails to explicitly disclose calculate a first time needed for the first vehicle to reach the first road and a second time needed for the third vehicle to reach the first road.
However, Bell teaches calculate a first time needed for the first vehicle to reach the first road and a second time needed for the third vehicle to reach the first road (See at least fig 1-3, ¶ 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 35, 23, “The traffic queue information communication device 120d of the following vehicle 110d can then perform the same functions in the same manner, as described above, in order to determine the position of the vehicle 110d in the queue 125 and also the time it will take the vehicle 110d to reach the front of the queue 125”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Saito and include determine whether the first vehicle has entered a first road as taught by Ogino because it would allow the system to use the received data to determine its position in the queue as well as the estimated time it will take to travel through the queue (Bell ¶ 43).
Regarding claim 7, Saito discloses the traveling control system according to claim 6, wherein the processor is further configured to:
in a case where it is determined that the second vehicle has not entered the first road, determine whether there is a possibility that the second vehicle will enter the first road (See at least fig 1-24 col 14, lines, 54-67, “A first group of cars 520 that are in a first V2VN 560a are in the first lane 505a, and the first car 520c in the group is just approaching the obstacle area in a west-to-east direction. A second 530 and third 540 group of cars are approaching the obstacle area in an opposite east-to-west direction, these groups 530, 540 belonging to a second 560b and third 560c V2VN, respectively. An overlap vehicle 530d, 540d is a member of both the second 530 and third 540 group of cars and the second 560b and third 560c V2VN”);
in a case where it is determined that there is a possibility that the second vehicle will enter the first road, calculate the first time needed for the first vehicle to reach the first road and a third time needed for the second vehicle to reach the first road ; determine whether the first time is greater than the third time (See at least fig 1-24 col 23, lines, 35-50, “Conditions for which priority for proceeding may be given (prioritized conditions) may include: the location of the obstacle 507, current or projected waiting time, whether one is ascending or descending in altitude, a number of succeeding vehicles, congestion and/or a traffic signal state on the road located ahead, and having been in wait state ( or 35 a duration in a wait state) (return from waiting in line; see state <Ll>).”);
in a case where it is determined that the first time is greater than the third time, display, on the information display, the first message indicating that the first vehicle is to wait in front of the first road (See at least fig 1-24 col 13, lines 54-60, “An overview of the disclosure herein discusses, among other things, use of a V2VN and/or a V2VN protocol in order to detect and store area information associated with a road, sharing/propagating the area information with other vehicles, processing the area information into an assistance assessment, and displaying results of the assistance assessment to a vehicle user”); and
in a case where it is determined that the first time is equal to or less than the third time, display, on the information display, a third message indicating that the first vehicle is to enter the first road (See at least fig 1-24 col 23, lines, 35-50, “Conditions for which priority for proceeding may be given (prioritized conditions) may include: the location of the obstacle 507, current or projected waiting time, whether one is ascending or descending in altitude, a number of succeeding vehicles, congestion and/or a traffic signal state on the road located ahead, and having been in wait state ( or 35 a duration in a wait state) (return from waiting in line; see state <Ll>).”).
Saito fails to explicitly disclose determined that the second vehicle has not entered the first road.
However, Ogino teaches determined that the second vehicle has not entered the first road (See at least fig 1-17, ¶ 15, 55, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 17, “The request may a request to enter a narrow road when the second vehicle is also going to enter the narrow road. The request may be a request to stop entering a narrow road when the second vehicle is going to enter the narrow road from the other entrance. In this manner, a method according to another embodiment of one present invention ensures that the first vehicle and the second vehicle do not meet each other on the narrow road so that the first vehicle and the second vehicle can enter the narrow road from both entrances smoothly”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Saito and include determined that the second vehicle has not entered the first road as taught by Ogino because it would allow if vehicle A receives a response from vehicle B, vehicle A calculates an entry priority (using data such as the distance to the entry point, the time required to reach the point, and the number of subsequent vehicles) to determine the entry priority of vehicles A and B (Ogino ¶ 68).
Saito fails to explicitly disclose calculate the first time needed for the first vehicle to reach the first road.
However, Bell teaches calculate the first time needed for the first vehicle to reach the first road (See at least fig 1-3, ¶ 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 35, 23, “The traffic queue information communication device 120d of the following vehicle 110d can then perform the same functions in the same manner, as described above, in order to determine the position of the vehicle 110d in the queue 125 and also the time it will take the vehicle 110d to reach the front of the queue 125”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Saito and include calculate the first time needed for the first vehicle to reach the first road as taught by Ogino because it would allow the system to use the received data to determine its position in the queue as well as the estimated time it will take to travel through the queue (Bell ¶ 43).
Regarding claim 8, Saito discloses the traveling control system according to claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to: in a case where it is determined that the first vehicle has not entered the first road, determine whether the second vehicle or the third vehicle is an emergency vehicle (See at least fig 1-24 col 14, lines, 54-67, “A first group of cars 520 that are in a first V2VN 560a are in the first lane 505a, and the first car 520c in the group is just approaching the obstacle area in a west-to-east direction. A second 530 and third 540 group of cars are approaching the obstacle area in an opposite east-to-west direction, these groups 530, 540 belonging to a second 560b and third 560c V2VN, respectively. An overlap vehicle 530d, 540d is a member of both the second 530 and third 540 group of cars and the second 560b and third 560c V2VN”); and
in a case where it is determined that the second vehicle or the third vehicle is an emergency vehicle, display, on the information display, the first message indicating that the first vehicle is to wait in front of the first road (See at least fig 1-24 col 23, lines, 35-50, “Conditions for which priority for proceeding may be given (prioritized conditions) may include: the location of the obstacle 507, current or projected waiting time, whether one is ascending or descending in altitude, a number of succeeding vehicles, congestion and/or a traffic signal state on the road located ahead, and having been in wait state ( or 35 a duration in a wait state) (return from waiting in line; see state <Ll>).”).
Saito fails to explicitly disclose determined that the first vehicle has not entered the first road, determine whether the second vehicle or the third vehicle is an emergency vehicle
However, Ogino teaches determined that the first vehicle has not entered the first road, determine whether the second vehicle or the third vehicle is an emergency vehicle (See at least fig 1-17, ¶ 15, 55, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 17, 9, “Vehicle-to-vehicle communication is also helpful to emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire engines, which conventionally use a siren to notify other regular vehicles in the vicinity that an emergency vehicle is approaching”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Saito and include determined that the first vehicle has not entered the first road, determine whether the second vehicle or the third vehicle is an emergency vehicle as taught by Ogino because it would allow smooth passage of an emergency vehicle (Ogino ¶ 14).
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 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.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MARTINEZ whose email is luis.martinezborrero@uspto.gov and telephone number is (571)272-4577. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, HUNTER LONSBERRY can be reached on (571)272-7298. 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 is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/LUIS A MARTINEZ BORRERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights