DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US Patent 10019011 in view of US20170102705, US20150194055 and US20180086336 because of the similarity and obvious variants between the two claim sets. The correspondence between the claims of the instant application and those of the US Patent and secondary references are listed in the table below.
Instant Application
US Patent 10019011
US20170102705
US20150194055
US20180086336
claim 1
claims 1 and 9
n/a
claim 11
n/a
claim 2
n/a
paragraph 0043
n/a
n/a
claim 3
n/a
paragraph 0043
n/a
n/a
claim 4
n/a
paragraphs 0084, 0044
n/a
n/a
claim 5
claim 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 6
claim 4
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 7
claim 3
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 8
claim 2
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 9
n/a
n/a
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 10
n/a
n/a
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 12
claims 1 and 9
n/a
claim 11
n/a
claim 13
n/a
paragraph 0043
n/a
n/a
claim 14
n/a
paragraph 0043
n/a
n/a
claim 15
n/a
paragraphs 0084, 0044
n/a
n/a
claim 16
claims 1, 3 and 4
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 17
n/a
n/a
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 19
claims 1 and 9
n/a
claim 11
n/a
Claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US Patent 11175671 in view of US20170102705, US20150194055 and US20180086336 because of the similarity and obvious variants between the two claim sets. The correspondence between the claims of the instant application and those of the US Patent and secondary references are listed in the table below.
Instant Application
US Patent 11175671
US20170102705
US20150194055
US20180086336
claim 1
claims 1 and 6
n/a
claim 11
n/a
claim 2
n/a
paragraph 0043
n/a
n/a
claim 3
n/a
paragraph 0043
n/a
n/a
claim 4
n/a
paragraphs 0084, 0044
n/a
n/a
claim 5
claim 1
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 6
claim 4
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 7
claim 3
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 8
claim 2
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 9
n/a
n/a
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 10
n/a
n/a
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 12
claims 1 and 6
n/a
claim 11
n/a
claim 13
n/a
paragraph 0043
n/a
n/a
claim 14
n/a
paragraph 0043
n/a
n/a
claim 15
n/a
paragraphs 0084, 0044
n/a
n/a
claim 16
claims 1, 3 and 4
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 17
n/a
n/a
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 19
claims 1 and 6
n/a
claim 11
n/a
Claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US Patent 11822337 in view of US20170102705, US20150194055 and US20180086336 because of the similarity and obvious variants between the two claim sets. The correspondence between the claims of the instant application and those of the US Patent and secondary references are listed in the table below.
Instant Application
US Patent 11822337
US20170102705
US20150194055
US20180086336
claim 1
claim 1
n/a
claim 11
n/a
claim 2
n/a
paragraph 0043
n/a
n/a
claim 3
n/a
paragraph 0043
n/a
n/a
claim 4
n/a
paragraphs 0084, 0044
n/a
n/a
claim 5
claim 3
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 6
claim 4
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 7
claim 5
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 8
n/a
n/a
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 9
n/a
n/a
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 10
n/a
n/a
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 12
claim 1
n/a
claim 11
n/a
claim 13
n/a
paragraph 0043
n/a
n/a
claim 14
n/a
paragraph 0043
n/a
n/a
claim 15
n/a
paragraphs 0084, 0044
n/a
n/a
claim 16
claims 3, 4 and 5
n/a
n/a
n/a
claim 17
n/a
n/a
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 19
claim 1
n/a
claim 11
n/a
Claims of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US Patent 12515708 in view of US20180086336 because of the similarity and obvious variants between the two claim sets. The correspondence between the claims of the instant application and those of the US Patent and secondary reference are listed in the table below.
Instant Application
US Patent 12515708
US20180086336
claim 1
claim 1
n/a
claim 2
claim 2
n/a
claim 3
claim 2
n/a
claim 4
claim 4
n/a
claim 5
claim 5
n/a
claim 6
claim 6
n/a
claim 7
claim 7
n/a
claim 8
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 9
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 10
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 12
claim 1
n/a
claim 13
claim 2
n/a
claim 14
claim 2
n/a
claim 15
claim 4
n/a
claim 16
claims 5, 6 and 7
n/a
claim 17
n/a
paragraph 0036
claim 19
claim 1
n/a
This modification of US Patents 10019011, 11175671, 11822337 and 12515708 in light of the secondary reference(s), as seen above, is proper because the applied reference(s) is/are so related that the appearance of features shown in one would suggest the application of those features to the other. See In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 213 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1982); In re Carter, 673 F.2d 1378, 213 USPQ 625 (CCPA 1982), and In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 50 (CCPA 1956). Further, it is noted that case law has held that a designer skilled in the art is charged with knowledge of the related art; therefore, the combination of old elements, herein, would have been well within the level of ordinary skill. See In re Antle, 444 F.2d 1168,170 USPQ 285 (CCPA 1971) and In re Nalbandian, 661 F.2d 1214, 211 USPQ 782 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 1-10, 12-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US20170102705 (“Silvlin”) in view of US20150194055 (“Maass”) and US20180086336 (“Jones”).
Claim 1
Silvlin discloses computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to perform operations (0072), the operations comprising:
obtaining data indicative of a plurality of objects within an environment of an autonomous vehicle (0009 a gap selection method being performed by a gap selection system for a vehicle. The vehicle travels on a road comprising a first lane and a second lane being adjacent to the first lane. The vehicle travels in the first lane. A first surrounding vehicle travels in the second lane. A second surrounding vehicle travels in the second lane ahead of the first surrounding vehicle with a first gap between the first and second surrounding vehicles.);
determining, based at least in part on the data indicative of the plurality of objects and computational processing, a gap classification for a gap formed by two or more of the plurality of objects (0009 a gap selection method being performed by a gap selection system for a vehicle. The vehicle travels on a road comprising a first lane and a second lane being adjacent to the first lane. The vehicle travels in the first lane. A first surrounding vehicle travels in the second lane. A second surrounding vehicle travels in the second lane ahead of the first surrounding vehicle with a first gap between the first and second surrounding vehicles., 0037, 0038 the appropriateness of the j-th gap may be determined by means of a time-position area Ai, which is determined as a function of the minimum limit and the maximum limit for a longitudinal position of the vehicle during a time span. Examiner notes that the determined appropriateness values of the respective gaps is, in effect, classifying said gaps. For example, a set of gaps may have a specific appropriateness value, and another set of gaps may have a different appropriateness value. Thus, the gaps are separately classified according to the appropriateness value);
based at least in part on the gap classification, determining that the autonomous vehicle should proceed through the gap (0068 evaluating at least two of the gaps. 230: Selecting a desired gap., 0069 desired gap may be a gap coming first in time and offering a lane change appropriateness being above a critical value Acrit. As an alternative, or a complement, the desired gap may be a gap for which the required control signals, e.g., longitudinal acceleration/deceleration, for the ego vehicle to reach the gap are the smallest. As yet an alternative, the largest available gap could be selected.);
generating a motion trajectory for the autonomous vehicle to travel through the gap (0050, 0051 The gap selection system may further comprise one or more of a sensing system for determining relative positions and velocities of the surrounding vehicles and/or additional surrounding vehicles, a unit for determining if the automated lane change maneuver is desirable, a unit for planning a trajectory to execute the automated lane change maneuver., 0075, claim 13); and
controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel through the gap based at least in part on the motion trajectory (0050, 0051 The gap selection system may further comprise one or more of a sensing system for determining relative positions and velocities of the surrounding vehicles and/or additional surrounding vehicles, a unit for determining if the automated lane change maneuver is desirable, a unit for planning a trajectory to execute the automated lane change maneuver., 0075, claim 13, 0018 The method may utilize parameters such as the required control signals to reach the gap, i.e. longitudinal acceleration/deceleration, and/or time instance to initialize the lateral movement into the gap for the selection, which is further described below., 0042).
Silvlin fails to disclose wherein the gap is a predicted gap. However, Silvlin does disclose predicting positions of surrounding vehicles (0070). Furthermore, Maass teaches a system of controlling an autonomous vehicle through gaps formed by surrounding vehicles (abstract), including:
wherein the gap is a predicted gap (claim 11: a surroundings sensor system configured to: (i) recognize traffic-relevant objects on a traffic lane on which the vehicle is traveling and on at least one adjacent lane, and (ii) recognize present gaps in the traffic surrounding the vehicle and determine vehicle-dynamic parameters of the objects, wherein future gaps in the traffic are predicted based on the vehicle-dynamic parameters).
Silvlin and Maass both disclose systems of controlling an autonomous vehicle in traffic to travel through a determined gap. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Silvlin to include the teaching of future gaps of Maass with a reasonable expectation of success in order to account for positional changes of vehicles that may have occurred after determination of current gaps, thus ensuring that a gap still exists by the time that the ego vehicle reaches the gap.
Additionally, Silvlin fails to disclose wherein the computational processing is by a machine-learned yield model. However, Silvlin does disclose processing data about the environment to determine and classify gaps (0009, 0037,0038). Furthermore, Jones teaches an autonomous vehicle control system that determines trajectories through a plurality of vehicles and determining free spaces for the vehicle (Fig. 4, 0003), including:
wherein the computational processing is by a machine-learned yield model (0027 FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating steps in an embodiment of an automated control system of the Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act (OODA) model. Automated systems, such as highly-automated driving systems, or, self-driving cars, or autonomous vehicles, employ an OODA model. The observe virtual layer 102 involves sensing features from the world using machine sensors, such as laser ranging, radar, infra-red, vision systems, or other systems. The orientation virtual layer 104 involves perceiving situational awareness based on the sensed information. Examples of orientation virtual layer activities are Kalman filtering, model based matching, machine or deep learning, and Bayesian predictions.).
Silvlin and Jones both disclose autonomous vehicle control systems that determine free spaces for the vehicle to travel. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention to modify the system in Silvlin to include the teaching of Jones with a reasonable expectation of success in order to employ the improved decision-making and pattern recognition that machine learning offers to provide better and faster determination of gaps in the vehicle environment.
Claim 2
Silvlin discloses:
wherein the gap classification is indicative of an ability of the autonomous vehicle to enter the predicted gap (0043 In order for a gap gj to be appropriate, the time-position area Ai may be determined to fulfil: A i >A crit Eq. 8, 0044 i.e., the time-position area Ai for the gap gj being large enough for the lane change maneuver to be performed, expressed as larger than a critical value Acrit, which denotes a minimal safety margin over the predicted time span., 0038 the appropriateness of the j-th gap may be determined by means of a time-position area Ai, which is determined as a function of the minimum limit and the maximum limit for a longitudinal position of the vehicle during a time span.).
Claim 3
Silvlin discloses:
wherein the gap classification comprises a confidence value that describes an ability of the autonomous vehicle to traverse the gap (0043 In order for a gap gj to be appropriate, the time-position area Ai may be determined to fulfil: A i >A crit Eq. 8, 0044 i.e., the time-position area Ai for the gap gj being large enough for the lane change maneuver to be performed, expressed as larger than a critical value Acrit, which denotes a minimal safety margin over the predicted time span., 0038 the appropriateness of the j-th gap may be determined by means of a time-position area Ai, which is determined as a function of the minimum limit and the maximum limit for a longitudinal position of the vehicle during a time span.).
Claim 4
Silvlin discloses:
wherein the gap classification comprises a binary decision describing that the vehicle is to or is not to travel through the gap (0084 The dotted and continuous lines represent the minimum Emin, and maximum Emax possible longitudinal position of the ego vehicle E, similar as for FIG. 5. At the beginning of the illustrated time frame and until about 5 seconds, Emin, the minimum possible longitudinal position of the ego vehicle E is larger than the predicted position of the third surrounding vehicle S3 considering the minimum safety margin. Hence, the ego vehicle E would not be able to use the second gap g2 during the time of 0-5 seconds. However, thereafter the second gap g2 is available. This is illustrated as a black area representing the time-position area A2 for the second gap g2 in FIG. 6. The start time tstart is about 5 seconds., 0044 the time-position area Ai for the gap gj being large enough for the lane change maneuver to be performed, expressed as larger than a critical value Acrit, which denotes a minimal safety margin over the predicted time span.).
Claim 5
Silvlin discloses:
processing feature data associated with the plurality of vehicles perceived by the autonomous vehicle, wherein the output is based at least in part on the feature data (0009 Thus, according to the disclosure, there is provided a gap selection method being performed by a gap selection system for a vehicle. The vehicle travels on a road comprising a first lane and a second lane being adjacent to the first lane. The vehicle travels in the first lane. A first surrounding vehicle travels in the second lane. A second surrounding vehicle travels in the second lane ahead of the first surrounding vehicle with a first gap between the first and second surrounding vehicles. The method comprises determining a first minimum safety margin as a longitudinal distance between the first surrounding vehicle and the vehicle, determining a second minimum safety margin as a longitudinal distance between the second surrounding vehicle and the vehicle, and evaluating the first gap by determining a minimum limit for a longitudinal position of the vehicle utilizing dynamic limitations of the vehicle and a predicted position of the first surrounding vehicle considering the first minimum safety margin, determining a maximum limit for a longitudinal position of the vehicle utilizing dynamic limitations of the vehicle and a predicted position of the second surrounding vehicle considering the second minimum safety margin, and determining a lane change appropriateness of the first gap utilizing the minimum limit and the maximum limit for a longitudinal position of the vehicle.).
Silvlin fails to disclose wherein the processing is performed by the trained machine-learned yield model. See prior art rejection of claim 21 for obviousness in Jones and reasons to combine.
Claim 6
Silvlin discloses:
wherein the feature data is indicative of at least one of: a location of a respective object relative to a travel way; or a location of at the respective object relative to the autonomous vehicle (0009 Thus, according to the disclosure, there is provided a gap selection method being performed by a gap selection system for a vehicle. The vehicle travels on a road comprising a first lane and a second lane being adjacent to the first lane. The vehicle travels in the first lane. A first surrounding vehicle travels in the second lane. A second surrounding vehicle travels in the second lane ahead of the first surrounding vehicle with a first gap between the first and second surrounding vehicles. The method comprises determining a first minimum safety margin as a longitudinal distance between the first surrounding vehicle and the vehicle, determining a second minimum safety margin as a longitudinal distance between the second surrounding vehicle and the vehicle, and evaluating the first gap by determining a minimum limit for a longitudinal position of the vehicle utilizing dynamic limitations of the vehicle and a predicted position of the first surrounding vehicle considering the first minimum safety margin, determining a maximum limit for a longitudinal position of the vehicle utilizing dynamic limitations of the vehicle and a predicted position of the second surrounding vehicle considering the second minimum safety margin, and determining a lane change appropriateness of the first gap utilizing the minimum limit and the maximum limit for a longitudinal position of the vehicle.).
Claim 7
Silvlin fails to explicitly disclose wherein the feature data is indicative of at least one of: an acceleration of the autonomous vehicle relative to a respective object of the plurality of objects; or a deceleration of the autonomous vehicle to yield relative to the respective object of the plurality of objects. However, Silvlin does disclose feature data (0009). Furthermore, Maass teaches:
wherein the feature data is indicative of at least one of: an acceleration of the autonomous vehicle relative to a respective object of the plurality of objects; or a deceleration of the autonomous vehicle to yield relative to the respective object of the plurality of objects (0018 the surroundings sensor system is capable of determining vehicle-dynamic parameters of the objects, which include in particular the absolute speeds, the relative speed in relation to the host vehicle, accelerations, distances of the objects to the vehicle, and the distances between these objects. Examiner notes that Maass discloses relative speeds of other vehicles in relation to the host vehicle, as well as accelerations, as parameters in determining gaps. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found, looking at Maass, that an acceleration of the autonomous vehicle relative to at least one vehicle of the plurality of vehicles would be an obvious variant of the cited parameters that would be included in the feature data).
See prior art rejection of claim 1 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 8
Silvlin fails to disclose wherein at least one object of the plurality of objects comprises a traffic signal. However, Silvlin does disclose a plurality of objects in the environment (abstract). Furthermore, Jones teaches:
wherein at least one object of the plurality of objects comprises a traffic signal (0036 In an even further examples, traffic lights can send a digital signal of their status to aid in the case where the traffic light is not visible to the vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that any information employed by the autonomous vehicle can also be transmitted to or received from other vehicles to aid in autonomous driving.).
See prior art rejection of claim 1 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 9
Silvlin fails to disclose wherein the traffic signal comprises at least one of: a traffic light; a traffic sign; or a traffic marking. However, Silvlin does disclose a plurality of objects in the environment (abstract). Furthermore, Jones teaches:
wherein the traffic signal comprises at least one of: a traffic light; a traffic sign; or a traffic marking (0036 In an even further examples, traffic lights can send a digital signal of their status to aid in the case where the traffic light is not visible to the vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that any information employed by the autonomous vehicle can also be transmitted to or received from other vehicles to aid in autonomous driving.).
See prior art rejection of claim 1 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim 10
Silvlin fails to disclose determining that the autonomous vehicle should proceed through the gap based on a traffic signal. However, Silvlin does disclose a plurality of objects in the environment (abstract). Furthermore, Jones teaches:
determining that the autonomous vehicle should proceed through the gap based on a traffic signal (0036 In an even further examples, traffic lights can send a digital signal of their status to aid in the case where the traffic light is not visible to the vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that any information employed by the autonomous vehicle can also be transmitted to or received from other vehicles to aid in autonomous driving.).
See prior art rejection of claim 1 for obviousness and reasons to combine.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19
Claim(s) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 recite(s) subject matter similar to that/those of claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 combined with 6 and 7, 10, and 1, respectively, and is/are rejected under the same grounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s). The closest prior art of record is US20170102705 and US20150194055, which both disclose systems of controlling an autonomous vehicle based on gaps perceived in the traffic environment of the autonomous vehicle. However, the aforementioned claims recite subject matter directed towards at least the following subject matter: determining a transition time associated with the traffic signal; and controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel through the gap based at least in part on the transition time. While relevant to the claims, the prior art does not provide an adequate basis for rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 or 103 because the prior art found does not sufficiently teach nor suggest the limitations as claimed, hence the allowability of the claims. Examiner notes that amendment to the claims resulting in a change of scope may result in requirement of an updated search.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner KRISHNAN RAMESH whose telephone number is (571)272-6407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Abby Flynn, can be reached at (571)272-9855. 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.
/KRISHNAN RAMESH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights