DETAILED ACTION
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
The amendment filed June 24, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6, 9, and 16 are amended. The remaining claims are in original or previously presented form. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 9, and 16 are the independent claims.
The Remarks filed June 24, 2026 have been fully considered. The applicant argues under the heading “Independent Claims 1, 9, and 16” that Sheridan et al. (U.S. 9,002,647) teaches in col. 2, lines 66 – col. 3, line 2, that “images may be ‘captured by a camera that has previously moved along the road segment.’…emphasis added”. The applicant then argues that this contrasts with the present amended independent claims, such as claim 1, which recites a system that will, in response to receiving the request for real-time images captured along the potential navigation route from the user device computer, collect one or more real-time images that are captured along the potential navigation route “after the request for real-time images has been transmitted to the server computer”.
It is true that Sheridan teaches in col. 2, lines 66 – col. 3, line 2, that images may be “captured by a camera that has previously moved along the road segment.” This is, as Sheridan notes, an “example” (col. 2, line 66). Yet, as the examiner noted in the last detailed action (which was the Non-Final Rejection dated March 24, 2026), Sheridan also teaches giving the “user the option to select a particular set of directions based on real-time events, such as traffic, construction, accidents, etc.” Sheridan also states in col. 9, lines 6-11 that the images along road segments as shown in Fig. 4 can be of “traffic events”. So Sheridan is reasonably saying in these two sections of the specification that real-time traffic images can be used to all the user to select a particular set of directions. Fig. 4 is a series of images presented to a user and it includes real-time traffic images.
What exactly does the term “real-time” constitute? In the art, as shown in the “Additional Reference” section at the end of this detailed action (see Pisz (US2016/0057335)), the term “real time” can sometimes mean images that were logged into a server just moments before a user requests images of that location. Yet the present claim 1 recites that: one or more real-time images…are captured along the potential navigation route after the request for real-time images has been transmitted to the server computer”. Emphasis added. (This amendment has written description in at least Fig. 2 of the drawings. In that figure, a user can transmit a request for real-time images to a server in step 215. Then the server transmits that request to remote vehicles in step 225, then those vehicles capture the images in step 230, and send them to the server in step 240. Then the server sends the images to the user.)
Sheridan really does not state explicitly whether or not at least some images could be captured “after” a request for them is made. Yet, another reference, Omura (JP2003198905A), teaches on page 5 of the attached English translation that a driver can send a request to a server (called the “information center 200”) for one or more real-time images along a route to a destination. The server then identifies a vehicle 200b near the location that the driver wants an image of. Then “vehicle 200b is controlled to perform imaging, and the captured image” is then transmitted to the information center 200. “Then…the image is transmitted to the vehicle of the driver who has requested the image pickup”. The driver can then “use it as a material for subsequent route changes.”
So Omura clarifies what Sheridan leaves ambiguous. Sheridan teaches providing directions using “real-time” events such as traffic, based on images of that traffic that are placed into a route such as the one shown in Fig. 4. Yet Sheridan does not say explicitly whether or not those images may be captured after they are requested from the server. Omura teaches explicitly that images can be taken after the request for such images has been transmitted to the server. Why does Omura provide such images? Because a driver wants to know “what kind of situation is ahead of the route on which he / she is going to travel,” as taught on page 4 of Omura. Furthermore, the driver can use the information to decide on “route changes,” as discussed on page 5. At least because the navigational intent of both disclosure are so close, and because both processes would work the same way they do alone as they would combined, the examiner thinks that the two references are obviously combinable.
The applicant argues under the heading “Summary of Examiner Interview” that during the interview a tentative agreement was reached on withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection while no agreement was reached regarding the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection. The examiner agrees with this summary, which largely follows the examiner’s summary for which the examiner regrets misspelling the applicant’s name.
The applicant further states in the Remarks, under the heading “Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2),” that Sheridan teaches sending an image that that was capture “previously.” The examiner has responded to this argument earlier in this section of this detailed action.
The applicant further argues under the sub-heading “Dependent Claims 7 and 15” that Sheridan does not teach these claims. Claim 7 recites in part that “the potential navigation route includes information specifying a direction of travel,” and “wherein the request for real-time images captured along the potential navigation route includes the direction of travel.” As noted in the rejection of claim 7 in the last detailed action, Fig. 3 shows a route displayed to a user. The route includes a compass showing which direction is North. The route also shows numbered segments from “A” to “B.” It is clear that the potential navigation route includes information specifying a direction of travel. The request for a route also includes a direction of travel. As noted in the rejection, Sheridan teaches in col. 8, lines 5-6 entering “starting point A and destination point B.” This meets the second limitation quoted in this paragraph.
The applicant acknowledges on page 11 of the Remarks that “Sheridan also discloses…generating turn-by-turn direction previews that include receiving a request from a user for a turn-by-turn direction preview.” Yet the applicant than argues that “Sheridan does not provide any disclosure regarding what is included in the request.” Therefore, the applicant argues that Sheridan does not teach what is specified in claims 7 and 15. The examiner respectfully finds this level of agnosticism regarding what a request for turn-by-turn directions constitutes to be unconvincing. Could Sheridan really mean that a user simply requests any turn-by-turn directions? Could Sheridan mean that a user would simply request any set of directions no matter the starting point or destination? Sheridan col. 12, lines 1-4 answers these questions with a resounding no. That section states that “the first geographic location [of the directions] may be the starting point that the user enters on the map interface and the second geographic location may be the destination point.” It is clear from reasonable knowledge of the art and the explicit teaching of Sheridan that Sheridan meets the limitations of claims 7 and 15.
Due to the applicant’s amendments the grounds for rejection have changed. Please see the rejections below.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, 13-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheridan et al. (U.S. 9,002,647) in view of Omura (JP2003198905A).
Regarding claim 1, Sheridan teaches:
A system for providing real-time route views, the system comprising (see Fig. 2):
a user device computer (see Fig. 2, item 260);
a server computer in electronic communication with the user device computer (see Fig. 2, item 140);
the user device computer programmed to:
identify a potential navigation route (see col. 7, lines 5-7);
transmit a request for real-time images captured along the potential navigation route to the server computer (see col. 12, lines 37-40. See col. 11, lines 42-44.);
receive one or more real-time images from the server computer (see Fig. 9, step 940-950.); and
display the one or more received real-time images (see col. 7, lines 24-26. See col. 8, lines 29-30 for teaching that “one example advantage of displaying more than one set of turn-by-turn directions on map 330 is that it may give the user the option to select a particular set of directions based on real-time events, such as traffic, construction, accidents, etc.” See col. 9, lines 6-11 for “images” being tagged as related to “traffic events” with the image “location” and “orientation” and “particular road segment, timestamps, location, image angle, etc.” Putting these sections together reasonably teaches that the images in the preview can be real-time images, such as images of traffic events along a particular road segment or at a particular location.); Yet Sheridan does not explicitly further teach:
the server computer programmed to:
in response to receiving the request for real-time images captured along the potential navigation route from the user device computer, collect one or more real-time images that are captured along the potential navigation route after the request for real-time images has been transmitted to the server computer; and
transmit the one or more captured real-time images to the user device computer.
However Omura teaches:
the server computer programmed to (see page 5 of the attached English translation for an information center 200, which is a server.):
in response to receiving the request for real-time images captured along the potential navigation route from the user device computer, collect one or more real-time images that are captured along the potential navigation route after the request for real-time images has been transmitted to the server computer (see page 5 for teaching that the user being able to input a request that refers “to a point on the route to the destination on the map in the navigation system in the vehicle.” See page 6 for a driver wants to know “how much traffic” is ahead. The driver requests an image. The request is sent to “information center 200” which is a server. The server identifies a vehicle 200b near the location that the driver wants an image of. Then “vehicle 200b is controlled to perform imaging, and the captured image” is transmitted to the information center 200. “Then…the image is transmitted to the vehicle of the driver who has requested the image pickup”. The driver can then “use it as a material for subsequent route changes.”); and
transmit the one or more captured real-time images to the user device computer (see page 5 for “Then…the image is transmitted to the vehicle of the driver who has requested the image pickup”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sheridan, to add the additional features of as indicated as being taught by Omura. The motivation for doing so would be to help a driver know “what kind of situation is ahead of the route on which he / she is going to travel,” and to use the information use the information to decide on “route changes,” as recognized by Omura (see pages 4 and 5).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 4, Sheridan and Omura teach the system of claim 1.
Sheridan further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the user device computer is further programmed to,
after displaying the one or more received real-time images, receive a user input indicating acceptance of the potential navigation route (see col. 8, line 3-8 in which a “first set of directions” includes “images” of the route. Then in col. 8, line 24 the system presents a “second set of turn-by-turn directions”. Then see col. 8, lines 28-30 for the teaching that an “advantage of displaying more than one set of turn-by-turn directions” is that it can “give the user the option to select a particular set of directions based on real-time events, such as traffic, construction, accidents, etc.” So the user is given the “the option to select a particular set of directions” based on the images and routes.), and
in response to receiving the user input, navigate the accepted navigation route (in the present disclosure, see paragraph 0044 for the term “navigate” meaning to “provide a map and visual guidance indicating how to proceed along the accepted navigation route”. Audio guidance is also included here. With that in mind, see Sheridan col. 1, lines 6-17 for the entire context of the disclosure being to build off of the widely known system of using user devices to provide “turn-by-turn directions”. Sheridan teaches being able to preview and then select a route, as discussed in the previous bullet point of this claim. Following that, the system provides the turn-by-turn directions discussed in col. 1, lines 7-9. The examiner submits that it would be unreasonable to conclude otherwise.).
Regarding claim 5, Sheridan and Omura teaches the system of claim 1.
Sheridan further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the user device computer is programed to
identify a second potential navigation route (see col. 8, line 24 for a system that generates and presents a “second set of turn-by-turn directions”.),
transmit a request for real-time images along the second potential navigation route (see col. 8, line 24 for a system that generates and presents a “second set of turn-by-turn directions”. See col. 8, lines 28-30 for the teaching that an “advantage of displaying more than one set of turn-by-turn directions” is that it can “give the user the option to select a particular set of directions based on real-time events, such as traffic, construction, accidents, etc.” So the user is given “the option to select a particular set of directions” based on the images and routes.),
receive and display one or more real-time images captured along the second potential navigation route (see col. 8, lines 9-38 for the first and second set of directions being discussed in the same way. They both include images, etc. See col. 9, lines 6-11 for “images” being tagged as related to “traffic events” with the image “location” and “orientation” and “particular road segment, timestamps, location, image angle, etc.”), and
request selection of the potential navigation route or the second potential navigation route (see col. 8, lines 28-30 for the teaching that an “advantage of displaying more than one set of turn-by-turn directions” is that it can “give the user the option to select a particular set of directions based on real-time events, such as traffic, construction, accidents, etc.” So the user is presented with “the option to select a particular set of directions” based on the images and routes. See col. 8, lines 61-62 for the “a user selected set” of directions.).
Regarding claim 6, Sheridan and Omura teach the system of claim 1.
Yet Sheridan does not explicitly further teach:
The system of claim 1, wherein the server computer is further programed to
identify one or more remote vehicles positioned along the potential navigation route,
transmit a second real-time image request to the identified one or more remote vehicles positioned along the potential navigation route, and
to receive real-time images from the identified one or more remote vehicles positioned along the potential navigation route.
However, Omura teaches:
identify one or more remote vehicles positioned along the potential navigation route (see page 3 for “searching for a moving object” that is near the desired location of the image. See the top of page 5 for vehicles 100a through 100c being vehicles that can provide the server with images.),
transmit a second real-time image request to the identified one or more remote vehicles positioned along the potential navigation route (see the top of page 9 for requesting one or more images to be captured and that this request can be “updated at any time”. This would include a second a second time.), and
to receive real-time images from the identified one or more remote vehicles positioned along the potential navigation route (see page 3 for “searching for a moving object” that is near the desired location of the image. See the top of page 5 for vehicles 100a through 100c being vehicles that can provide the server with images. See page 6 for getting an image from “vehicle 100b” and then “vehicle 100c”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sheridan and Omura, to add the additional features of as indicated as being taught by Omura. The motivation for doing so would be to help a driver know “what kind of situation is ahead of the route on which he / she is going to travel,” and to use the information use the information to decide on “route changes,” as recognized by Omura (see pages 4 and 5).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 7, Sheridan and Omura teach the system of claim 1.
Sheridan further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein
the potential navigation route includes information specifying a direction of travel, and (see Sheridan, Fig. 3 for a route. See the compass showing north at the bottom. See col. 9 lines 20-21)
wherein the request for real-time images captured along the potential navigation route includes the direction of travel (see col. 8, lines 5-6 for teaching that a road segment may be described by not only its location about also its “orientation”. See col. 9, lines 3-35 for “images that are associated with the road segments” having “identifiers” that include information such as their “orientation” and “location”. Then identifiers are associated with the road segments. Once the “associated road segments and images” are identified, the route preview can be generated. This broadly and reasonably means that images with identifiers, such as orientation, are associated with road segments, which also have orientations. When the system makes a request for images along the route, it therefore includes the orientation.).
Regarding claim 8, Sheridan and Omura teach the system of claim 1.
Yet Sheridan does not explicitly further teach:
The system of claim 7, wherein
the captured one or more real-time images are captured from one or more remote vehicles navigating along the potential navigation route in the direction of travel.
However, Omura further teaches:
The system of claim 7, wherein
the captured one or more real-time images are captured from one or more remote vehicles navigating along the potential navigation route in the direction of travel (see page 6 for vehicle 100c “passing through the position” that the host vehicle is requesting an image of. See page 4 for obtaining an image showing “what kind of situation is ahead of the route on which he / she is going to travel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sheridan and Omura, to add the additional features of as indicated as being taught by Omura. The motivation for doing so would be to help a driver know “what kind of situation is ahead of the route on which he / she is going to travel,” and to use the information use the information to decide on “route changes,” as recognized by Omura (see pages 4 and 5).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 9, Sheridan teaches:
A user device for providing real-time route views, the user device comprising
a user device computer having a processor and a memory storing machine-readable instructions executable by the processor to (see Fig. 2, item 260):
identify a potential navigation route (see col. 7, lines 5-7);
Yet Sheridan does not explicitly further teach:
transmit a request for real-time images that are captured along the potential navigation route after the request for real-time images has been transmitted;
receive one or more real-time images that were captured along the potential navigation route after the request for real-time images has been transmitted; and
display the one or more received real-time images.
However, Omura teaches:
transmit a request for real-time images that are captured along the potential navigation route after the request for real-time images has been transmitted;
receive one or more real-time images that were captured along the potential navigation route after the request for real-time images has been transmitted (see page 5 for teaching that the user being able to input a request that refers “to a point on the route to the destination on the map in the navigation system in the vehicle.” See page 6 for a driver wants to know “how much traffic” is ahead. The driver requests an image. The request is sent to “information center 200” which is a server. The server identifies a vehicle 200b near the location that the driver wants an image of. Then “vehicle 200b is controlled to perform imaging, and the captured image” is transmitted to the information center 200. “Then…the image is transmitted to the vehicle of the driver who has requested the image pickup”. The driver can then “use it as a material for subsequent route changes.”); and
display the one or more received real-time images (see page 5 for “Then…the image is transmitted to the vehicle of the driver who has requested the image pickup”. Then the driver can “browse” the image and “use it as a material for subsequent route changes.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sheridan, to add the additional features of as indicated as being taught by Omura. The motivation for doing so would be to help a driver know “what kind of situation is ahead of the route on which he / she is going to travel,” and to use the information use the information to decide on “route changes,” as recognized by Omura (see pages 4 and 5).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is substantially similar to claim 4. Please see the rejection for that claim.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is substantially similar to claim 5. Please see the rejection for that claim.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is substantially similar to claim 7. Please see the rejection for that claim.
Regarding claim 16, Sheridan discloses:
A method for providing real-time route views, the method comprising (see col. 2, line 4 for a “method”):
identify a potential navigation route (see col. 7, lines 5-7);
Yet Sheridan does not explicitly further teach:
transmitting a request for real-time images that are captured along the potential navigation route after the request for real-time images has been transmitted;
receiving one or more real-time images that were captured along the potential navigation route after the request for real-time images has been transmitted; and
displaying the one or more received real-time images.
However, Omura teaches:
transmitting a request for real-time images that are captured along the potential navigation route after the request for real-time images has been transmitted (see page 5 for teaching that the user being able to input a request that refers “to a point on the route to the destination on the map in the navigation system in the vehicle.” See page 6 for a driver wants to know “how much traffic” is ahead. The driver requests an image. The request is sent to “information center 200” which is a server. The server identifies a vehicle 200b near the location that the driver wants an image of. Then “vehicle 200b is controlled to perform imaging, and the captured image” is transmitted to the information center 200. “Then…the image is transmitted to the vehicle of the driver who has requested the image pickup”. The driver can then “use it as a material for subsequent route changes.”);
receiving one or more real-time images that were captured along the potential navigation route after the request for real-time images has been transmitted (see the above bullet); and
displaying the one or more received real-time images (see page 5 for “Then…the image is transmitted to the vehicle of the driver who has requested the image pickup”. Then the driver can “browse” the image and “use it as a material for subsequent route changes.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sheridan, to add the additional features of as indicated as being taught by Omura. The motivation for doing so would be to help a driver know “what kind of situation is ahead of the route on which he / she is going to travel,” and to use the information use the information to decide on “route changes,” as recognized by Omura (see pages 4 and 5).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 17, Sheridan and Omura method of claim 16.
Yet Sheridan does not further teach:
The method of claim 16, further comprising,
in response to receiving the request for real-time images captured along the potential navigation route,
capturing one or more real-time images along the potential navigation route, and
transmitting the one or more captured real-time images.
However, Omura teaches:
in response to receiving the request for real-time images captured along the potential navigation route (see page 6 for vehicle 100c “passing through the position” that the host vehicle is requesting an image of. See page 4 for obtaining an image showing “what kind of situation is ahead of the route on which he / she is going to travel.”),
capturing one or more real-time images along the potential navigation route (see page 6 for vehicle 100c “passing through the position” that the host vehicle is requesting an image of. See page 4 for obtaining an image showing “what kind of situation is ahead of the route on which he / she is going to travel.”), and
transmitting the one or more captured real-time images (see page 6 for transmitting the image to the requesting vehicle. .).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sheridan and Omura, to add the additional features of as indicated as being taught by Omura. The motivation for doing so would be to help a driver know “what kind of situation is ahead of the route on which he / she is going to travel,” and to use the information use the information to decide on “route changes,” as recognized by Omura (see pages 4 and 5).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 18, Sheridan and Omura teach the method of claim 17.
Sheridan further teaches:
The method of claim 17, wherein
the request for real-time images captured along the potential navigation route includes a direction of travel (see col. 8, lines 5-6 for teaching that a road segment may be described by not only its location about also its “orientation”. See col. 9, lines 3-35 for “images that are associated with the road segments” having “identifiers” that include information such as their “orientation” and “location”. Then identifiers are associated with the road segments. Once the “associated road segments and images” are identified, the route preview can be generated. This broadly and reasonably means that images with identifiers, such as orientation, are associated with road segments, which also have orientations. When the system makes a request for images along the route, it therefore includes the orientation.).
Yet Sheridan does not further disclose:
The method of claim 17, wherein
wherein the one or more real-time images are captured from one or more remote vehicles navigating along the potential navigation route in the direction of travel.
However, Omura teaches:
wherein the one or more real-time images are captured from one or more remote vehicles navigating along the potential navigation route in the direction of travel (see page 6 for vehicle 100c “passing through the position” that the host vehicle is requesting an image of. See page 4 for obtaining an image showing “what kind of situation is ahead of the route on which he / she is going to travel.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sheridan and Omura, to add the additional features of as indicated as being taught by Omura. The motivation for doing so would be to help a driver know “what kind of situation is ahead of the route on which he / she is going to travel,” and to use the information use the information to decide on “route changes,” as recognized by Omura (see pages 4 and 5).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is substantially similar to claim 5. Please see the rejection for that claim.
Claims 2, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheridan in view of Omura in further of Golding et al. (U.S. 7,831,387).
Regarding claim 2, Sheridan and Omura teach the system of claim 1.
Yet Sheridan and Omura do not further teach:
The system of claim 1, wherein
the user device computer is further programmed to
identify one or more objects in the real-time images, and
to present information regarding the identified objects.
However, Golding teaches:
the user device computer is further programmed to
identify one or more objects in the real-time images (see Fig. 4, 425. See col. 8, line 65 to col. 9 line 4 in which the system analyzes storefront images using OCR to recognize text and then provide directions related to “‘the bar with the neon Karaoke sign in the window.’” See col. 9, lines 25-26 for recognizing a McDonald’s.), and
to present information regarding the identified objects (the McDonald’s found in an image can be used in the directions. If the McDonald’s is a near a driving direction then its presence will be put “to use in driving directions, because it will be easily recognized by humans as a McDonalds.” See col. 10, lines 57-58 for “ ‘you’ll see a McDonalds on your right…’ or ‘turn right just past the Home Depot on your right’”. See col. 11, lines 5-7 for other examples such as “after you pass the Crabtree Shopping Center on your left, start watching for your left turn.”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sheridan and Omura, to add the additional features of identify one or more objects in the real-time images, and to present information regarding the identified objects, as taught by Golding. The motivation for doing so would be to have a system in which “The user can preview the driving route by a simulated drive-through or ‘fly-through’ using the satellite/street-level images, in conjunction with the relevant digital maps. Thus, when the user actually drives to their targeted destination, the visual cues in the directions will remind the user of what to look for, and give that user a greater sense of confidence that he or she is on the right track. Numerous other benefits will be apparent in light of this disclosure,” as recognized by Golding (see col. 4, lines 29-36).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is substantially similar to claim 2. Please see the rejection for that claim.
Regarding claim 19, Sheridan and Omura teach method of claim 16.
Yet Sheridan and Omura do not further disclose:
The method of claim 16, further comprising
identifying one or more objects in the real- time images, and
presenting information regarding the identified objects concurrent with displaying the one or more received real-time images.
However, Golding teaches:
identifying one or more objects in the real-time images (see Fig. 4, 425. See col. 8, line 65 to col. 9 line 4 in which the system analyzes storefront images using OCR to recognize text and then provide directions related to “‘the bar with the neon Karaoke sign in the window.’” See col. 9, lines 25-26 for recognizing a McDonald’s. The McDonald’s found in an image can be used in the directions. If the McDonald’s is a near a driving direction then its presence will be put “to use in driving directions, because it will be easily recognized by humans as a McDonalds.” See col. 10, lines 57-58 for “ ‘you’ll see a McDonalds on your right…’ or ‘turn right just past the Home Depot on your right’”. See col. 11, lines 5-7 for other examples such as “after you pass the Crabtree Shopping Center on your left, start watching for your left turn.”.), and
presenting information regarding the identified objects concurrent with displaying the one or more received real-time images (see col. 13, lines 54-59 for a system that can obtain “image data” and then “overlay” graphics such as “driving directions…on the displayed map image.” In the context of Goldings earlier discussion cited in the previous bullet of this claim in which the system can recognize a McDonalds and then give directions based on this, this reasonably means that the system can overlay direction directions on the image, which meets the limitations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sheridan and Omura, to add the additional features of identifying one or more objects in the real- time images, and presenting information regarding the identified objects concurrent with displaying the one or more received real-time images, as taught by Golding. The motivation for doing so would be to have a system in which “The user can preview the driving route by a simulated drive-through or ‘fly-through’ using the satellite/street-level images, in conjunction with the relevant digital maps. Thus, when the user actually drives to their targeted destination, the visual cues in the directions will remind the user of what to look for, and give that user a greater sense of confidence that he or she is on the right track. Numerous other benefits will be apparent in light of this disclosure,” as recognized by Golding (see col. 4, lines 29-36).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheridan in view of Omura in further view of Golding et al. (U.S. 7,831,387) in further view of Carbune et al. (US2023/0168101).
Regarding claim 3, Sheridan, Omura, and Golding teach the system of claim 2.
Yet Sheridan, Omura, and Golding do not explicitly further teach:
The system of claim 2, wherein
the user device computer is further programmed to audibly present the information regarding the identified object concurrent with displaying the one or more received real-time images.
However, Carbune teaches:
the user device computer is further programmed to audibly present the information regarding the identified object concurrent with displaying the one or more received real-time images (see paragraph 0046 for a system that not only audibly reads directions but also provides an audible “description of points of interest (POIs) or other landmarks”. See also paragraph 0008).
The examiner believes that the systems of both Sheridan and Golding actually do provide audible information the user, yet that is not stated explicitly in their disclosures. Therefore, the examiner has added Carbune. All three disclosures are assigned to Google.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sheridan, Omura, and Golding, to add the additional features of the user device computer is further programmed to audibly present the information regarding the identified object concurrent with displaying the one or more received real-time images, as taught by Carbune. The motivation for doing so would be to enable safer navigation, as recognized by Carbune (see paragraph 0008).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is substantially similar to claim 3. Please see the rejection for that claim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheridan in view of Omura in further view of Golding in further view of Mayster et al. (US2025/0076063).
Regarding claim 12, Sheridan, Omura, and Golding teach the user device of claim 10.
Sheridan further teaches:
The user device of claim 10, wherein the machine-readable instructions include instructions to
identify the potential navigation route based on a user preference (in the present specification, see paragraph 0031 for a list of what can be included in a “user preference” this can include landmarks, traffic density, and even “an end destination.” With that in mind, see Sheridan, col. 7, lines 2-7 for the user inputting a destination address.).
Yet Sheridan, Omura, and Golding do not further teach:
identify the potential navigation route based on a user preference, and wherein the one or more identified objects are related to the user preference.
However, Mayster teaches:
identify the potential navigation route based on a user preference, and wherein the one or more identified objects are related to the user preference (in the present disclosure, see paragraph 0039 for teaching that “For example, the identified object may be a certain type of plant, a certain landmark, or certain geographic feature when the user preferences indicates the user would prefer a scenic route.” With that in mind, see Mayster, Fig. 5 for selecting various route options based on a user preference for various types of geographic features or POIs. See paragraph 0070-0072 for analyzing images to determine road segments with views that correspond to the user’s preference. Routes are then recommended based on the analysis, according to paragraph 0082.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as taught by Sheridan, Omura, and Golding, to add the additional features of identify the potential navigation route based on a user preference, and wherein the one or more identified objects are related to the user preference, as taught by Mayster. The motivation for doing so would be to allow the user to select between various routes based on preference for “the fastest route or for views of a particular geographical feature type or subtype,” as recognized by Mayster (see paragraph 0094).
This conclusion of obviousness corresponds to KSR rationale “A”: it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2141, subsection III.
Note that Sheridan at least teaches toward this. See Sheridan col. 10, lines 50-55 for including various landmarks along the routes, or “restaurants…tourist attractions.” These can be “associated with the images…or popularity.
Additional Art
The prior art made of record here, though not relied upon, is considered pertinent to the present disclosure.
Li et al. (US2020/0372792). See paragraph 0006 for “Existing apps offer stale and past street views that cannot be used for real-time visual assessment,” In contrast “This disclosure provides an opportunity for the driver to obtain a real time view of the traffic conditions at multiple distances ahead of the driver's current position.” The disclosure is in the context of route selection.
See paragraph 0034 for: “The disclosure includes a system of multiple motor vehicle drivers participating or individually utilizing the smartphone (or similar device) application wherein the application allows a plurality of participants to individually record and upload video images of motor vehicle operation (particularly “road views”) for sharing with others. A participant driver can receive real time or recently recorded video displays of traffic and road conditions, including but not limited to weather, road construction, traffic accidents, etc., pertaining to multiple locations. The participant can select among displays having the best quality. The participant can select among the most recent displays having the greatest relevance to the participant's location and intended travel route. The participant can select among displays showing alternate routes. Such alternate routes may be created by the software subject of this disclosure. The alternate routes may be created in response to a request from a participant driver observing the received image.”
The disclosure makes a distinction between “real time or recently recorded video”.
See paragraph 0035 for the images being “available for remote display in real time, i.e., within the time that the events subject of the images are happening, i.e., virtually immediately.”
See paragraph 0069 for “[0069] In an embodiment, a driver may request information regarding a location; but there may be no participating driver currently at that location. The disclosure can ascertain and identify a participating driver that has recently passed through the location and request earlier recorded video of the location from the participating driver's app 2. See FIG. 4. Alternatively, the disclosure can download from the server 3 still image 44 (See FIG. 5) of the location previously uploaded by other participating driver.”
This paragraph implies that in cases in which there is a participating driver currently at that location, the system will request current video data.
See paragraphs 0118-0119 for receiving real time video and images upon request.
See paragraphs 0133-0136 for teaching that if a driver wants to see “current images or videos from other drivers” the driver can select an available driver at which time “the video-image from the driver” will be displayed.
Nishizawa (US2005/0085242) summarizes Omura, among others. See paragraph 0004 for a discussion of “related art”. In that section, see:
[0006]
In the image pickup system disclosed in JP 2003-198905 A, for example, when a user wants to know a situation of traffic congestion, a road surface and the like in a certain point in the middle of a route leading to the destination of a vehicle, the user accesses an information center (server) and also transmits location data (image pickup request location data) an image of which a server is requested to capture is transmitted to the server using a terminal which the user possesses.
[0007]
The server retrieves a vehicle (more specifically, an on-vehicle device which has a GPS function and which is installed in a vehicle) existing within a predetermined distance from the image pickup request location data inputted thereto. The server transmits an instruction signal to instruct an image pickup device installed in the retrieved vehicle to capture an image of the image pickup request location to the image pickup device installed in the retrieved vehicle. The image pickup device which has received the instruction signal executes an image pickup processing in the image pickup request location.
[0008]
After the server receives image data obtained through the image pickup processing by the image pickup device, the server transmits the image data to a terminal of the user. The terminal of the user instructs a display device to display thereon the received image data to provide a perusal possible state.
[0009]
That is to say, in the above-mentioned image pickup system, the server receives the image pickup request location data in advance, the image pickup device captures an image of the situation (scene) of the periphery of the image pickup request location when the vehicle having the image pickup device installed therein passes the image pickup request location, and the image data obtained through the image pickup processing is displayed on the display device of the terminal of the user.
[0010]
In addition, a data transmission/reception system which is capable of readily acquiring a situation of a desired location on a way of the vehicle having a terminal (information request terminal) for requesting information installed therein is conventionally proposed (refer to JP 2001-339334 A, FIGS. 1 and 10). The information request terminal transmits request information containing desired search location information to a base station (server), and receives image information corresponding to the request information (search location information) from the server.
[0011]
On the other hand, the server retrieves an information offer terminal (including an image pickup device) existing within a predetermined radius with a search location as a center in correspondence to search location information contained in the request information. The information offer terminal transmits to the server image information obtained through the image pickup processing in the server location with the image pickup device. That is to say, the information offer terminal, upon request from the server, acquires the image information with the image pickup device, e.g., a video camera to transmit the resultant image information to the server. Thereafter, the server transmits the image information transmitted thereto to the information request terminal.
[0012]
Moreover, a communication system for a vehicle which is capable of, when a vehicle accident occurs, preserving image data obtained by recording information related to this situation in the outside is conventionally proposed (refer to JP 2002-166803 A, FIGS. 3 to 5).
[0013]
In the above-mentioned communication system for a vehicle, when a mobile terminal is connected to a box (on-vehicle device), a control circuit can instruct a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera disposed separately from the mobile terminal to successively capture an image of a periphery (situation) of the outside of the vehicle, and can instruct a recorder within the on-vehicle device to record therein the image data obtained through the image pickup processing with the CCD camera.
[0014]
When the above-mentioned control circuit detects an accident with a shock sensor connected to the on-vehicle device, the mobile terminal connected to the on-vehicle device calls a data recording center (server) to transmit (preserve) image data recorded in the above-mentioned recorder to (in) the server.
[0015]
In recent years, wireless terminals, such as a mobile terminal, having a CCD camera installed therein have come into wide use. As for such wireless terminals, one of a type in which a CCD camera coping with mega-pixels (a million of pixels), one of a type including a visual telephone function or a moving image delivery function, and the like have come onto the market.
[0016]
In addition, there is also conventionally known a moving image delivery technique in which image information obtained through the image pickup processing with the CCD camera is encoded into image encoded data (which, for example, is transferred in accordance with a Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)/a Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)) by a streaming encoder, and also the image encoded data is stream-delivered to a wireless terminal (including a coder-recorder (CODEC)) connected to a communication network through a third-generation mobile telephone (3G)-324M (the standards for the audio visual communication used in 3G in NTT DoCoMo Inc.) gateway for example.
[0017]
However, in the system disclosed in JP 2003-198905 A or JP 2001-339334 A, the data of the vehicle located in the vicinity of the image pickup request location is not delivered to the terminal requesting the information (information request terminal). Hence, it is not clear whether or not a vehicle located in the vicinity of the image pickup request location exists. Thus, a time when the image data of the desired image pickup request location (search location) is acquired can not be estimated, which gives a user an uneasy feeling.
[0018]
In addition, in the system disclosed in JP 2003-198905 A or JP 2001-339334 A, since the image pickup device dedicated to the vehicle is installed in the vehicle, the setting-up work and setting work for installing the image pickup device in the vehicle become complicated.
[0019]
Note that JP 2002-166803 A merely discloses the vehicle communication system which is capable of, when a vehicle accident occurs, preserving the image data obtained by recording this situation in the outside (server). That is to say, the vehicle communication system disclosed in JP 2002-166803 A is not a system for capturing an image of the situation of the traffic congestion or the road surface or the like in a point in the middle of the route of the vehicle as described above using an image pickup device of another vehicle located in the vicinity of the image pickup request location.
Ucar et al. (US20240312344) is mostly concerned with adjacent vehicles surrounding the host vehicle. See:
[0067] In one embodiment, the subject vehicle processor 160 may capture external images and data. In one embodiment, the external images may include camera images from one or more external cameras of the subject vehicle 104. The data may include sensor data from RADAR and/or LIDAR devices to establish distances to and speeds of proximate other vehicles 108. In another embodiment, the external images may include camera images and data from the other vehicle processor 170 of another vehicle 108. For example, the subject vehicle 104 may only have a front camera and/or a back camera available, and may obtain camera images and data from a side-facing camera of another vehicle 108. The subject vehicle processor 160 may transmit a request to the server 120 to have the other vehicle processor 170 capture external images and data and transmit the external images and data to the subject vehicle processor 160. From previously received external camera images from the subject vehicle processor 160, the server 120 may determine a license plate number for the other vehicle 108 and contact the other vehicle processor 170 to provide the requested images. The server 120 may store in an accessible memory device a data structure containing license numbers and wireless contact information for other vehicles 108 that may be directly contacted (e.g., the subject vehicle 104 and other vehicles 108 may be owned by a large business, such as a package delivery service or taxi service).
[0117] The navigation system 295A may describe at least one navigation route including a start point and an endpoint. In some embodiments, the navigation system 295A of the transport 276 receives a request from a user for navigation routes wherein the request includes a starting point and an ending point. The navigation system 295A may query a real-time data server 293 (via a network 292), such as a server that provides driving directions, for navigation route data corresponding to navigation routes, including the start point and the endpoint. The real-time data server 293 transmits the navigation route data to the transport 276 via a wireless network 292, and the communication system 298A stores the navigation data 295A in the memory 297A of the transport 276.
Goluguri (US2020/0169762) teaches making a request from a vehicle for live video. Teaches:
Service providers providing maps (e.g., STREET VIEW® of Google Maps℠ and Google Earth℠, and/or the like) and navigation systems (e.g., Garmin™, TOMTOM®, vehicle-installed navigation systems, and/or the like) do not provide images that reflect recent and continuously ongoing changes to a particular location. For example, Google STREET VIEW® only displays a still image of a particular location in response to a user request. Notably, that still image is often outdated and fails to reflect a true representation of a current view at that particular location. This is often frustrating for a user wishing to view live conditions at a particular location, a particular structure, or a particular point of interest.
[0024]
According to the various described aspects, given a finite number of locations, structures, and/or points of interest, the live-view server 104 may be programmed and/or configured to identify at least one participating vehicle of a plurality of participating vehicles positioned at each location, each structure, or each point of interest (at block 406) and obtain each requested live view from a live-view camera of the at least one identified vehicle (at block 408, e.g., as described herein). According to various aspects, the live-view server 104 may be programmed and/or configured to store a portion of a live-view (at block 410, e.g., less than a minute of video, less than 5 minutes of video, any duration of video possible based on storage constraints, and/or the like) in its associated link database 136 (See FIG. 1). According to further aspects, the live-view server 104 may be programmed and/or configured to associate a timestamp (e.g., date and/or time) with any stored portion (e.g., begin time and/or end time) and/or any live view (e.g., begin time). Such information may be stored, in the link database 136, in association with the monitored/tracked locations, structures, and/or points of interest.
[0029]
Referring back to FIG. 5, in response to a request for a live view from any of the request devices described, the third-party service provider server 102 may be programmed and/or configured to identify at least one live view, from the live-view database 122, associated with the specific location, the specific structure, or the specific point of interest requested by the request device (at block 506). According to various aspects, in view of FIG. 1, the third-party service provider server 102 may be programmed and/or configured to match a requested location, structure, and/or point of interest (e.g., via GPS coordinates, name of location, name of structure and/or name of point of interest, and/or the like) with those it has requested the live-view server 104 to monitor/track (at block 508). Here, according to various aspects, if a match exists, the third-party service provider server 102 may be programmed and/or configured to activate the dynamic hyperlink (at block 510, e.g. FIG. 1, dynamic hyperlink 124, 128, or 132). In response to activation of the dynamic hyperlink, the third-party service provider server 102 may be programmed and/or configured to serve to the request device, via the dynamic hyperlink, the at least one live view associated with the specific location, the specific structure, or the specific point of interest requested (at block 516). More specifically, upon activation, the third-party service provider server 102 establishes a communication link, via the communication network 106, with the live-view server 104 to stream a live view currently associated, by the live view server 104, with the dynamic hyperlink (e.g., dynamic hyperlink 124, 128, or 132) in its link database 136. Once the communication link is established, the third-party service provider server may be programmed and/or configured to relay the live view being streamed from the live-view server 104 to the request device (see FIG. 1, e.g., a vehicle 108 a-108 n, a mobile phone 138, a computer 140). According to various aspects, as described herein, the third-party service provider server 102 may relay the live view being streamed from the live-view server to the request device (e.g., vehicle 108 a-108 n) via the communication network 106, the wireless carrier system 118 or 142, the base station 120 or 144 and the wireless telematic communication unit 116 associated with a vehicle. According to other aspects, as described herein, the third-party service provider server 102 may relay the live view being streamed from the live-view server to the request device (e.g., mobile phone 138) via the communication network 106, the wireless carrier system 142, and the base station 144. According to yet further aspects, as described herein, the third-party service provider server 102 may relay the live view being streamed from the live-view server to the request device (e.g., computer 140) via the communication network 106. As described herein, the live view being streamed may, according to some embodiments, include a most current view (e.g., video) associated with the requested particular location, particular structure, and/or particular point of interest (e.g., when a live view is currently unavailable, no participating vehicles 108 a-108 n in proximity to the requested particular location, particular structure, and/or particular point of interest). Such streamed live views may be viewed on a live-view interface 210 as described herein (See FIG. 3). According to some aspects such an interface may be similarly displayed on a mobile phone screen 146 and/or computer screen 148 (See FIG. 1).
See Fig. 4 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
878
534
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nakagawa (US2022/0247976) Teaches a second vehicle that can take a picture of the first vehicle when the first vehicle wants a picture of itself in a scenic location.
Teaches on-demand images of scenic views transmitted from one vehicle to another. Appears to teaches that a first vehicle records image and sensor data and then transmits this data to a server. The server can this transmit this data to a second vehicle.
See paragraph 0066-0068 for a system in which a first vehicle requests a picture. This request is then sent to a server 736 which transmits the request to a second or vehicles. The second vehicle takes a picture of the first vehicle at the scenic location that the first vehicle is located in.
Abramson (US2021/0364319) teaches:
[0421]
In some embodiments, vehicle 3002A may transmit the one or more images to server 3001 continuously or intermittently. Alternatively, the vehicle may transmit the one or more images when it has access to a more reliable and/or faster network (e.g., via a WIFI connection). Alternatively or additionally, the vehicle may transmit the one or more images upon or after a request received from server 3001. For example, server 3001 may send a request to vehicle 3002A for one or more images relating to a particular area and/or a particular road segment. Vehicle 3002A may transmit to server 3001 one or more images captured during a drive in the area and/or along the road segment.
[0461]
In some embodiments, vehicle 3302 may receive information relating to the identified condition. For example, vehicle 3302 may request and receive information relating to a construction site identified in the image from server 3301 and/or database 3304. By way of example, vehicle 3302 may receive information of the permit of the construction site (e.g., the allowed operation period).
Pisz (US2016/0057335). See Fig. 6 for a system in which a driver requests an image of a location in step 266 and then after that the image is taken in step 270 and then the image is sent and displayed at the requesting vehicle in step 274. See paragraphs 0011-0015 for obtaining essentially real-time images obtained by vehicles and sending “the most recent time and date stamped images of a particular road segment in response to an image request from a vehicle.”
See paragraph 0075 for: A driver can select a particular vehicle to receive on-demand pictures. After the vehicle is selected "the desired image is taken". The system "then transmits the selected image to the network 101 to the requesting vehicle 14".
See paragraph 0079 for the teaching that “the above instantaneous selection, generation and display of traffic road conditions…[as discussed in paragraph 0075] can be used in addition to the selection and transmission of the most current past taken image of a road location selected by a requesting driver”.
Most, Pisz teaches that vehicles will constantly be taking pictures and these recent pictures can be transmitted to another vehicle.
Note that the “in response to” means that the images are obtained after the request is sent.
PNG
media_image2.png
910
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M. ROBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-5841. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 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 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.
/DANIEL M. ROBERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights