CTNF 19/062,446 CTNF 97607 DETAILED ACTION Notice of AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: Method for Functionally Improving Environment Modeling in An Assistance System of a Vehicle Using Two Calculation Paths Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 6, and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 and 8-9: “wherein at least one safety requirement of the corresponding calculation path are taken into account”, “are” should be replace with is . Claim 6: “one ascertained action option on based on”, the first “on” should be removed . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if: STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? STEP 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below: STEP 1: Does claim fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a Process which falls within one of the statutory categories. STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; Example: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See claim language below: A method for functionally improving environment modeling in an assistance system of a vehicle, comprising the following steps: providing at least two calculation paths of the assistance system, wherein each of the calculation paths includes a respective environmental detection, wherein sensor data are analyzed and merged as part of each respective environmental detection, wherein the sensor data result from detection by at least one sensor of the vehicle ; ascertaining at least one action option for the vehicle from each of the at least two calculation paths based on the respective environmental detection ; exchanging a corresponding result of at least one of the respective environmental detections between the respective calculation paths ; modifying the at least one action option of at least one of the at least two calculation paths based on the corresponding exchanged result of the respective environmental detection, wherein at least one safety requirement of the corresponding calculation path are taken into account to provide the functional improvement in the environment modeling in the assistance system ; and determining a target action option for the assistance system based on a result of the modification. The Process in claim 1, specifically the limitations bolded above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of providing calculation paths, ascertaining action options, modifying an action option, and determining a target action option. This is equivalent to: 1) a first person person looking at a video feed from a rear vehicle camera and mentally generating a first path wherein the vehicle travels straight backwards, a second person looking at a radar output from a rear facing radar of a vehicle and mentally determining that the vehicle should be stopped immediately, truncating the straight back route to prevent collision with the obstacle, and choosing to follow the truncated straight back route. The limitation italicized above is a method organizing human activity. It consists of exchanging a result. This is equivalent to the second person telling the first person that there is an obstacle behind the vehicle. STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application: an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application: an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements: adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present. Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well- understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Mere data communication steps that can be performed entirely on any one or more generic computer/-s have also been previously identified by the courts as an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception): (A) Receiving and/or transmitting data is considered to be well-understood, routine, or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) "Receiving or transmitting data over a network", and (iv) "Storing and retrieving information in memory" and (B) Comparing the received data to other data is considered to be well-understood, routine or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) "Performing repetitive calculations". CONCLUSION Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Additionally, Claims 2-9 : fall within one of the statutory categories (Claims 2-7: Process; Claims 8-9: Machine) directed toward an abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, it is clear that Claims 2-9 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Samples et al. (US 20250206313 A1) . Regarding Claim 1, Samples teaches A method for functionally improving environment modeling in an assistance system of a vehicle (see at least FIG. 1: autonomous platform 110; [0049]: “the autonomous platform 110 can be a vehicle”) , comprising the following steps: providing at least two calculation paths (see at least FIG. 4A: first compute lane 402 and second compute lane 404) of the assistance system, wherein each of the calculation paths includes a respective environmental detection (see at least [0056]: “a first compute lane 205 can obtain data from a first sensor of the sensors 202 while the second compute lane 215 can obtain data from a second sensor of the sensors 202.”) , wherein sensor data (see at least FIG. 2A: sensor data 204) are analyzed and merged (see at least [0065]: “The sensor data 204 can include image data (e.g., 2D camera data, video data, etc.), RADAR data, LIDAR data (e.g., 3D point cloud data, etc.), audio data, or other types of data.”) as part of each respective environmental detection, wherein the sensor data result from detection by at least one sensor (see at least FIG. 2A: sensor(s) 202) of the vehicle; ascertaining at least one action option (see at least FIG. 7: motion plan B 714, motion plan A’ 732) for the vehicle from each of the at least two calculation paths based on the respective environmental detection; exchanging a corresponding result (see at least FIG. 4A, [0097]: “a portion of the state data 412 from the first motion planner 410 at a given planning cycle can be shared with the second motion planner 420 for use at a subsequent planning cycle.”; [0097]: “The state data 412 can represent an internal state of the first motion planner 412. For instance, the state data 412 can encode information about decisions or strategies generated by the first motion planner 410 for navigating an environment of an autonomous platform.”) of at least one of the respective environmental detections between the respective calculation paths; modifying (see at least [0121]: “At a subsequent time step, the planner(s) can … generate an updated motion trajectory. The updated motion trajectory can be based on an internal state of the planner(s), which can be consistent across multiple timesteps.”) the at least one action option of at least one of the at least two calculation paths based on the corresponding exchanged result of the respective environmental detection (see at least FIG. 7: plan A’ 732 + plan B 714 [Wingdings font/0xE0] plan B’ 734) , wherein at least one safety requirement (see at least [0006]: “the systems and methods described herein can provide that the motion trajectories have relatively similar or nearly-identical portions near the current timestamp, such that the vehicle is not required to perform erratic maneuvers”) of the corresponding calculation path are taken into account to provide the functional improvement in the environment modeling in the assistance system; and determining a target action option (see at least [0107]: “The second motion planner 730 can output … motion plan B′ 734 based on shared data from motion plan B 714”) for the assistance system based on a result of the modification. Regarding Claim 3, Samples teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the respective environmental detections of the calculation paths differ from one another with regard to processing of the sensor data and/or with regard to sensors used (see at least [0056]: “each set of inputs can include different … portions of the sensor data 204 from the sensors 202 (e.g., captured using different … sensors 202).”) . Regarding Claim 4, Samples teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one action option describes a trajectory (see at least [0059]: “implement a vehicle motion plan (e.g., including one or more trajectories)”) to be driven by the vehicle. Regarding Claim 5, Samples teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein each of the at least two calculation paths process at least two data inputs (see at least [0065]: “The multi-modal sensor data can be obtained by at least two different types of sensor(s) (e.g., of the sensors 202)”) , wherein a corresponding data input is provided for each respective environmental detection (see at least [0056]: “a first compute lane 205 can obtain data from a first sensor of the sensors 202 while the second compute lane 215 can obtain data from a second sensor of the sensors 202.”) , wherein only one environmental detection associated with the corresponding calculation path is used to ascertain the at least one action option for the vehicle (see at least [0095]: “the first motion planner 410 and the second motion planner 420 can compute respective motion trajectories without knowledge of the motion trajectory from the other motion planner.”; [0059]: “The autonomy system 200 can perform various processing techniques on inputs (e.g., the sensor data 204 …) to perceive and understand the vehicle's surrounding environment and generate an appropriate set of control outputs to implement a vehicle motion plan”) . Regarding Claim 6, Samples teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the modification includes the following step: checking the at least one ascertained action option on based on an analysis of the exchanged corresponding result of the respective environmental detection (see at least [0100]: “Because the second motion planner has knowledge of the first trajectory 552, the second trajectory 554 can better follow the first trajectory 552, despite being determined by an independent motion planner and an independent compute lane. For example, the first trajectory 552 and second trajectory 554 may be substantially similar or identical over a prefix trajectory region 560 near the current timestamp and current position of the vehicle”) , taking into account the at least one safety requirement (see at least [0006]: “the systems and methods described herein can provide that the motion trajectories have relatively similar or nearly-identical portions near the current timestamp, such that the vehicle is not required to perform erratic maneuvers”) of the corresponding calculation path. Regarding Claim 7, Samples teaches The method according to claim 6, wherein the determination includes the following step: selecting a calculation path of the at least two calculation paths based on a result of the check in order to determine the target action option for the assistance system using the calculation path (see at least [0107]: “The detected anomalous operation causes the autonomous vehicle to transition to motion plan A′ 732 in lieu of executing motion plan C due to the potential anomaly in any motion trajectories from the first motion planner 710. In this manner, the autonomous vehicle can avoid disruptions in autonomous functionality while additionally avoiding anomalous operation of the first motion planner 710.”) . Regarding Claim 8, Samples teaches A device (see at least FIG. 11: computing ecosystem 10) for processing data and configure to functionally improve environment modeling in an assistance system of a vehicle (see at least FIG. 1: autonomous platform 110; [0049]: “the autonomous platform 110 can be a vehicle”) , the device configured to: provide at least two calculation paths (see at least FIG. 4A: first compute lane 402 and second compute lane 404) of the assistance system, wherein each of the calculation paths includes a respective environmental detection (see at least [0056]: “a first compute lane 205 can obtain data from a first sensor of the sensors 202 while the second compute lane 215 can obtain data from a second sensor of the sensors 202.”) , wherein sensor data (see at least FIG. 2A: sensor data 204) are analyzed and merged (see at least [0065]: “The sensor data 204 can include image data (e.g., 2D camera data, video data, etc.), RADAR data, LIDAR data (e.g., 3D point cloud data, etc.), audio data, or other types of data.”) as part of each respective environmental detection, wherein the sensor data result from detection by at least one sensor (see at least FIG. 2A: sensor(s) 202) of the vehicle; ascertain at least one action option (see at least FIG. 7: motion plan B 714, motion plan A’ 732) for the vehicle from each of the at least two calculation paths based on the respective environmental detection; exchange a corresponding result (see at least FIG. 4A, [0097]: “a portion of the state data 412 from the first motion planner 410 at a given planning cycle can be shared with the second motion planner 420 for use at a subsequent planning cycle.”; [0097]: “The state data 412 can represent an internal state of the first motion planner 412. For instance, the state data 412 can encode information about decisions or strategies generated by the first motion planner 410 for navigating an environment of an autonomous platform.”) of at least one of the respective environmental detections between the respective calculation paths; modify (see at least [0121]: “At a subsequent time step, the planner(s) can … generate an updated motion trajectory. The updated motion trajectory can be based on an internal state of the planner(s), which can be consistent across multiple timesteps.”) the at least one action option of at least one of the at least two calculation paths based on the corresponding exchanged result of the respective environmental detection (see at least FIG. 7: plan A’ 732 + plan B 714 [Wingdings font/0xE0] plan B’ 734) , wherein at least one safety requirement (see at least [0006]: “the systems and methods described herein can provide that the motion trajectories have relatively similar or nearly-identical portions near the current timestamp, such that the vehicle is not required to perform erratic maneuvers”) of the corresponding calculation path are taken into account to provide the functional improvement in the environment modeling in the assistance system; and determine a target action option (see at least [0107]: “The second motion planner 730 can output … motion plan B′ 734 based on shared data from motion plan B 714”) for the assistance system based on a result of the modification. Regarding Claim 9, Samples teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see at least FIG. 11, [0146]: “The memory 23 can include one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media”) on which are stored commands for functionally improving environment modeling in an assistance system of a vehicle (see at least FIG. 1: autonomous platform 110; [0049]: “the autonomous platform 110 can be a vehicle”) , the commands, when executed by a computer (see at least FIG. 11: processor 22) , causing the computer to perform the following steps (see at least [0148]: “The memory 23 can store computer-readable instructions 25 that can be executed by the one or more processors 22.”) : providing at least two calculation paths (see at least FIG. 4A: first compute lane 402 and second compute lane 404) of the assistance system, wherein each of the calculation paths includes a respective environmental detection (see at least [0056]: “a first compute lane 205 can obtain data from a first sensor of the sensors 202 while the second compute lane 215 can obtain data from a second sensor of the sensors 202.”) , wherein sensor data (see at least FIG. 2A: sensor data 204) are analyzed and merged (see at least [0065]: “The sensor data 204 can include image data (e.g., 2D camera data, video data, etc.), RADAR data, LIDAR data (e.g., 3D point cloud data, etc.), audio data, or other types of data.”) as part of each respective environmental detection, wherein the sensor data result from detection by at least one sensor (see at least FIG. 2A: sensor(s) 202) of the vehicle; ascertaining at least one action option (see at least FIG. 7: motion plan B 714, motion plan A’ 732) for the vehicle from each of the at least two calculation paths based on the respective environmental detection; exchanging a corresponding result (see at least FIG. 4A, [0097]: “a portion of the state data 412 from the first motion planner 410 at a given planning cycle can be shared with the second motion planner 420 for use at a subsequent planning cycle.”; [0097]: “The state data 412 can represent an internal state of the first motion planner 412. For instance, the state data 412 can encode information about decisions or strategies generated by the first motion planner 410 for navigating an environment of an autonomous platform.”) of at least one of the respective environmental detections between the respective calculation paths; modifying (see at least [0121]: “At a subsequent time step, the planner(s) can … generate an updated motion trajectory. The updated motion trajectory can be based on an internal state of the planner(s), which can be consistent across multiple timesteps.”) the at least one action option of at least one of the at least two calculation paths based on the corresponding exchanged result of the respective environmental detection (see at least FIG. 7: plan A’ 732 + plan B 714 [Wingdings font/0xE0] plan B’ 734) , wherein at least one safety requirement (see at least [0006]: “the systems and methods described herein can provide that the motion trajectories have relatively similar or nearly-identical portions near the current timestamp, such that the vehicle is not required to perform erratic maneuvers”) of the corresponding calculation path are taken into account to provide the functional improvement in the environment modeling in the assistance system; and determining a target action option (see at least [0107]: “The second motion planner 730 can output … motion plan B′ 734 based on shared data from motion plan B 714”) for the assistance system based on a result of the modification . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samples et al. (US 20250206313 A1) in view of King et al. (US 20200189573 A1) . Regarding claim 2, Samples teach The method according to claim 1, wherein one of the at least two calculation paths is a main path (see at least FIG. 4A: first compute lane 402) , and at least one further calculation path of the at least two calculation paths is an auxiliary path (see at least FIG. 4A: second compute lane 404) , wherein the main path is used with priority for controlling the vehicle (see at least [0132]: “the vehicle can be controlled using one or more control systems based on the first motion trajectory while the first compute lane undergoes expected operation.”; FIG. 8 step 810: “determine to transition from the first compute lane to the second compute lane”; [0134]: “the vehicle can determine to transition from the first compute lane to the second compute lane in the event that the first compute lane experiences a condition for doing so such as an anomalous operation.”) , wherein the exchange is carried out from the at least one auxiliary path to the main path . However, Samples does not explicitly teach wherein the exchange is carried out from the at least one auxiliary path to the main path. King teach wherein the exchange is carried out from the at least one auxiliary path to the main path (see at least FIG. 7B operation 730: “send a message to the first system”; [0148]: “the second system 704 may send a message to the first system 702 (e.g., if a trajectory is invalid). … In at least some examples, such message data may include, for example, a time to collision, a point of collision, information about the potentially colliding object (e.g., any one or more of an extent of an object, object identifier, object position, object velocity)”) . 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 Samples to incorporate the teachings of King to exchange information from an auxiliary path to the main path. Doing so would “enhance safety of passengers”, as recognized by King in paragraph [0019] . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Danford (US 20210405642 A1) describes a vehicle system that shares a trajectory output based on a primary compute system with a secondary compute system to validate the trajectory output against a second sensor data set (see FIG. 2B, paragraph [0033]). King et al. (US 20200148201 A1) teaches a vehicle system that calculates a trajectory using one set of sensor data and adjust the trajectory if a collision is predicted based on another set of sensor data (see FIG. 1). Englard et al. (US 20190113918 A1) teaches a system that generates candidate autonomous vehicle control decisions using multiple self-driving control architectures (SDCA) (see FIG. 15), wherein each SDCA processes independent sensor data (see paragraph [0051]). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763 . The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est . Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415 . 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. /GEORGE A ALCORN III/Examiner, Art Unit 3662 /JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 2 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 3 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 4 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 5 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 6 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 7 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 8 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 9 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 10 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 11 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 12 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 13 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 14 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 15 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 16 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 17 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 18 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 19 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 20 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 21 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 22 Art Unit: 3662 Application/Control Number: 19/062,446 Page 23 Art Unit: 3662
Prosecution Insights