DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on . The disposition of claims is as follows:
Pending:
Rejected:
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement filed by the Applicant listed below:
May 7, 2025
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of in the reply filed on is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description support for the recited limitation because the Specification fails to disclose sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any meaningful algorithm, mathematical formula, sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
To satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language, but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
As a result, it is possible to suppress a situation (second three-dimensional object situation) related to the external object acquired in the autonomous traveling mode from being different from a situation (first three-dimensional object situation) related to the external object registered in the map data 18B, and to suppress deterioration in accuracy of the host vehicle position estimation. For example, in a case where there is an object such as another vehicle near the side of the host vehicle, the reflection range of the other vehicle in the angle of view of the camera 16 provided so as to be able to capture the side becomes large, and the influence on the acquisition of a situation of a peripheral object during the teacher traveling and the regenerative traveling becomes large. Under such circumstances, by performing the map editing processing of deleting the data corresponding to the ambient area S and registering the teacher route, it is possible to suppress an increase in the influence in a case where there is another vehicle during the teacher traveling but there is no other vehicle during the regenerative traveling, and to prevent a situation in which the feature point cannot be sufficiently acquired in the vicinity of the parking target position P2 where particularly careful control is required.
When the vehicle 1 performs autonomous traveling along the traveling route R, the control unit 11 feedback-controls the traveling control device 12 so that the vehicle 1 moves along the teacher route R1 based on the estimated current position of the vehicle 1 and each position on the teacher route R1 represented by the teacher route data 18A.
In this manner, in the autonomous traveling mode, the control unit 11 causes the traveling control device 12 to control at least steering so as to enable the vehicle 1 to perform autonomous traveling from the predetermined position P1 to the parking target position P2 based on the teacher route and the situation of the external three-dimensional object (second three-dimensional object situation) including the data of the feature points of the three-dimensional object, which is acquired by the sensor 14 and/or the camera 16.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. Instead, the claimed limitation is set forth as result oriented black box to which input(s) are provided and output(s) result as follows:
Inputs:
Output: .
As noted in the MPEP § 2161.01 I, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the Specification with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. The specification does not describe the steps / procedure involved in performing the claimed limitation and achieving the result thereof which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Regarding Claim ,
The claim recites “.”
The specification does not provide adequate written description support for the recited limitation because the Specification fails to disclose sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. In particular, the Specification does not disclose any meaningful algorithm, mathematical formula, sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.
To satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the Specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, to have “possession,” the Specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention. Id.; Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). In addition, the specification must “demonstrate that the patentee possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the] claim.” LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language, but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Id. This can occur when the algorithm or steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail. Additionally, it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681–683 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, 84 Fed. Reg. 57, 62 (Jan. 7, 2019).
At best, the Specification vaguely and generically describes the following:
As a result, it is possible to suppress a situation (second three-dimensional object situation) related to the external object acquired in the autonomous traveling mode from being different from a situation (first three-dimensional object situation) related to the external object registered in the map data 18B, and to suppress deterioration in accuracy of the host vehicle position estimation. For example, in a case where there is an object such as another vehicle near the side of the host vehicle, the reflection range of the other vehicle in the angle of view of the camera 16 provided so as to be able to capture the side becomes large, and the influence on the acquisition of a situation of a peripheral object during the teacher traveling and the regenerative traveling becomes large. Under such circumstances, by performing the map editing processing of deleting the data corresponding to the ambient area S and registering the teacher route, it is possible to suppress an increase in the influence in a case where there is another vehicle during the teacher traveling but there is no other vehicle during the regenerative traveling, and to prevent a situation in which the feature point cannot be sufficiently acquired in the vicinity of the parking target position P2 where particularly careful control is required.
When the vehicle 1 performs autonomous traveling along the traveling route R, the control unit 11 feedback-controls the traveling control device 12 so that the vehicle 1 moves along the teacher route R1 based on the estimated current position of the vehicle 1 and each position on the teacher route R1 represented by the teacher route data 18A.
In this manner, in the autonomous traveling mode, the control unit 11 causes the traveling control device 12 to control at least steering so as to enable the vehicle 1 to perform autonomous traveling from the predetermined position P1 to the parking target position P2 based on the teacher route and the situation of the external three-dimensional object (second three-dimensional object situation) including the data of the feature points of the three-dimensional object, which is acquired by the sensor 14 and/or the camera 16.
See at least: Instant PgPub ¶¶
There is no description of what the steps / procedure actually entail. Instead, the claimed limitation is set forth as result oriented black box to which input(s) are provided and output(s) result as follows:
Inputs:
Output: .
As noted in the MPEP § 2161.01 I, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved”. In particular, the MPEP requires description of “an algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function."
Claimed subject matter should be described in the Specification with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended to perform claimed limitation or achieve the result thereof. The specification does not describe the steps / procedure involved in performing the claimed limitation and achieving the result thereof which would necessarily involve some calculations or steps that have not been described.
It is noted that this is not an enablement rejection. Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure / algorithm, mathematical formula, complete sequence of operations, or flow chart to sufficiently describe how the claimed function is performed or how the claimed result is achieved raises questions whether applicant truly had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.
Regarding Dependent Claims ,
The claims are dependent from claim , such that claims also include the subject matter that fails to comply with the written description requirement recited by claim and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim is rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim ,
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶ Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
Regarding Claim ,
The term "" is a relative term in that it is a subjective term. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(IV). The term “” is not defined by the claim and the Specification does not clearly indicate, define or explain what the term “” encompasses. See at least Instant PgPub ¶¶ Furthermore, the Specification does not provide a standard for determining what is considered "". This renders the claim vague and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear and cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant may overcome a rejection by amending the claim to remove the subjective term, or by providing evidence that the meaning of the term can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over (), hereinafter “” in view of (), hereinafter “”.
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A vehicle control method executable by a vehicle control device provided in a vehicle (), the vehicle including an operation device to receive an operation from a passenger, See at least ¶¶; “”
a sensor to acquire a situation of an external three-dimensional object, See at least ¶¶;“”
a display device being visually recognized by the passenger, See at least ¶¶; “”; “”; “output module 311 displays the intermediate and resultant information of the learning mode to the user in an easy-to-understand way. For example, a simplified bird-eye view of the 3D model is displayed to the user, in which the start location, the target parking space, and the parking path taken in the learning mode are visualized.” and
a traveling control device to control at least steering, See at least ¶¶;“”
the vehicle control method comprising:
registering, by the operation of the passenger during teacher traveling, a teacher route based on a first three-dimensional object situation of the external three-dimensional object acquired by the sensor, the teacher traveling being performed by the vehicle to travel from a predetermined position to a parking target position; See at least ¶¶; “”
causing the traveling control device to control at least the steering to enable the vehicle to perform autonomous traveling from the predetermined position to the parking target position based on the teacher route and an external second three-dimensional object situation acquired by the sensor; See at least ¶¶;“” and
before the registering the teacher route, causing the display device to display a vehicle image corresponding to the vehicle and display, around the vehicle image, an ambient area corresponding to a periphery of the vehicle, See at least ¶¶; “The target parking space determination module 304 determines a target parking space in the 3D model. The space at which the driver completes the parking in the learning mode is set as a target parking space and its location is represented in the 3D model. We can consider various representation forms. For example, it can be represented by the position and orientation of the vehicle coordinate system in the 3D model. Alternatively, it can be represented in the form of a 2D or 3D bounding box of the vehicle. The target parking space memorization module 305 memorizes the target parking space information.”; “”; “”; “output module 311 displays the intermediate and resultant information of the learning mode to the user in an easy-to-understand way. For example, a simplified bird-eye view of the 3D model is displayed to the user, in which the start location, the target parking space, and the parking path taken in the learning mode are visualized.”
displaying an image on a display device that includes a first side surface part extending in a traveling direction of the vehicle image, a second side surface part extending in the traveling direction and being located opposite the first side surface part, one end part in the traveling direction, and the other end part opposite the one end part in the traveling direction, the ambient area displayed on the display device is arranged along the first side surface part See at least Fig 12 depicting various potential vehicle states in relation to the displayed birds-eye map; ¶¶; “” “The target parking space determination module 304 determines a target parking space in the 3D model. … We can consider various representation forms. … it can be represented in the form of a 2D or 3D bounding box of the vehicle.”; “”; “”
fails to explicitly disclose:
when an operation of selecting the ambient area is received by the operation device, data corresponding to the ambient area in the first three-dimensional object situation is deleted and the teacher route is registered.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to increase autonomous driving effectiveness by mitigating the need to navigate around erroneously detected objects. See at least Figs 7-9; ¶¶ “”
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to increase autonomous driving effectiveness by mitigating the need to navigate around erroneously detected objects. See at least Figs 7-9; ¶¶ ; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the vehicle image is a composite image. See at least : ¶¶; “We can consider various representation forms. … it can be represented in the form of a 2D or 3D bounding box of the vehicle. “output module 311 displays the intermediate and resultant information of the learning mode to the user in an easy-to-understand way. For example, a simplified bird-eye view of the 3D model is displayed to the user.”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the vehicle image is defined as a first vehicle image, and the ambient area is represented by a second vehicle image corresponding to another vehicle different from the vehicle. See at least : Fig 9 depicting icons of other vehicles
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
A vehicle control device executable by a vehicle control device provided in a vehicle,
the vehicle including an operation device to receive an operation from a passenger,
a sensor to acquire a situation of an external three-dimensional object, See at least ¶¶;“”
a display device being visually recognized by the passenger, See at least ¶¶; “”; “”; “output module 311 displays the intermediate and resultant information of the learning mode to the user in an easy-to-understand way. For example, a simplified bird-eye view of the 3D model is displayed to the user, in which the start location, the target parking space, and the parking path taken in the learning mode are visualized.” and
a traveling control device to control at least steering, See at least ¶¶;“”
the vehicle control device being configured to perform:
registering, by the operation of the passenger during teacher traveling, a teacher route based on a first three-dimensional object situation of the external three- dimensional object acquired by the sensor, the teacher traveling being performed by the vehicle to travel from a predetermined position to a parking target position; See at least ¶¶; “”
causing the traveling control device to control at least the steering to enable the vehicle to perform autonomous traveling from the predetermined position to the parking target position based on the teacher route and an external second three-dimensional object situation acquired by the sensor; See at least ¶¶;“” and,
before the registering the teacher route, causing the display device to display a vehicle image corresponding to the vehicle and display, around the vehicle image, an ambient area corresponding to a periphery of the vehicle, See at least ¶¶; “The target parking space determination module 304 determines a target parking space in the 3D model. The space at which the driver completes the parking in the learning mode is set as a target parking space and its location is represented in the 3D model. We can consider various representation forms. For example, it can be represented by the position and orientation of the vehicle coordinate system in the 3D model. Alternatively, it can be represented in the form of a 2D or 3D bounding box of the vehicle. The target parking space memorization module 305 memorizes the target parking space information.”; “”; “”; “output module 311 displays the intermediate and resultant information of the learning mode to the user in an easy-to-understand way. For example, a simplified bird-eye view of the 3D model is displayed to the user, in which the start location, the target parking space, and the parking path taken in the learning mode are visualized.”
wherein the vehicle image displayed on the display device includes a first side surface part extending in a traveling direction of the vehicle image, a second side surface part extending in the traveling direction and being located opposite the first side surface part, one end part in the traveling direction, and the other end part opposite the one end part in the traveling direction, the ambient area displayed on the display device is arranged along the first side surface part, See at least Fig 12 depicting various potential vehicle states in relation to the displayed birds-eye map; ¶¶; “” “The target parking space determination module 304 determines a target parking space in the 3D model. … We can consider various representation forms. … it can be represented in the form of a 2D or 3D bounding box of the vehicle.”; “”; “” and,
fails to explicitly disclose:
when an operation of selecting the ambient area is received by the operation device, data corresponding to the ambient area in the first three-dimensional object situation is deleted and the teacher route is registered.
discloses:
a prior art upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement.
teaches:
a prior art utilizing a known technique applicable to the of . Namely, the technique of in order to increase autonomous driving effectiveness by mitigating the need to navigate around erroneously detected objects. See at least Figs 7-9; ¶¶ “”
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying the known technique taught by to the of would have yielded predicable results and resulted in an improved . Namely, a that would employ a technique of in to increase autonomous driving effectiveness by mitigating the need to navigate around erroneously detected objects. See at least Figs 7-9; ¶¶ ; MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the vehicle image is a composite image. See at least : ¶¶; “We can consider various representation forms. … it can be represented in the form of a 2D or 3D bounding box of the vehicle. “output module 311 displays the intermediate and resultant information of the learning mode to the user in an easy-to-understand way. For example, a simplified bird-eye view of the 3D model is displayed to the user.”
Regarding Claim ,
disclose:
wherein the vehicle image is defined as a first vehicle image, and
the ambient area is represented by a second vehicle image corresponding to another vehicle different from the vehicle. See at least : Fig 9 depicting icons of other vehicles
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(III)-(IV)
No special definitions are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given the plain meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. (See MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01).
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring them to the attention of the Examiner and the prosecution history in the next response.
To date, Applicant has provided no indication of special definitions.
Terminology
The Examiner notes that the following terms are utilized in Applicant’s specification as follows:
:
See Instant PgPub: ¶¶
References Cited
R1: ()
R2: ()
R3: ()
Examiner Interviews
Regular Examiner Interview Requests:
Pursuant to USPTO Guidance, one Examiner interview per round of prosecution is available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call Examiner Reinbold directly at 313-446-6607 (preferred) or 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, Logan Kraft, can be reached on 571-270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Additional Examiner Interview Requests:
If Applicant needs more than one Examiner interview during a single round of prosecution, applicant may request approval for additional examiner interview(s) from Examiner Reinbold’s Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE), Logan Kraft, who can be reached at 571-270-5065.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
discloses:
a sensor () to acquire a situation of an external three-dimensional object, See at least ¶¶;“” a display device () being visually recognized by the passenger, See at least ¶¶; “”;and a traveling control device () to control at least steering, See at least ¶¶;“” the vehicle control method comprising: registering, by the operation of the passenger during teacher traveling, a teacher route based on a first three-dimensional object situation of the external three-dimensional object acquired by the sensor, the teacher traveling being performed by the vehicle to travel from a predetermined position to a parking target position; See at least ¶¶
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entirety of identified prior art references as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is noted that any citations to specific pages, paragraph numbers, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references presented and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2123. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT A REINBOLD whose telephone number is (313)446-6607. The examiner can normally be reached on MON - FRI: 8AM - 5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft, can be reached on (571)270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SCOTT A REINBOLD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights