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 .
This is a Final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-9 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Response to Amendment
The specification was objected to due to minor informalities in the abstract and the title not being descriptive. Applicant amended the abstract and title accordingly; therefore, the specification objection is withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 5-6 were objected to due to minor informalities. Applicant amended the claims accordingly; therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 of the response, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takahashi, Amamiya, and Petters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi of US 20200167045 A1, published 05/28/2020, hereinafter “Takahashi”, Amamiya of JP 2007055436 A, published 03/08/2007, hereinafter “Amamiya”, and further in view of Petters of DE 102013021129 A1, published 06/18/2015, hereinafter “Petters”.
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches:
A driver assist apparatus comprising: one or more processors configured to: (See at least Abstract: “A display of a changing operation assisting apparatus for a vehicle selectively displays various screens which include setting elements and transition elements…” & [0064]: “The drive assistance ECU 20 includes a micro-computer, as a major component, which is equipped with a CPU, a non-volatile memory and a RAM…”)
collectively provide instructions of settings with a group, the settings being set to a plurality of driver assist functions included in the group, and the group being configured so that a driver assist function of a vehicle is allowed to be added to or deleted from the group; (See at least [0076]: “Execution status of the driving assistance functions is displayed on the display 27. In addition, as described later, the driver of the vehicle 10 can change the set states related to the driving assistance functions while referring to screens displayed on the display 27” & [0128]: “In the example shown in FIG. 11, the request state of the radar cruise control function is set at the ON state, and the target inter-vehicular distance is set at the “middle.” When the back button 73d is selected, the vehicle setting screen 63 is displayed on the display 27 again.”)
in response to a specific group t(See at least Figs. 8-11, [0026]: “In addition, the driver may repeat several times an operation of changing the set state relating to a certain driving assistance function until the operation state of that driving assistance function come to match with the driver's preference…” & [0125]: “In this case, if the driver wants to switch the request state of the lane tracing assist function from the ON state to the OFF state, the driver selects the button 75b which is associated with the set state (setting item) related to the OFF state…”)
However, Takahashi does not explicitly teach changing settings corresponding to suppression of fuel consumption in a vehicle when the driving mode for suppressing fuel consumption is selected, as well as the following limitations:
suggest the specific group in response to detecting the vehicle is driving with the fuel consumption exceeding an upper limit value that is registered by input of a user; and
switch to the specific group in response to the fuel consumption reaching the upper limit value.
Amamiya teaches changing to a driving mode that prioritizes fuel efficiency by updating a registered engine operating point map to the engine operating point map corresponding to the selected driving mode (See at least [0023-0024]).
Amamiya additionally teaches:
suggesting the specific group in response to detecting the vehicle is driving with the fuel consumption exceeding an upper limit value(See at least [0028-0030]: “The main ECU 30 then determines, based on the acquired fuel efficiency-related information, whether fuel efficiency has deteriorated or whether there is a possibility that fuel efficiency will deteriorate in the future (S202). Specifically, for example, the main ECU 30 determines, based on the planned route information, whether the road currently being driven on is a congested route, and if it is a congested route, it determines that fuel efficiency will be poor…If it is determined that fuel efficiency has deteriorated (the result of the determination in S202 is affirmative "Y"), the main ECU 30 further calculates the average vehicle speed over a predetermined period up to the present based on the vehicle speed history data and determines whether that average vehicle speed is below a predetermined threshold vehicle speed (S204). If the determination result shows that the average vehicle speed is below a predetermined threshold vehicle speed (the determination result in S204 is affirmative "Y"), the user is notified (advised) to change from the currently set driving mode to a driving mode defined as two levels more fuel-efficient (S206). On the other hand, if the average vehicle speed exceeds a predetermined threshold vehicle speed (the result of the judgment in S204 is negative "N"), the user is notified that they should change from the currently set driving mode to a driving mode defined as one level more fuel-efficient (S208).”)
switching to the specific group in response to the fuel consumption reaching the upper limit value. (See at least [0033]: “However, for example, if the main ECU 30 determines that the driving mode should be changed, it may forcibly change the driving mode and notify the user of the change. Furthermore, the main ECU 30 may request permission from the user to change the driving mode, and if it does not receive notification from the user to refuse within a predetermined period, it may change the driving mode.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Takahashi’s apparatus with Amamiya’s techniques of changing settings corresponding to suppression of fuel consumption in a vehicle when the driving mode for suppressing fuel consumption is selected, suggesting the specific group in response to detecting the vehicle is driving with the fuel consumption exceeding an upper limit value that is registered by input of a user, and switching to the specific group in response to the fuel consumption reaching the upper limit value. Doing so would be obvious…
Takahashi and Amamiya in combination do not explicitly teach:
…that is registered by input of a user…
Petters teaches:
…that is registered by input of a user… (See at least [0007]: “The driver of the motor vehicle can individually specify a limit, in particular a minimum limit, for average fuel consumption” & [0026]: “The input unit 3 is used in particular for the manual input of a limit value G for the average fuel consumption as the target average fuel consumption.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Takahashi and Amamiya’s apparatus with Petters’s limit value for the average fuel consumption being registered by input of a user. Doing so would be obvious since “by controlling the motor vehicle depending on the determined limit value for average fuel consumption, the motor vehicle can be operated with optimal, in particular reduced or minimum fuel consumption and pollutant emissions, and thus in a particularly economical and cost-saving manner” and to “ensures that the driver of the motor vehicle can individually influence the fuel consumption of the motor vehicle by individually specifying a, in particular minimum, limit value for the average fuel consumption as the target average fuel consumption” (See [0007] & [0015] of Petters).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi and Petters in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Takahashi additionally teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to set a setting of an operating intensity of a function concerned with acceleration and deceleration for each of the driver assist functions included in the specific group to an operating intensity lower than a predetermined operating intensity. (See at least Fig. 11, [0095-0096]: “A radar cruise control function is a function for controlling the acceleration As such that a distance between the vehicle 10 and “an other proceeding vehicle (hereinafter also referred to as a “following target vehicle”) traveling ahead of the vehicle 10″ coincides with a predetermined target inter-vehicular distance without driver's operation to the accelerator pedal…A setting item related to the radar cruise control function is the “target inter-vehicular distance.” The driver can set the target inter-vehicular distance to any one of “long (namely, relatively long distance),” “middle (namely, intermediate distance)” and “short (namely, relatively short distance)” & [0128]: “…In the example shown in FIG. 11, the request state of the radar cruise control function is set at the ON state, and the target inter-vehicular distance is set at the “middle”…”)
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi and Petters in combination teach all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above.
Takahashi additionally teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to set a setting of an operating intensity of a function concerned with acceleration and deceleration for each of a function that assists in follow-up driving and a function that assists in operation depending on a driving situation, included in the specific group, to an operating intensity lower than a predetermined operating intensity, and the follow-up driving is driving maintaining an inter-vehicle distance from a preceding vehicle. (See at least Fig. 11, [0095-0096]: “A radar cruise control function is a function for controlling the acceleration As such that a distance between the vehicle 10 and “an other proceeding vehicle (hereinafter also referred to as a “following target vehicle”) traveling ahead of the vehicle 10″ coincides with a predetermined target inter-vehicular distance without driver's operation to the accelerator pedal…A setting item related to the radar cruise control function is the “target inter-vehicular distance.” The driver can set the target inter-vehicular distance to any one of “long (namely, relatively long distance),” “middle (namely, intermediate distance)” and “short (namely, relatively short distance)” & [0128]: “…In the example shown in FIG. 11, the request state of the radar cruise control function is set at the ON state, and the target inter-vehicular distance is set at the “middle”…”)
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi, Amamiya, and Petters in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Amamiya additionally teaches:
wherein the driver assist functions included in the specific group include a function to make a suggestion that the user activate the driving mode. (See at least [0032]: “As described above, the main ECU 30 takes fuel consumption conditions into consideration and determines whether the current driving mode set by the user is an appropriate driving mode. If it determines that the current driving mode is not appropriate, it notifies the user accordingly. At that time, the main ECU 30 advises the user on the appropriate driving mode for the current driving conditions. This allows users to set the driving mode more optimally. The main ECU 30 notifies the user, for example, by displaying the advice on the screen of the display device 60. Alternatively, the main ECU 30 may notify the user by outputting the advice content as voice from the voice output device provided by the display device 60 or the like.”)
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi teaches:
A driver assist method executed by a computer, the driver assist method comprising: (See at least Abstract: “A display of a changing operation assisting apparatus for a vehicle selectively displays various screens which include setting elements and transition elements…” & [0064]: “The drive assistance ECU 20 includes a micro-computer, as a major component, which is equipped with a CPU, a non-volatile memory and a RAM…”)
collectively providing instructions of settings with a group, the settings being set to a plurality of driver assist functions included in the group, and the group being configured so that a driver assist function of a vehicle is allowed to be added to or deleted from the group; (See at least [0076]: “Execution status of the driving assistance functions is displayed on the display 27. In addition, as described later, the driver of the vehicle 10 can change the set states related to the driving assistance functions while referring to screens displayed on the display 27” & [0128]: “…In the example shown in FIG. 11, the request state of the radar cruise control function is set at the ON state, and the target inter-vehicular distance is set at the “middle.” When the back button 73d is selected, the vehicle setting screen 63 is displayed on the display 27 again.”)
in response to a specific group (See at least Figs. 8-11, [0026]: “In addition, the driver may repeat several times an operation of changing the set state relating to a certain driving assistance function until the operation state of that driving assistance function come to match with the driver's preference…” & [0125]: “In this case, if the driver wants to switch the request state of the lane tracing assist function from the ON state to the OFF state, the driver selects the button 75b which is associated with the set state (setting item) related to the OFF state…”)
However, Takahashi does not explicitly teach changing settings corresponding to suppression of fuel consumption in a vehicle when the driving mode for suppressing fuel consumption is selected, as well as the following limitations:
suggesting the specific group in response to detecting the vehicle is driving with the fuel consumption exceeding an upper limit value that is registered by input of a user; and
switching to the specific group in response to the fuel consumption reaching the upper limit value.
Amamiya teaches changing to a driving mode that prioritizes fuel efficiency by updating a registered engine operating point map to the engine operating point map corresponding to the selected driving mode (See at least [0023-0024]).
Amamiya additionally teaches:
suggesting the specific group in response to detecting the vehicle is driving with the fuel consumption exceeding an upper limit value(See at least [0028-0030]: “The main ECU 30 then determines, based on the acquired fuel efficiency-related information, whether fuel efficiency has deteriorated or whether there is a possibility that fuel efficiency will deteriorate in the future (S202). Specifically, for example, the main ECU 30 determines, based on the planned route information, whether the road currently being driven on is a congested route, and if it is a congested route, it determines that fuel efficiency will be poor…If it is determined that fuel efficiency has deteriorated (the result of the determination in S202 is affirmative "Y"), the main ECU 30 further calculates the average vehicle speed over a predetermined period up to the present based on the vehicle speed history data and determines whether that average vehicle speed is below a predetermined threshold vehicle speed (S204). If the determination result shows that the average vehicle speed is below a predetermined threshold vehicle speed (the determination result in S204 is affirmative "Y"), the user is notified (advised) to change from the currently set driving mode to a driving mode defined as two levels more fuel-efficient (S206). On the other hand, if the average vehicle speed exceeds a predetermined threshold vehicle speed (the result of the judgment in S204 is negative "N"), the user is notified that they should change from the currently set driving mode to a driving mode defined as one level more fuel-efficient (S208).”)
switching to the specific group in response to the fuel consumption reaching the upper limit value. (See at least [0033]: “However, for example, if the main ECU 30 determines that the driving mode should be changed, it may forcibly change the driving mode and notify the user of the change. Furthermore, the main ECU 30 may request permission from the user to change the driving mode, and if it does not receive notification from the user to refuse within a predetermined period, it may change the driving mode.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Takahashi’s apparatus with Amamiya’s techniques of changing settings corresponding to suppression of fuel consumption in a vehicle when the driving mode for suppressing fuel consumption is selected, suggesting the specific group in response to detecting the vehicle is driving with the fuel consumption exceeding an upper limit value that is registered by input of a user, and switching to the specific group in response to the fuel consumption reaching the upper limit value. Doing so would be obvious…
Takahashi and Amamiya in combination do not explicitly teach:
…that is registered by input of a user…
Petters teaches:
…that is registered by input of a user… (See at least [0007]: “The driver of the motor vehicle can individually specify a limit, in particular a minimum limit, for average fuel consumption” & [0026]: “The input unit 3 is used in particular for the manual input of a limit value G for the average fuel consumption as the target average fuel consumption.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Takahashi and Amamiya’s apparatus with Petters’s limit value for the average fuel consumption being registered by input of a user. Doing so would be obvious since “by controlling the motor vehicle depending on the determined limit value for average fuel consumption, the motor vehicle can be operated with optimal, in particular reduced or minimum fuel consumption and pollutant emissions, and thus in a particularly economical and cost-saving manner” and to “ensures that the driver of the motor vehicle can individually influence the fuel consumption of the motor vehicle by individually specifying a, in particular minimum, limit value for the average fuel consumption as the target average fuel consumption” (See [0007] & [0015] of Petters).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi teaches:
A non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors and that cause the one or more processors to perform functions comprising: (See at least Abstract: “A display of a changing operation assisting apparatus for a vehicle selectively displays various screens which include setting elements and transition elements…” & [0064]: “The drive assistance ECU 20 includes a micro-computer, as a major component, which is equipped with a CPU, a non-volatile memory and a RAM…”)
collectively providing instructions of settings with a group, the settings being set to a plurality of driver assist functions included in the group, the group being configured so that a driver assist function of a vehicle is allowed to be added to or deleted from the group; (See at least [0076]: “Execution status of the driving assistance functions is displayed on the display 27. In addition, as described later, the driver of the vehicle 10 can change the set states related to the driving assistance functions while referring to screens displayed on the display 27” & [0128]: “…In the example shown in FIG. 11, the request state of the radar cruise control function is set at the ON state, and the target inter-vehicular distance is set at the “middle.” When the back button 73d is selected, the vehicle setting screen 63 is displayed on the display 27 again.”)
in response to a specific group (See at least Figs. 8-11, [0026]: “In addition, the driver may repeat several times an operation of changing the set state relating to a certain driving assistance function until the operation state of that driving assistance function come to match with the driver's preference…” & [0125]: “In this case, if the driver wants to switch the request state of the lane tracing assist function from the ON state to the OFF state, the driver selects the button 75b which is associated with the set state (setting item) related to the OFF state…”)
However, Takahashi does not explicitly teach changing settings corresponding to suppression of fuel consumption in a vehicle when the driving mode for suppressing fuel consumption is selected, as well as the following limitations:
suggesting the specific group in response to detecting the vehicle is driving with the fuel consumption exceeding an upper limit value that is registered by input of a user; and
switching to the specific group in response to the fuel consumption reaching the upper limit value.
Amamiya teaches changing to a driving mode that prioritizes fuel efficiency by updating a registered engine operating point map to the engine operating point map corresponding to the selected driving mode (See at least [0023-0024]).
Amamiya additionally teaches:
suggesting the specific group in response to detecting the vehicle is driving with the fuel consumption exceeding an upper limit value(See at least [0028-0030]: “The main ECU 30 then determines, based on the acquired fuel efficiency-related information, whether fuel efficiency has deteriorated or whether there is a possibility that fuel efficiency will deteriorate in the future (S202). Specifically, for example, the main ECU 30 determines, based on the planned route information, whether the road currently being driven on is a congested route, and if it is a congested route, it determines that fuel efficiency will be poor…If it is determined that fuel efficiency has deteriorated (the result of the determination in S202 is affirmative "Y"), the main ECU 30 further calculates the average vehicle speed over a predetermined period up to the present based on the vehicle speed history data and determines whether that average vehicle speed is below a predetermined threshold vehicle speed (S204). If the determination result shows that the average vehicle speed is below a predetermined threshold vehicle speed (the determination result in S204 is affirmative "Y"), the user is notified (advised) to change from the currently set driving mode to a driving mode defined as two levels more fuel-efficient (S206). On the other hand, if the average vehicle speed exceeds a predetermined threshold vehicle speed (the result of the judgment in S204 is negative "N"), the user is notified that they should change from the currently set driving mode to a driving mode defined as one level more fuel-efficient (S208).”)
switching to the specific group in response to the fuel consumption reaching the upper limit value. (See at least [0033]: “However, for example, if the main ECU 30 determines that the driving mode should be changed, it may forcibly change the driving mode and notify the user of the change. Furthermore, the main ECU 30 may request permission from the user to change the driving mode, and if it does not receive notification from the user to refuse within a predetermined period, it may change the driving mode.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Takahashi’s apparatus with Amamiya’s techniques of changing settings corresponding to suppression of fuel consumption in a vehicle when the driving mode for suppressing fuel consumption is selected, suggesting the specific group in response to detecting the vehicle is driving with the fuel consumption exceeding an upper limit value that is registered by input of a user, and switching to the specific group in response to the fuel consumption reaching the upper limit value. Doing so would be obvious…
Takahashi and Amamiya in combination do not explicitly teach:
…that is registered by input of a user…
Petters teaches:
…that is registered by input of a user… (See at least [0007]: “The driver of the motor vehicle can individually specify a limit, in particular a minimum limit, for average fuel consumption” & [0026]: “The input unit 3 is used in particular for the manual input of a limit value G for the average fuel consumption as the target average fuel consumption.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Takahashi and Amamiya’s apparatus with Petters’s limit value for the average fuel consumption being registered by input of a user. Doing so would be obvious since “by controlling the motor vehicle depending on the determined limit value for average fuel consumption, the motor vehicle can be operated with optimal, in particular reduced or minimum fuel consumption and pollutant emissions, and thus in a particularly economical and cost-saving manner” and to “ensures that the driver of the motor vehicle can individually influence the fuel consumption of the motor vehicle by individually specifying a, in particular minimum, limit value for the average fuel consumption as the target average fuel consumption” (See [0007] & [0015] of Petters).
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi, Amamiya, and Petters in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Petters additionally teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: predict a fuel consumption suppression effect from a driving record in a case where the specific group is selected; and display the fuel consumption suppression effect on a screen. (See at least [0043-0047]: “Furthermore, the set or changed limit value G can be output on the output unit 5, in particular displayed, so that the driver of the motor vehicle has feedback on the currently set or specified limit value G for the average fuel consumption. Alternatively or additionally, a determined current average fuel consumption I can be output, in particular displayed. Furthermore, additional feedback regarding the activation of the optimal operating mode B1 can be output, in particular displayed, on the output unit 5. Thus, when information is displayed about the activation of the optimal operating mode B1, the currently set limit value G, and the currently determined average fuel consumption I, the driver is always informed about the current consumption values and operating conditions and can additionally adjust his driving behavior for a further reduction in fuel consumption and/or the specified limit value G for average fuel consumption. This allows the driver of the motor vehicle to activate the optimal operating mode B1 and monitor the currently set limit value G for average fuel consumption and to change or adjust it again if necessary.”)
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi, Amamiya, and Petters in combination teach all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above.
Petters additionally teaches:
further comprising: predicting a fuel consumption suppression effect from a driving record in a case where the specific group is selected; and displaying the fuel consumption suppression effect on a screen. (See at least [0043-0047]: “Furthermore, the set or changed limit value G can be output on the output unit 5, in particular displayed, so that the driver of the motor vehicle has feedback on the currently set or specified limit value G for the average fuel consumption. Alternatively or additionally, a determined current average fuel consumption I can be output, in particular displayed. Furthermore, additional feedback regarding the activation of the optimal operating mode B1 can be output, in particular displayed, on the output unit 5. Thus, when information is displayed about the activation of the optimal operating mode B1, the currently set limit value G, and the currently determined average fuel consumption I, the driver is always informed about the current consumption values and operating conditions and can additionally adjust his driving behavior for a further reduction in fuel consumption and/or the specified limit value G for average fuel consumption. This allows the driver of the motor vehicle to activate the optimal operating mode B1 and monitor the currently set limit value G for average fuel consumption and to change or adjust it again if necessary.”)
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi, Amamiya, and Petters in combination teach all the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above.
Petters additionally teaches:
wherein the one or more processors are caused to further perform functions comprising: predicting a fuel consumption suppression effect from a driving record in a case where the specific group is selected; and displaying the fuel consumption suppression effect on a screen. (See at least [0043-0047]: “Furthermore, the set or changed limit value G can be output on the output unit 5, in particular displayed, so that the driver of the motor vehicle has feedback on the currently set or specified limit value G for the average fuel consumption. Alternatively or additionally, a determined current average fuel consumption I can be output, in particular displayed. Furthermore, additional feedback regarding the activation of the optimal operating mode B1 can be output, in particular displayed, on the output unit 5. Thus, when information is displayed about the activation of the optimal operating mode B1, the currently set limit value G, and the currently determined average fuel consumption I, the driver is always informed about the current consumption values and operating conditions and can additionally adjust his driving behavior for a further reduction in fuel consumption and/or the specified limit value G for average fuel consumption. This allows the driver of the motor vehicle to activate the optimal operating mode B1 and monitor the currently set limit value G for average fuel consumption and to change or adjust it again if necessary.”)
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 NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA whose telephone number is (571)272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm PT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights