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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR20210124329A).
As per claim 1, Lee discloses a method for monitoring a taillight of a vehicle via a camera system, wherein the camera system includes a camera directed to the rear, wherein the taillight includes a light unit, the method comprising:
capturing, via the camera, at least one of the taillight of the vehicle and light surroundings illuminated by the taillight and outputting camera signals (paragraph [0014]: “…a rear image photographing unit for photographing a rear image of a vehicle; a camera setting control unit for controlling the setting of the rear image capturing unit for photographing the rear of the vehicle; a pixel detection unit for detecting the number of pixels of a tail light or a brake light that is greater than or equal to a preset pixel value in the image photographed by the rear image capturing unit… ”);
providing a camera image having pixels depending on the output camera signals, wherein the at least one of the taillight of the vehicle and the light surroundings illuminated by the taillight is displayed in light pixels of the camera image (paragraph [0014]: “…a pixel detection unit for detecting the number of pixels of a tail light or a brake light that is greater than or equal to a preset pixel value in the image photographed by the rear image capturing unit..”);
ascertaining and evaluating brightness values for the light pixels of the camera image (paragraph [0014]:”…a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”); and,
ascertaining and outputting a functional status of the taillight depending on the ascertained brightness values (paragraph [0014]:”…a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”).
As per claim 2, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said ascertaining the functional status of the taillight includes creating at least one of a histogram and a pattern representation from the provided camera image, wherein a distribution of the brightness values at least of the light pixels of the camera image is represented in the at least one of the histogram and the pattern representation (paragraph [0014]:”… a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”).
As per claim 3, Lee discloses the method of claim 2 wherein said ascertaining the functional status of the taillight includes providing a reference camera image; and, wherein at least one of:
the histogram created from the provided camera image is compared with a reference
histogram, wherein the reference histogram is created from the reference camera image; and,
the pattern representation created from the camera image is compared with a reference pattern representation, wherein the reference pattern representation is created from the reference camera image (paragraph [0014]:”… a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”).
As per claim 4, Lee discloses the method of claim 3, wherein:
in the reference camera image the taillight of the vehicle is represented in a fully functional state and the light surroundings are shown in a state irradiated by the taillight of the vehicle in the fully functional state (paragraph [0021]: “When the number of pixels detected in the left tail light area is less than a preset reference threshold number of pixels, the failure detection unit determines that the left tail light has failed, and when the number of pixels detected in the right tail light area is less than the preset reference threshold number of pixels, the right tail light It is determined that this is a malfunction, and if the number of pixels in the right tail light and the left tail light area is greater than or equal to the preset reference threshold number of pixels, it is determined that the tail light is operating normally.”);
wherein the functional status of the taillight is ascertained and output as defective or covered if at least one of:
the histogram created from the camera image deviates from the reference histogram; and,
the pattern representation created from the camera image deviates from the reference
pattern representation (paragraph [0014]:”… a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”).
As per claim 5, Lee discloses the method of claim 3, wherein, in the reference camera image, at least one of the taillight is represented in a deactivated state and the light surroundings are shown in a state in which the taillights of the vehicle is in the deactivated state,
wherein the functional status of the taillight is ascertained and output as defective or
covered if at least one of:
the histogram created from the camera image corresponds to the reference histogram;
and,
the pattern representation created from the camera image corresponds to the reference pattern representation (paragraph [0014]:”… a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”; paragraph [0021]:” When the number of pixels detected in the left tail light area is less than a preset reference threshold number of pixels, the failure detection unit determines that the left tail light has failed, and when the number of pixels detected in the right tail light area is less than the preset reference threshold number of pixels, the right tail light It is determined that this is a malfunction, and if the number of pixels in the right tail light and the left tail light area is greater than or equal to the preset reference threshold number of pixels, it is determined that the tail light is operating normally.”).
As per claim 6, Lee discloses the method of claim 3, wherein at least one of:
the histogram, before the comparison with the reference histogram, is subjected to a brightness adaptation, wherein the brightness values represented in the histogram are adapted
for the brightness adaptation depending on a current ambient brightness; and,
the pattern representation, before the comparison with the reference pattern
representation, is subjected to a brightness adaptation, wherein the brightness values
represented in the pattern representation are adapted for the brightness adaption depending
on the current ambient brightness (paragraph [0043]:” However, in the case of the tail lamp 510, since the amount of light is smaller than that of the headlamp, it is impossible to detect whether the light is turned on when the luminance of the external light source is high.”; paragraph [0044]:” Therefore, in the present invention, the tail light 510 failure determination is preferably performed by the failure detection logic operation at night when the background is dark. That is, it is preferable to operate when the brightness information obtained through the rear camera is less than or equal to a preset value.”).
As per claim 7, Lee discloses the method of claim 2, wherein said ascertaining the functional status of the taillight includes ascertaining whether the brightness values of at least one of the histogram and the pattern representation lie in at least one desired brightness range assigned to the taillight (paragraph [0030]:” A tail light failure determination method using a rear camera according to another embodiment of the present invention comprises the steps of: calculating an average brightness of an area around the tail light when the tail light is turned on; determining whether the calculated average brightness of the area around the taillight is smaller than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining whether the brake light is turned on by operating when the calculated average brightness of the area around the tail light is less than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining that the tail light has failed if the brake light is turned off in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on; and determining that the brake light is faulty if the brake light is turned on in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on.”).
As per claim 8, Lee discloses the method of claim 7 further comprising ascertaining whether at least one defined desired pixel proportion of brightness values lies in the at least one desired brightness range assigned to the taillight (paragraph [0021]:” When the number of pixels detected in the left tail light area is less than a preset reference threshold number of pixels, the failure detection unit determines that the left tail light has failed, and when the number of pixels detected in the right tail light area is less than the preset reference threshold number of pixels, the right tail light It is determined that this is a malfunction, and if the number of pixels in the right tail light and the left tail light area is greater than or equal to the preset reference threshold number of pixels, it is determined that the tail light is operating normally.”; paragraph [0030]:” A tail light failure determination method using a rear camera according to another embodiment of the present invention comprises the steps of: calculating an average brightness of an area around the tail light when the tail light is turned on; determining whether the calculated average brightness of the area around the taillight is smaller than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining whether the brake light is turned on by operating when the calculated average brightness of the area around the tail light is less than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining that the tail light has failed if the brake light is turned off in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on; and determining that the brake light is faulty if the brake light is turned on in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on.”).
As per claim 9, Lee discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the functional status of the taillight is ascertained and output as defective or covered if the brightness values of at least one of the histogram created from the camera image and the pattern representation created from the camera image do not lie within the at least one assigned desired brightness range or do not lie in the defined desired pixel proportion within the at least one assigned desired brightness range (paragraph [0014]:”… a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”; paragraph [0021]:” When the number of pixels detected in the left tail light area is less than a preset reference threshold number of pixels, the failure detection unit determines that the left tail light has failed, and when the number of pixels detected in the right tail light area is less than the preset reference threshold number of pixels, the right tail light It is determined that this is a malfunction, and if the number of pixels in the right tail light and the left tail light area is greater than or equal to the preset reference threshold number of pixels, it is determined that the tail light is operating normally.”; paragraph [0030]:” A tail light failure determination method using a rear camera according to another embodiment of the present invention comprises the steps of: calculating an average brightness of an area around the tail light when the tail light is turned on; determining whether the calculated average brightness of the area around the taillight is smaller than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining whether the brake light is turned on by operating when the calculated average brightness of the area around the tail light is less than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining that the tail light has failed if the brake light is turned off in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on; and determining that the brake light is faulty if the brake light is turned on in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on.”).
As per claim 10, Lee discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the at least one desired brightness range is assigned to each light unit of the taillight (paragraph [0021]:” When the number of pixels detected in the left tail light area is less than a preset reference threshold number of pixels, the failure detection unit determines that the left tail light has failed, and when the number of pixels detected in the right tail light area is less than the preset reference threshold number of pixels, the right tail light It is determined that this is a malfunction, and if the number of pixels in the right tail light and the left tail light area is greater than or equal to the preset reference threshold number of pixels, it is determined that the tail light is operating normally.”; paragraph [0030]:” A tail light failure determination method using a rear camera according to another embodiment of the present invention comprises the steps of: calculating an average brightness of an area around the tail light when the tail light is turned on; determining whether the calculated average brightness of the area around the taillight is smaller than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining whether the brake light is turned on by operating when the calculated average brightness of the area around the tail light is less than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining that the tail light has failed if the brake light is turned off in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on; and determining that the brake light is faulty if the brake light is turned on in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on.”).
As per claim 11, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said ascertaining and evaluating the brightness values is only carried out for static pixels of the provided camera image; and, the light pixels are contained in the static pixels (paragraph [0014]:”… a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”; paragraph [0021]:” When the number of pixels detected in the left tail light area is less than a preset reference threshold number of pixels, the failure detection unit determines that the left tail light has failed, and when the number of pixels detected in the right tail light area is less than the preset reference threshold number of pixels, the right tail light It is determined that this is a malfunction, and if the number of pixels in the right tail light and the left tail light area is greater than or equal to the preset reference threshold number of pixels, it is determined that the tail light is operating normally.”; paragraph [0030]:” A tail light failure determination method using a rear camera according to another embodiment of the present invention comprises the steps of: calculating an average brightness of an area around the tail light when the tail light is turned on; determining whether the calculated average brightness of the area around the taillight is smaller than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining whether the brake light is turned on by operating when the calculated average brightness of the area around the tail light is less than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining that the tail light has failed if the brake light is turned off in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on; and determining that the brake light is faulty if the brake light is turned on in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on.”).
As per claim 12, Lee discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the static pixels of the provided camera image are identified beforehand in a calibration step during a journey of the vehicle (paragraph [0014]:”… a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”: reference imaging).
As per claim 13, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said ascertaining and evaluating the brightness values is only carried out for the light pixels of the provided camera image; the light pixels are identified in that the brightness values of the pixels of the provided camera image are evaluated over time during an activation and a subsequent deactivation of the taillight; wherein the pixels, the brightness values of which change over time due to the activation and subsequent deactivation of the taillight, are identified as the light pixels (paragraph [0025]:” A method for determining a failure of a tail light using a rear camera according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises the steps of fixing a setting of a rear image capturing unit by a camera setting controller; detecting a red component appearing in the camera image when the brake operation is taken after photographing the images before and after the brake operation through the rear image capturing unit; removing a red component from the photographed image using a red component formed by a brake light when the brake is operated; detecting a pixel exceeding a threshold value among pixels indicated by a brake light; determining whether the detected number of pixels is smaller than a break threshold number of pixels; and when the number of pixels exceeding the threshold value is less than the brake threshold number of pictures, determining that the brake light has failed.”).
As per claim 17, Lee discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising checking whether the taillight is activated before said ascertaining and outputting the functional status of the taillight depending on the ascertained brightness values (paragraph [0025]:” A method for determining a failure of a tail light using a rear camera according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises the steps of fixing a setting of a rear image capturing unit by a camera setting controller; detecting a red component appearing in the camera image when the brake operation is taken after photographing the images before and after the brake operation through the rear image capturing unit; removing a red component from the photographed image using a red component formed by a brake light when the brake is operated; detecting a pixel exceeding a threshold value among pixels indicated by a brake light; determining whether the detected number of pixels is smaller than a break threshold number of pixels; and when the number of pixels exceeding the threshold value is less than the brake threshold number of pictures, determining that the brake light has failed.”).
As per claim 18, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a monitoring system for a vehicle, the monitoring system comprising:
a camera system having a camera directed to the rear for capturing at least one of a taillight of the vehicle and light surroundings illuminated by the taillight, wherein the camera is configured to output camera signals;
a control unit configured to:
process a camera image provided depending on the output camera signals, the camera
image having pixels, wherein at least one of the taillight of the vehicle and the light
surroundings illuminated by the taillight is represented or depicted in light pixels of the camera
image;
ascertain and output brightness values at least for the light pixels of the camera image;
and,
ascertain and output a functional status of the taillight depending on the ascertained
brightness values.
As per claim 19, Lee discloses the monitoring system of claim 18, wherein said camera directed to the rear has a capture area such that the at least one of the taillight and the light surroundings is directly capturable by said camera or that only the light surroundings can be captured (paragraph [0014]:” In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention for achieving the above object, there is provided an apparatus for determining a failure of a tail light using a rear camera, comprising: a rear image photographing unit for photographing a rear image of a vehicle; a camera setting control unit for controlling the setting of the rear image capturing unit for photographing the rear of the vehicle; a pixel detection unit for detecting the number of pixels of a tail light or a brake light that is greater than or equal to a preset pixel value in the image photographed by the rear image capturing unit; and a pixel detection unit configured to detect the number of pixels of a tail light or a brake light that is greater than or equal to a preset pixel value in the image captured by the rear image capturing unit. and a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”).
As per claim 20, Lee discloses the monitoring system of claim 19, wherein the camera is a fisheye camera (paragraph [0015]:” The rear image capturing unit, it is preferable that a fisheye lens camera is used.”).
As per claim 21, Lee discloses the monitoring system of claim 18, wherein said camera system is part of a reversing assistant (paragraph [0022]:” The present invention includes a rear light control unit that, when a failure of the tail light and brake light is detected by the failure detecting unit, controls other tail light, brake light and reversing light that are normally operating to replace the defective rear light.”).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Randolph et al. (Randolph; US Pub No. 2017/0313240 A1).
As per claim 14, Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the monitoring of the taillight is carried out for at least one of a motor vehicle taillight on a motor vehicle of the vehicle… wherein the taillight includes a light unit selected from a group including a reflector, a brake light, a rear light, a rear fog light, a license plate lamp, a turn signal, and an outline light (paragraph [0012]:” SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The present invention is to solve the problems of the prior art, and it is an object of the present invention to provide an apparatus for determining a failure of a tail light using a rear camera that determines whether a failure of a tail light is based on an image of a rear camera mounted on a vehicle.”).
Lee does not expressly teach and a trailer taillight on a trailer of the vehicle.
Randolph teaches and a trailer taillight on a trailer of the vehicle (Fig. 1, Trailer Lights 20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement monitoring the taillights of a trailer as taught by Randolph, since Randolph states in paragraph [0008] that such a modification would result in checking the operation of a trailer taillight.
As per claim 22, Lee teaches the monitoring system of claim 18.
Lee does not expressly teach wherein said control unit includes an interface for picking up an activation signal; the activation signal transmits whether the taillight is activated or not; and, said control unit is configured to establish, before the ascertainment of the functional status of the taillight, whether the taillight is activated on a basis of the activation signal.
Randolph teaches wherein said control unit includes an interface for picking up an activation signal; the activation signal transmits whether the taillight is activated or not; and, said control unit is configured to establish, before the ascertainment of the functional status of the taillight, whether the taillight is activated on a basis of the activation signal (paragraphs [0008], [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the detection of a signal received from a controller as taught by Randolph, since Randolph states in paragraph [0008] that such a modification would result in checking for the proper operation of a trailer taillight.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Arkashevski et al. (Arkashevski; US Pub No. 2009/0283605 A1).
As per claim 15, Lee teaches the method of claim 1… depending on at least one of:
the ascertained and evaluated brightness values at least for the light pixels of the camera image; and,
the ascertained and output functional status of the taillight (paragraph [0014]:”… a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”; paragraph [0030]:” A tail light failure determination method using a rear camera according to another embodiment of the present invention comprises the steps of: calculating an average brightness of an area around the tail light when the tail light is turned on; determining whether the calculated average brightness of the area around the taillight is smaller than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining whether the brake light is turned on by operating when the calculated average brightness of the area around the tail light is less than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining that the tail light has failed if the brake light is turned off in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on; and determining that the brake light is faulty if the brake light is turned on in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on.”).
Lee does not expressly teach wherein at least one of a heating element on the taillight and a cleaning system of the taillight is actuated.
Arkashevski teaches wherein at least one of a heating element on the taillight and a cleaning system of the taillight is actuated (paragraph [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the taillight heating and cleaning as taught by Arkashevski, in order to ensure safe operation of a vehicle by a driver.
As per claim 16, Lee in view of Arkashevski further teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the method is repeated after a completed actuation of at least one of the heating element and the cleaning system (Lee, paragraph [0014]:”… a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”; paragraph [0030]:” A tail light failure determination method using a rear camera according to another embodiment of the present invention comprises the steps of: calculating an average brightness of an area around the tail light when the tail light is turned on; determining whether the calculated average brightness of the area around the taillight is smaller than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining whether the brake light is turned on by operating when the calculated average brightness of the area around the tail light is less than a pre-stored external light threshold value; determining that the tail light has failed if the brake light is turned off in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on; and determining that the brake light is faulty if the brake light is turned on in the step of determining whether the brake light is turned on.”; Arkashevski, paragraph [0148]).
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Germaine et al. (Germaine; US Pub No. 2024/0034114 A1).
As per claim 23, Lee teaches a vehicle comprising:
a monitoring system including a camera system having a camera directed to the rear for
capturing at least one of a taillight of the vehicle and light surroundings illuminated by the
taillight, wherein the camera is configured to output camera signals (paragraph [0014]: “…a rear image photographing unit for photographing a rear image of a vehicle; a camera setting control unit for controlling the setting of the rear image capturing unit for photographing the rear of the vehicle; a pixel detection unit for detecting the number of pixels of a tail light or a brake light that is greater than or equal to a preset pixel value in the image photographed by the rear image capturing unit… ”);
said monitoring system further including a control unit configured to:
process a camera image provided depending on the output camera signals, the camera image having pixels, wherein at least one of the taillight of the vehicle and the light surroundings illuminated by the taillight is represented or depicted in light pixels of the camera image (paragraph [0014]: “…a pixel detection unit for detecting the number of pixels of a tail light or a brake light that is greater than or equal to a preset pixel value in the image photographed by the rear image capturing unit..”);
ascertain and output brightness values at least for the light pixels of the camera image (paragraph [0014]:”…a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”); and,
ascertain and output a functional status of the taillight depending on the ascertained brightness values (paragraph [0014]:”…a failure detection unit that compares the number of pixels of the tail light or brake light detected by the pixel detection unit with a preset reference threshold number of pixels to determine that the pixel is operating normally.”); and,
wherein said camera is at least one of a motor vehicle camera on the motor vehicle of the vehicle… which are each oriented to the rear (paragraph [0015]:” The rear image capturing unit, it is preferable that a fisheye lens camera is used.”).
Lee does not expressly teach and a trailer camera on a trailer of the vehicle.
Germaine teaches and a trailer camera on a trailer of the vehicle (Fig. 1B, Trailer 14, Camera 20d).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the trailer camera as taught by Germaine, in order to monitor the field-of-view behind a trailer attached to a cab.
As per claim 24, Lee in view of Germaine further teaches the vehicle of claim 23, wherein the vehicle is a utility vehicle (Germaine, Fig. 1B, Trailer 14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blank et al. (US Pub No. 2024/0064274 A1): similar inventive concept
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights