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 .
Response to Amendment and Arguments
The amendment filed 8/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 7-10, 14-29 are pending in this application. The previous rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 7: speed limit control module
Claim 9: communications module, speed limit module, pedal control module
Claim 14: speed limit control module, pedal control module, communications module
Claim 25: brake switch simulating control module
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (no structure provided in specification).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 7-10, 14-29 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitations: speed limit control module, communications module, pedal control module, brake switch simulating control module are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function(s). Examples of such sufficient structures would include but not be limited to: processors, CPUs, GPUs, systems on a chip (SOC), non-transitory computer readable memory.
As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art the limitations can be performed upon either a separate processor/CPU or by software (instructions/programming block) on the ECM. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function(s).
Claim 8 recites “a reduced maximum speed limit” in more than one instance. It is unclear if these instances are the same or distinct. For purposes of examination these instances will be interpreted as being the same.
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 7-10, 14-29 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. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function(s). The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention..
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7-10, 14-19, 23, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240119536A1 (“Carver”), US20230415697A1 (“Khamis”), and US20180222441A1 (“Koase”).
As per claims 7, 9, and 14 Carver teaches the limitations of the method, system, and vehicle:
A fleet vehicle comprising: (a) an accelerator pedal comprising an accelerator pedal sensor (APS) configured to generate acceleration signals indicative of positions of the accelerator pedal; (b) an engine control module (ECM) configured to control acceleration of the fleet vehicle based on acceleration signals received by the ECM; (c) a seatbelt monitoring source comprising at least one of a controller area network communication source and a physical switch interface connected with a seatbelt; (d) a driver-seat occupancy sensor configured to indicate whether a driver seat is occupied; and (e) an active intelligent speed adaptor (ISA) system connected in series between the APS and the ECM and configured to receive the acceleration signals before the acceleration signals are received by the ECM; (f) wherein the active ISA system comprises a speed limit control module, a pedal control module, and a communications module; (g) wherein the speed limit control module is configured to determine a current driving context and, when applicable, a current geofenced area of the fleet vehicle and to determine an applicable allowed speed limit using fleet-operator-defined speed limit policies comprising a maximum safe speed limit policy and a reduced maximum speed limit policy; and wherein the pedal control module is configured, when a current vehicle speed exceeds, or is within a predetermined range below, the applicable allowed speed limit and the acceleration signals indicate driver actuation of the accelerator pedal, to modify the acceleration signals before the acceleration signals are received by the ECM to reduce an indicated accelerator pedal position relative to the positions indicated by the APS and to transmit the modified acceleration signals to the ECM to prevent further acceleration of the fleet vehicle. (Carver at least the abstract, [0117], [0103], [0135], [0103]: “sensor measurement(s) of driver body temperature”, [0122]: “maximum speed of a vehicle may be limited by controller 720 intercepting accelerator position and by providing substituted accelerator position data to ECU”, FIG. 1, [0081], [0119-0120], [0121-0122])
Carver does not disclose, which Koase teaches:
(h) wherein the active ISA system is configured to determine whether a driver of the fleet vehicle is compliant with a fleet seatbelt-use policy based on a seatbelt status from the seatbelt monitoring source and vehicle operating conditions comprising at least one of a duration for which the fleet vehicle has been moving, whether the driver seat is occupied, and whether the fleet vehicle is inside the current geofenced area or on a road; (Koase at least [0035])
(j) wherein the active ISA system is configured, in response to determining that the driver is not compliant with the fleet seatbelt-use policy and that no seatbelt-monitoring anomaly exists, to determine a reduced maximum speed limit from the reduced maximum speed limit policy instead of a maximum safe speed limit from the maximum safe speed limit policy as the applicable allowed speed limit;(Koase at least the abstract, FIG. 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Koase with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to encourage seat belt compliance (Koase [0006]).
Carver does not disclose, which Khamis teaches:
(i) wherein the active ISA system is configured to perform a seatbelt-monitoring anomaly evaluation to detect a seatbelt-monitoring anomaly comprising at least one of frequent buckling and unbuckling of the seatbelt, the seatbelt being buckled after the fleet vehicle has been parked for a predetermined time, and the seatbelt being buckled while the driver seat is indicated as empty; (Khamis at least [0009-0011])
(k) wherein the active ISA system is configured, in response to detecting the seatbelt- monitoring anomaly, to report the seatbelt-monitoring anomaly to a fleet operator using the communications module; (Khamis at least [0045])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Khamis with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to cease seatbelt gaming activities (Khamis [0058])
As per claims 8 and 10, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver additionally teaches:
the reduced maximum speed limit policy includes for at least one speed limit zone or geofenced area, a reduced maximum speed limit that is less than a corresponding maximum safe speed limit of the maximum safe speed limit policy. (Carver at least [0098]: “posted speed limit 685 is 40 miles per hour (mph). … vehicle control systems … reduce this attempted speed 620B to a reduced speed 625B of 35 miles per hour. ”)
As per claim 15, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver teaches using wireless networks (Carver at least [0146-0147]), but does not disclose, which Khamis teaches:
the communications module is configured to report the seatbelt-monitoring anomaly to the fleet operator through cellular network connectivity and to cause the seatbelt-monitoring anomaly to be displayed on a web portal. (Khamis at least [0045]: “system 30 includes a transceiver device 42 b configured to wirelessly communicate with a remote database. Such embodiments may enable, for example, an owner of fleet vehicles to monitor occupant compliance with seatbelt use practices”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Khamis with a reasonable expectation of success. In addition to the motivation to combine these references as described above, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of reducing the teachings of Khamis to practice from the teaching of a remote database, which can include a computer for which a user interface would be a design choice (to one of ordinary skill in the art) to be a web portal among other possible user interfaces.
As per claim 16, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver does not disclose, which Koase teaches:
in response to detecting the seatbelt-monitoring anomaly, to apply the maximum safe speed limit policy rather than applying the reduced maximum speed limit policy based on the detected seatbelt status. (Koase at least FIG. 2, output column 5) *Examiner’s note: column 5 describes situation where seat is empty but the seatbelt is extended and buckled, yet there is no speed flag thus the max speed limit from Carver would still apply.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Koase with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to encourage seat belt compliance (Koase [0006]).
As per claim 17, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver additionally teaches: determining the applicable allowed speed limit is repeated continuously while an engine of the fleet vehicle is running (Carver at least [0043]). Carver does not disclose, which Khamis teaches:
the detecting, evaluating, performing the seatbelt- monitoring anomaly evaluation is repeated continuously while an engine of the fleet vehicle is running. (Khamis at least [0061])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Khamis with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to cease seatbelt gaming activities (Khamis [0058])
As per claim 18, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver does not disclose, which Koase teaches:
notifying the driver through a voice notification that the reduced maximum speed limit policy has been applied based on noncompliance with the fleet seatbelt-use policy. (Koase at least [0076], FIG. 5)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Koase with a reasonable expectation of success. In addition to the motivation to combine the references as described above, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further modify the on screen text prompt and speaker as taught by Koase with a text-to-voice program to provide an effective communication protocol for people with visual and/or processing disabilities such as dyslexia.
As per claim 19, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver additionally teaches: determining the current driving context based on outputs of a map-matching system and a vision system (Carver at least [0036])
As per claim 23, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver additionally teaches: the pedal control module is configured only to reduce the indicated accelerator pedal position and is not configured to increase the indicated accelerator pedal position. (Carver at least [0121])
As per claim 26, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver additionally teaches: the pedal control module is configured to obtain vehicle-related information comprising at least vehicle speed information through an interface with a controller area network bus of the fleet vehicle. (Carver at least [0027], [0033], [0037])
As per claim 27, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver additionally teaches: each of the maximum safe speed limit policy and the reduced maximum speed limit policy comprises a predefined set of maximum speeds for a plurality of speed limit zones of a predetermined driving context, and wherein the predefined set of maximum speeds is established by a fleet operator. (Carver at least [0120], FIG. 6)
Claim(s) 20, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carver, Khamis, Koase, and US12254757B1 (“Van Fossen”).
As per claim 20, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver does not disclose, which Van Fossen teaches:
when the current geofenced area is determined, the maximum safe speed limit policy and the reduced maximum speed limit policy for the current geofenced area take priority over speed limit policies defined for driving contexts. (Van Fossen at least: “adjust the speed of the vehicle (e.g., slow down the vehicle as it approaches at least one of the plurality of geofences”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Van Fossen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to optimize workplace safety.
As per claim 28, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver does not disclose, which Van Fossen teaches:
wherein the current geofenced area corresponds to a construction site, an industrial site, a warehouse, or a yard, and wherein the maximum safe speed limit policy and the reduced maximum speed limit policy for the current geofenced area are defined by the fleet operator. (Van Fossen at least: “adjust the speed of the vehicle (e.g., slow down the vehicle as it approaches at least one of the plurality of geofences”, “subsequent to the vehicle exceeding a predetermined speed limit (e.g., about 5 mph) of the at least one industrial environment, the GAP system may be configured to provide the auditory, visual, and/or tactile output at a highest level of intensity available to the at least one receiver indicative of requesting the average speed of the vehicle to reduce to at most the predetermined speed limit”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Van Fossen with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to optimize workplace safety.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carver, Khamis, Koase, and US3587769A (“Lotter”).
As per claim 21, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver does not disclose, which Lotter teaches:
a mechanical relay connected in series between the APS and the ECM, wherein the mechanical relay has a default state in which the acceleration signals pass through to the ECM and an active state in which the acceleration signals are redirected for modification by the active ISA system before being received by the ECM. (Lotter at least col 2 lines 55-70, FIGs 1, 3, 4)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Lotter with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to provide a speed limiter circuit for a vehicle.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carver, Khamis, Koase, and US20230236623A1 (“Seger”).
As per claim 22, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver does not disclose, which Seger teaches:
detect whether the acceleration signals comprise analog acceleration signals, digital acceleration signals, or both analog and digital acceleration signals, and to modify the acceleration signals using a corresponding analog signal processing circuit or digital signal processing circuit (Seger at least the abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Seger with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to provide an analog to digital converter for sensors to interface with a digital computer system.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carver, Khamis, Koase, and US20170144661A1 (“Miller”).
As per claim 24, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver does not disclose, which Miller teaches:
the pedal control module is configured to progressively reduce the indicated accelerator pedal position as the current vehicle speed approaches the applicable allowed speed limit and, when the current vehicle speed reaches the applicable allowed speed limit, to maintain, through the modified acceleration signals, an indicated accelerator pedal position required to keep the current vehicle speed constant (Miller at least the abstract, FIGs 5-6, [0007])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Miller with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to gradually reach a set speed.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carver, Khamis, Koase, and US20100023236A1 (“Morgan”).
As per claim 25, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver does not disclose, which Morgan teaches:
a brake switch simulating control module arranged in parallel with a brake switch circuit, wherein the pedal control module is configured to deactivate cruise control by toggling the brake switch circuit when the current vehicle speed exceeds the applicable allowed speed limit and cruise control is active. (Morgan at least the abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Morgan with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve control of vehicle speed (Morgan [0042]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carver, Khamis, Koase, and US12306010B1 (“Rommel”).
As per claim 29, Carver in combination with the other reference teaches the limitations of the invention as described above. Carver does not disclose, which Rommel teaches:
the active ISA system is configured to enforce a plurality of fleet policies concurrently and to use the lowest determined applicable allowed speed limit for the current driving context or the current geofenced area. (Rommel at least: “the road is entering town, the lowest speed limit may be selected.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Carver with the aforementioned limitations taught by Rommel with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to more accurately and safely determine speed limits for route segments.
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 OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights