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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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) are: “an information grasping section configured to…” and “a travel control section configured to…” in claim 1.
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.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagawa et al (US 20180247540 A1) in view of Aoyama et al (US 20240042998 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Hagawa discloses an automated driving control device that enables traveling of a subject vehicle by an automated driving function (see at least [0039] and [0066]), the automated driving control device comprising at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor with a memory storing computer program code executable by the processor (see at least [0006], [0167-0169], and [0179]), the at least one of the circuit and the processor configured to cause the automated driving control device to implement: an information grasping section configured to grasp an occurrence of an obstacle that obstructs traveling of the subject vehicle (see at least [0025-0033], [0038-0039], [0061-0064], [0069], [0082-0090], [0093], [0116-0134], [0141-0143], and [0147-0165]); and a travel control section configured to sequentially perform peeking control of moving the subject vehicle so as to look in a situation ahead of the obstacle and overtaking control of overtaking the obstacle, in a case where the obstacle occurs in front of the subject vehicle (see at least [0041-0042], [0066-0069], [0081-0082], [0113-0114], [0131], [0152], [0164-0165], and [Figs. 6, 11, 13A-14]).
However, Hagawa do not specifically disclose wherein in a case where the obstacle occurs in an intersection area located in front of the subject vehicle, the travel control section changes content of at least one of the peeking control and the overtaking control according to information grasped by the information grasping section in relation to the intersection area.
Aoyama teaches wherein in a case where the obstacle occurs in an intersection area located in front of the subject vehicle, the travel control section changes content of at least one of the peeking control and the overtaking control according to information grasped by the information grasping section in relation to the intersection area (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aoyama wherein in a case where the obstacle occurs in an intersection area located in front of the subject vehicle, the travel control section changes content of at least one of the peeking control and the overtaking control according to information grasped by the information grasping section in relation to the intersection area. This would be done to secure safety driving of the vehicles while reducing burdens on the drivers (see Aoyama para 0002).
With respect to claim 2, Hagawa do not specifically disclose wherein the travel control section changes the content of the peeking control between in a case where the peeking control is performed in the intersection area and in a case where the peeking control is performed outside the intersection area.
Aoyama teaches wherein the travel control section changes the content of the peeking control between in a case where the peeking control is performed in the intersection area and in a case where the peeking control is performed outside the intersection area (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aoyama wherein the travel control section changes the content of the peeking control between in a case where the peeking control is performed in the intersection area and in a case where the peeking control is performed outside the intersection area. This would be done to secure safety driving of the vehicles while reducing burdens on the drivers (see Aoyama para 0002).
With respect to claim 3, Hagawa teaches wherein the travel control section changes a distance from the subject vehicle to the obstacle in the peeking control between in a case where the peeking control is performed in the intersection area and in a case where the peeking control is performed outside the intersection area (see at least [0051], [0058], [0062-0063], [0069], [0078-0080], and [0096]).
With respect to claim 4, Hagawa teaches wherein the travel control section makes a distance from the subject vehicle to the obstacle longer in a case where the peeking control is performed in the intersection area than in a case where the peeking control is performed outside the intersection area (see at least [0051], [0058], [0062-0063], [0069], [0078-0080], and [0096]).
With respect to claim 5, Hagawa teaches wherein the travel control section performs a temporary stop of the subject vehicle in a case where the peeking control is performed outside the intersection area (see at least [0136-0137], [0145], and [0148-0152]), and omits the temporary stop in a case where the peeking control is performed in the intersection area (see at least [0136-0137], [0145], and [0148-0152]).
With respect to claim 6, Hagawa teaches wherein the information grasping section grasps a following vehicle traveling behind the subject vehicle (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]), and the travel control section changes the content of the peeking control according to presence or absence of the following vehicle grasped by the information grasping section (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]).
With respect to claim 9, Hagawa do not specifically disclose wherein the information grasping section grasps a preceding vehicle located in front of the subject vehicle in the intersection area, and the travel control section restricts execution of the peeking control in which the preceding vehicle is set as the obstacle in a case where the preceding vehicle is moving.
Aoyama teaches wherein the information grasping section grasps a preceding vehicle located in front of the subject vehicle in the intersection area (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]), and the travel control section restricts execution of the peeking control in which the preceding vehicle is set as the obstacle in a case where the preceding vehicle is moving (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aoyama wherein the information grasping section grasps a preceding vehicle located in front of the subject vehicle in the intersection area, and the travel control section restricts execution of the peeking control in which the preceding vehicle is set as the obstacle in a case where the preceding vehicle is moving. This would be done to secure safety driving of the vehicles while reducing burdens on the drivers (see Aoyama para 0002).
With respect to claim 10, Hagawa teaches wherein the travel control section performs the peeking control in a direction opposite an overtaking side direction in which the overtaking control is performed in a left-right direction of the subject vehicle (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], [0114-0115], and [Figs. 4, 6, 10-11, and 13A-14]).
With respect to claim 11, Hagawa discloses Hagawa discloses wherein the travel control section changes the content of the overtaking control between in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section including the intersection area and in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section not including the intersection area (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], [0114-0115], and [Figs. 4, 6, 10-11, and 13A-14]).
With respect to claim 12, Hagawa do not specifically disclose wherein the travel control section suppresses a traveling speed of the subject vehicle in the overtaking control in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section including the intersection area, compared with in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section not including the intersection area.
Aoyama teaches wherein the travel control section suppresses a traveling speed of the subject vehicle in the overtaking control in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section including the intersection area, compared with in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section not including the intersection area (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aoyama wherein the travel control section suppresses a traveling speed of the subject vehicle in the overtaking control in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section including the intersection area, compared with in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section not including the intersection area. This would be done to secure safety driving of the vehicles while reducing burdens on the drivers (see Aoyama para 0002).
With respect to claim 13, Hagawa do not specifically disclose wherein the information grasping section determines whether there is a space for the subject vehicle, the space being ahead of the intersection area, before the subject vehicle enters the intersection area, and the travel control section suppresses a traveling speed of the subject vehicle in the overtaking control in a case where there is not the space, compared with in a case where there is the space.
Aoyama teaches wherein the information grasping section determines whether there is a space for the subject vehicle, the space being ahead of the intersection area, before the subject vehicle enters the intersection area (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]), and the travel control section suppresses a traveling speed of the subject vehicle in the overtaking control in a case where there is not the space, compared with in a case where there is the space (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aoyama wherein the information grasping section determines whether there is a space for the subject vehicle, the space being ahead of the intersection area, before the subject vehicle enters the intersection area, and the travel control section suppresses a traveling speed of the subject vehicle in the overtaking control in a case where there is not the space, compared with in a case where there is the space. This would be done to secure safety driving of the vehicles while reducing burdens on the drivers (see Aoyama para 0002).
With respect to claim 14, Hagawa do not specifically disclose wherein the information grasping section determines whether a space for the subject vehicle, the space being ahead of the intersection area, before the subject vehicle enters the intersection area, and the travel control section restricts entry of the subject vehicle into the intersection area in the overtaking control in a case where there is not the space.
Aoyama teaches wherein the information grasping section determines whether a space for the subject vehicle, the space being ahead of the intersection area, before the subject vehicle enters the intersection area (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]), and the travel control section restricts entry of the subject vehicle into the intersection area in the overtaking control in a case where there is not the space (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aoyama wherein the information grasping section determines whether a space for the subject vehicle, the space being ahead of the intersection area, before the subject vehicle enters the intersection area, and the travel control section restricts entry of the subject vehicle into the intersection area in the overtaking control in a case where there is not the space. This would be done to secure safety driving of the vehicles while reducing burdens on the drivers (see Aoyama para 0002).
With respect to claim 16, Hagawa do not specifically disclose wherein the travel control section increases a degree of curved movement of the subject vehicle in a direction away from the obstacle to be overtaken in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section including the intersection area, compared with in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section not including the intersection area.
Aoyama teaches wherein the travel control section increases a degree of curved movement of the subject vehicle in a direction away from the obstacle to be overtaken in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section including the intersection area, compared with in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section not including the intersection area (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aoyama wherein the travel control section increases a degree of curved movement of the subject vehicle in a direction away from the obstacle to be overtaken in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section including the intersection area, compared with in a case where the overtaking control is performed in a section not including the intersection area. This would be done to secure safety driving of the vehicles while reducing burdens on the drivers (see Aoyama para 0002).
With respect to claim 16, Hagawa discloses wherein the information grasping section grasps whether a pedestrian is present in a waiting area facing the intersection area (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], [0114-0115], and [Figs. 4, 6, 10-11, and 13A-14]), and the travel control section increases a degree of curved movement of the subject vehicle in a direction away from the pedestrian by the overtaking control in a case where the pedestrian is present in the waiting area, compared with is a case where the pedestrian is not present in the waiting area (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], [0114-0115], and [Figs. 4, 6, 10-11, and 13A-14]).
With respect to claim 17, Hagawa do not specifically disclose wherein in a case where the information grasping section grasps a preceding vehicle located in the intersection area as the obstacle, the information grasping section further grasps an irregular behavior of the preceding vehicle, and the travel control section temporarily stops the subject vehicle in a case where the irregular behavior is grasped after the overtaking control is started, and causes the subject vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle in a case where the irregular behavior is grasped before the overtaking control is started.
Aoyama teaches wherein in a case where the information grasping section grasps a preceding vehicle located in the intersection area as the obstacle, the information grasping section further grasps an irregular behavior of the preceding vehicle (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]), and the travel control section temporarily stops the subject vehicle in a case where the irregular behavior is grasped after the overtaking control is started (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]), and causes the subject vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle in a case where the irregular behavior is grasped before the overtaking control is started (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], and [0114-0115]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aoyama wherein in a case where the information grasping section grasps a preceding vehicle located in the intersection area as the obstacle, the information grasping section further grasps an irregular behavior of the preceding vehicle, and the travel control section temporarily stops the subject vehicle in a case where the irregular behavior is grasped after the overtaking control is started, and causes the subject vehicle to follow the preceding vehicle in a case where the irregular behavior is grasped before the overtaking control is started. This would be done to secure safety driving of the vehicles while reducing burdens on the drivers (see Aoyama para 0002).
With respect to claim 18, Hagawa discloses wherein the information grasping section grasps an oncoming vehicle traveling in an opposite lane in the intersection area (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], [0114-0115], and [Figs. 4, 6, 10-11, and 13A-14]), and the at least one of the circuit and the processor is further configured to cause the automated driving control device to implement a device control section configured to operate a direction indicator of the subject vehicle in accordance with the overtaking control in a case where the oncoming vehicle is present in the opposite lane (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], [0114-0115], and [Figs. 4, 6, 10-11, and 13A-14]), and to omit an operation of the direction indicator accompanying the overtaking control in a case where the oncoming vehicle is not present in the opposite lane (see at least [0005], [0015-0016], [0021-0025], [0048], [0050-0051], [0066-0067], [0071], [0088-0089], [0104-0109], [0114-0115], and [Figs. 4, 6, 10-11, and 13A-14]).
With respect to claim19, it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective automated driving control device claim 1. As such, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective automated driving control device claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
With respect to claim 20, it is an automated driving control method claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective automated driving control device claim 1. As such, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective automated driving control device claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagawa et al (US 20180247540 A1) in view of Aoyama et al (US 20240042998 A1) in view of Umeda et al (US 20190276029 A1).
With respect to claim 7, Hagawa as modified by Aoyama do not specifically teach wherein the information grasping section grasps whether a traffic signal is installed in the intersection area, and the travel control section performs the peeking control in a case where the traffic signal is installed in the intersection area, and restricts execution of the peeking control in a case where the traffic signal is not installed in the intersection area.
Umeda teaches wherein the information grasping section grasps whether a traffic signal is installed in the intersection area (see at least [0013-0018], [0042], [0059], [0069-0071], [0086-0110], and [0112-0114]), and the travel control section performs the peeking control in a case where the traffic signal is installed in the intersection area (see at least [0013-0018], [0042], [0059], [0069-0071], [0086-0110], and [0112-0114]), and restricts execution of the peeking control in a case where the traffic signal is not installed in the intersection area (see at least [0013-0018], [0042], [0059], [0069-0071], [0086-0110], and [0112-0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aoyama wherein the information grasping section grasps whether a traffic signal is installed in the intersection area, and the travel control section performs the peeking control in a case where the traffic signal is installed in the intersection area, and restricts execution of the peeking control in a case where the traffic signal is not installed in the intersection area. This would be done to more appropriately overtake a preceding vehicle in accordance with a surrounding traffic situation (see Umeda para 0005).
With respect to claim 8, Hagawa as modified by Aoyama do not specifically teach wherein the information grasping section grasps a state of a traffic signal installed in the intersection area, and the travel control section restricts execution of the peeking control in a case where the traffic signal is in lighting state in yellow.
Umeda teaches wherein the information grasping section grasps a state of a traffic signal installed in the intersection area (see at least [0013-0018], [0042], [0059], [0069-0071], [0086-0110], and [0112-0114]), and the travel control section restricts execution of the peeking control in a case where the traffic signal is in lighting state in yellow (see at least [0013-0018], [0042], [0059], [0069-0071], [0086-0110], and [0112-0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hagawa, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Aoyama wherein the information grasping section grasps a state of a traffic signal installed in the intersection area, and the travel control section restricts execution of the peeking control in a case where the traffic signal is in lighting state in yellow. This would be done to more appropriately overtake a preceding vehicle in accordance with a surrounding traffic situation (see Umeda para 0005).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights