DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-11 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action on the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 5 of claim 4 contains a “,” after the word “and”. This appears to be a typographical error;
Line 5 of claim 7 recites “a second icon” without introducing a first icon. Examiner interprets the recited second icon as a first icon.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a predetermined angle or more.” It is unclear whether the “and more” is referencing the degree of the angle or whether there are more than one angle. Likewise, claim 9 also recites “a predetermined value or more” with respect to a road width. It is unclear what is intended to encompass the “and more.” For example, if either of the “and more” are referencing a numerical value the claim limitation is left without limit. In other words, “and more” referencing road width would include infinite road widths. Likewise, when referencing an angle of an inflection point it could include an infinitely large angle. The angle and the width must be limited in some way to have a finite claim scope. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite. Examiner is interpreting claim 9 to be satisfied by an inflection point with any predetermined angle, and the road width to be any width.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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:
“a travel control unit configured to perform…second travel…” (claim 1; example of supporting structure found in ¶ [0037], which includes a processor and computer executable instructions; the processors are computer equivalents that performs the executable instructions);
“a setting unit configured to set…any point on the travel route…” (claim 1; example of supporting structure found in ¶ [0037], which includes a processor and computer executable instructions; the processors are computer equivalents that performs the executable instructions);
“a display control unit configured to display…an overhead image…” (claims 3 and 5-8; example of supporting structure found in ¶ [0037], which includes a processor and computer executable instructions; the processors are computer equivalents that performs the executable instructions);
(A) Each of the limitations (1) - (3) recited above use the generic placeholder “unit” for performing a claimed function, or other generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181, 1A (“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” Welker Bearing Co., v. PHO, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008”). Accordingly, recitations of “unit” in (1)-(3) above pass prong A.
(B) each of the phrases following the bolded portion in limitations (1)-(2) constitute functional language modifying the generic terms in prong (A), respectively.
(C) each of the terms preceding “unit” in (1)-(3) above do not connote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. In addition, none of the generic placeholders recited in (A) are modified by sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0184981 to Jung et al.
Regarding claim 1, Jung et al. discloses:
A control device for controlling a vehicle, comprising:
a travel control unit configured to perform, based on travel history information including travel route information indicating a travel route during first travel to a current position of the vehicle, second travel for causing the vehicle to move along the travel route from the current position to a movement completion point on the travel route, the travel history information being stored in a storage unit (Figure 34 depicting a first travel route from starting point to current position and second travel from current position back to the starting point (¶¶ [0423] – [0428] describing the control unit causing the vehicle to travel from a current location a location previously traveled, wherein the travel history of the route is stored from when the vehicle traveled the first travel route from the starting position to the current position); and
a setting unit configured to set, before the second travel, any point on the travel route designated by a user as the movement completion point (Figure 34 depicting a plurality of points that can be set as the end of the travel of the vehicle; ¶ [0435] describing the processor setting the end point), wherein
the travel control unit performs the second travel to the movement completion point set by the setting unit, and ends the second travel in response to the vehicle reaching the movement completion point (¶ [0435] describing the processor moving the vehicle from the current position and stopping when it arrives at the end point).
Regarding claim 2, Jung et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Jung et al. further discloses:
wherein the travel history information includes information in which information indicating a position of the vehicle, control information for the vehicle, and external environment information around the vehicle at a same time point during the first travel are associated with one another (¶ [0430] describing the vehicle being trained on information obtain when the vehicle first traveled the route; ¶ [0467] describing obtaining vehicle position information, vehicle control information, and external environment information in determining the second travel; ¶ [0022] describing obtaining travel data during the first travel that includes position information and surrounding environment information of the vehicle, which is stored by the vehicle and used during the rollback process).
Regarding claim 3, Jung et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Jung et al. further discloses:
further comprising:
a display control unit configured to display (¶ [0426] display unit), before the second travel, an overhead image in which the travel route is drawn from an overhead viewpoint on a display unit provided in the vehicle (Figure 34 depicting the overhead image display on the display unit when the vehicle is at the current location prior to setting the end point), wherein
the display control unit displays a first icon at or around a position corresponding to the movement completion point in the overhead image in response to the movement completion point being set by the setting unit (Figure 34 depicting icons 3410a, 3410b, 3410c at the plurality of end points that can be selected by a user and set by the processor).
Regarding claim 4, Jung et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 3. Jung et al. further discloses:
wherein the travel history information includes information in which information indicating a position of the vehicle, control information for the vehicle, and external environment information around the vehicle at a same time point during the first travel are associated with one another (¶ [0430] describing the vehicle being trained on information obtain when the vehicle first traveled the route; ¶ [0467] describing obtaining vehicle position information, vehicle control information, and external environment information in determining the second travel; ¶ [0022] describing obtaining travel data during the first travel that includes position information and surrounding environment information of the vehicle, which is stored by the vehicle and used during the rollback process), and
in response to the movement completion point being set by the setting unit (¶ [0465] describing the user selecting the end point and the processor setting the selected point as the stop/end point of travel), the display control unit displays the external environment information corresponding to the movement completion point at or around a position corresponding to the movement completion point in the overhead image (¶ [0332] describing storing the environmental data collected when the vehicle travels the first time; Figure 34 depicting the environmental information, including curves and straight portions of the road, at or around the end points; ¶ [0476] describing curves, direction changes, straight intervals, etc., as part of the traveling information, which is depicted by the display unit in Figure 34; see also ¶¶ [0492], [0493]).
Regarding claim 7, Jung et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Jung et al. further discloses:
a display control unit configured to display, before the second travel, an overhead image, in which the travel route is drawn from an overhead viewpoint, on a display unit provided in the vehicle (Figure 34 depicting the travel route in an overhead view prior to setting the end point for the second travel), wherein
the display control unit displays a second icon at or around a position corresponding to a predetermined point on the travel route in the overhead image (Figure 34 depicting icons 3410a, 3410b, 3410c at the plurality of predetermined end points that can be selected by a user and set by the processor).
Regarding claim 8, Jung et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Jung et al. further discloses:
a display control unit configured to display, before the second travel, an overhead image, in which the travel route is drawn from an overhead viewpoint, on a display unit provided in the vehicle (Figure 34 depicting the overhead display on the display unit in the vehicle prior to traveling in a second direction, i.e. reverse; ¶¶ [0433], [0434] describing displaying the travel route on the display unit), wherein
the travel history information includes information in which information indicating a position of the vehicle, control information for the vehicle, and external environment information around the vehicle at the same time point during the first travel are associated with one another (¶ [0430] describing the vehicle being trained on information obtain when the vehicle first traveled the route; ¶ [0467] describing obtaining vehicle position information, vehicle control information, and external environment information in determining the second travel; ¶ [0022] describing obtaining travel data during the first travel that includes position information and surrounding environment information of the vehicle, which is stored by the vehicle and used during the rollback process), and
the display control unit displays, at or around a position corresponding to a predetermined point on the travel route in the overhead image, the external environment information corresponding to the predetermined point (¶ [0332] describing storing the environmental data collected when the vehicle travels the first time; Figure 34 depicting the environmental information, including curves and straight portions of the road, at or around the end points; ¶ [0476] describing curves, direction changes, straight intervals, etc., as part of the traveling information, which is depicted by the display unit in Figure 34; see also ¶¶ [0492], [0493]).
Regarding claim 9, Jung et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Jung et al. further discloses:
wherein the predetermined point includes any one of an inflection point with a predetermined angle or more on the travel route, a place where a road width changes, a place where the road width is a predetermined value or more, an intersection entrance, a dead end entrance, or a sign installation place (¶ [0464] describing the predetermined points being a curve, a change in curve direction, an object, a landmark, eg., sign, etc.; ¶ [0477] describing traveling map information being based on the width of the road).
Claim 10 contains all the elements of claim 1, but with the additional element of a computer (¶ [0021] computer). Therefore, the rationale supporting the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Claim 11 contains all the elements of claim 1, but with the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a computer (¶ [0021] computer-readable storage medium and computer). Therefore, the rationale supporting the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 11.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0379876 to Obora.
Regarding claim 5, Jung et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Jung et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the display control unit changes a display range of the overhead image in response to the movement completion point being set.
Obora, in the same field of endeavor, teaches changing an overhead displaying range in response to selecting a travel end point (¶ [0137] describing adjusting the overhead image range in response to selecting an end location).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jung et al.’s invention to incorporate adjusting the range of the overhead image, as taught by Obora, with a reasonable expectation of success in updating the image so that vacant parking spot, or end point, is within a predetermined range from the current position of the vehicle (¶¶ [0137], [0141]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jung et al. and Obora renders obvious all the limitations of claim 5. Jung et al. further discloses:
wherein the display control unit
displays the overhead image representing the entire travel route before the movement completion point is set (Figure 34 depicting the entire travel route before the end point is set), and
displays the overhead image representing a portion of the travel route from the current position to the movement completion point in response to the movement completion point being set (Figure 34 also depicts a portion of the travel route from the current location in response to the end point being set, regardless of which point is selected to be set as the end point. This limitation does not require displaying only the portion between the selected point and the current position).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, and 13 of copending Application No. 19/355,496. The claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference publication are compared in the table below.
App. No. 19/355,418
Reference App ‘496
1. A control device for controlling a vehicle, comprising:
a travel control unit configured to perform, based on travel history information including travel route information indicating a travel route during first travel to a current position of the vehicle, second travel for causing the vehicle to move along the travel route from the current position to a movement completion point on the travel route, the travel history information being stored in a storage unit; and
a setting unit configured to set, before the second travel, any point on the travel route designated by a user as the movement completion point, wherein
the travel control unit performs the second travel to the movement completion point set by the setting unit, and ends the second travel in response to the vehicle reaching the movement completion point.
1. A control device for controlling a vehicle, comprising:
a travel control unit configured to perform, based on travel history information including travel route information indicating a travel route during first travel to a current position of the vehicle, second travel for causing the vehicle to move along the travel route from the current position to a movement completion point on the travel route, the travel history information being stored in a storage unit; and a setting unit configured to set, before the second travel, a point on the travel route satisfying a predetermined condition as the movement completion point, wherein the travel control unit performs the second travel to the movement completion point set by the setting unit, and ends the second travel in response to the vehicle reaching the movement completion point.
10. A control method comprising:
performing, by a computer that controls a vehicle, based on travel history information including travel route information indicating a travel route during first travel to a current position of the vehicle, second travel for causing the vehicle to move along the travel route from the current position to a movement completion point on the travel route, the travel history information being stored in a storage unit; and setting, by the computer, before the second travel, any point on the travel route designated by a user as the movement completion point, wherein in the processing of performing the second travel, the second travel to the set movement completion point is performed, and the second travel is ended in response to the vehicle reaching the movement completion point.
12. A control method comprising:
performing, by a computer that controls a vehicle, based on travel history information including travel route information indicating a travel route during first travel to a current position of the vehicle, second travel for causing the vehicle to move along the travel route from the current position to a movement completion point on the travel route, the travel history information being stored in a storage unit; and setting, by the computer, before the second travel, a point on the travel route satisfying a predetermined condition as the movement completion point, wherein in the processing of causing the vehicle to move along the travel route, the second travel to the set movement completion point is performed, and the second travel is ended in response to the vehicle reaching the movement completion point.
11. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a control program causing a computer, that controls a vehicle, to execute a process, the process comprising:
performing, based on travel history information including travel route information indicating a travel route during first travel to a current position of the vehicle, second travel for causing the vehicle to move along the travel route from the current position to a movement completion point on the travel route, the travel history information being stored in a storage unit; and setting, before the second travel, any point on the travel route designated by a user as the movement completion point, wherein in the processing of performing the second travel, the second travel to the set movement completion point is performed, and the second travel is ended in response to the vehicle reaching the movement completion point
13. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a control program causing a computer that controls a vehicle to perform a process comprising:
performing, based on travel history information including travel route information indicating a travel route during first travel to a current position of the vehicle, second travel for causing the vehicle to move along the travel route from the current position to a movement completion point on the travel route, the travel history information being stored in a storage unit; and setting, before the second travel, a point on the travel route satisfying a predetermined condition as the movement completion point, wherein in the causing of the vehicle to move along the travel route, the second travel to the set movement completion point is performed, and the second travel is ended in response to the vehicle reaching the movement completion point.
Claim 1
Claim 1 of the reference patent application recites the same limitations as claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 10
Claim 12 of the reference patent application recites the same limitations of claim 10 of the instant application.
Claim 11
Claim 13 of the reference patent application recites the same limitations of claim 11 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0354556 to Hirata et al. teaches displaying an overhead view of the vehicle while traveling in a route a second time after setting the end point using travel information (Figures 8-11 and description thereof);
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0237927 to Hiei et al. teaches traveling a route a second time using stored information from traveling the route a first time (¶¶ [0020], [0044] – [0054]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JOHN D HOLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights