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
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on March 6, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 9-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-2, 4 and 9-22 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.
Specifically, Claims 1 and 20 recite determining and detecting vehicle position using “a number of data packets.” First the specification does not support a number of data packets, in fact the specification does not support data packets at all. The specification at paragraph [0060] in the as filed application references attempting to read nearby Bluetooth packets. The dependent claims due not cure the deficiencies above, correction requested.
Additionally, Claims 1 and 20 recite “wirelessly search, via a communication module, for the geofenced space facility corresponding to the geofenced space and having the payment requirement.” The specification discloses a wireless search for information provided by the parking related facility, meter, or fine system and does not reference a space having a payment requirement. The dependent claims due not cure the deficiencies above, correction requested.
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 20, 21 and 22 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.
Claim 20 has been amended and the first reference to “a digital license plate” has been removed as a part of the amendment. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim for the digital license plate to display parking authorization.
Claim 21 and 22 recites the "pass" however the pass has been removed as part of the amendment. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 20 and 22 are drawn to methods. As such, claims 20 and 22 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 20 recites the following steps:
A vehicle payment method for handling a payment requirement of a facility, comprising the steps of:
determining entry of the vehicle into a space
detecting a position of the vehicle in the space;
search, for the space facility corresponding to the space and having the payment requirement;
paying a parking fee to the space facility in response to leaving a parking space within the space facility
displaying on at least one of the a display of the digital license plate and a user device, parking authorization of the vehicle indicating the payment to satisfy the payment requirement of the geofenced space facility.
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth handling a payment requirement of a facility,, which amounts to a “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)”. These limitations therefore fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) handling a payment requirement of a facility, (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 20 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
via a processing device
a geofenced space facility
a digital license plate
at least one sensor,
with respect to the each of the plurality of wireless beacons based on the signal strength and a number of the plurality of data packets;
via a communication module,
a user device
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “defined by a plurality of wireless beacons, the processing device identifies signal strength from each of the plurality of wireless beacons and sends a plurality of data packets to the geofenced space facility for parking authorization “ and " wirelessly search" and “paying the parking fee from the processing device to the geofenced space facility” serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “allowing a digital license plate attached to a vehicle and having a display to wirelessly search for the geofenced space facility corresponding to the geofenced space and having the payment requirement” serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 22 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
a pass on the display of the digital license plate as an electronic parking authorization
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Additionally, the recited additional element(s) serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boston (2011/0291822) in view of Eid (2015/0221140) and Carter (2003/0146835).
Claims 1 and 20
Boston specifically teaches:
A vehicle payment system for handling a payment requirement of a geofenced space facility, comprising: a digital license plate secured to an exterior of a vehicle, the digital license plate having a display (Boston [0007][0018][0022]): Where the reference teaches the payment eliminating pass, see [0022] where the reference teaches a license plate with a sensing system that operates like an “EZ Pass” [payment eliminating pass] see “The information rendered on the display 110 may be detected by a tollbooth worker or by a camera that may record the information for future use. In a second exemplary usage scenario, the third mode of a parked vehicle 10 may be triggered by a parking official, as shown in FIG. 4, to show the relevant registration information of the vehicle 10.
displaying on at least one of a display of the digital license plate and a user device, parking authorization of the vehicle indicating the payment to satisfy the payment requirement of the geofenced space facility (Boston [0019][0025]) Where the reference teaches a message on the display [license plate] that displays any other information about the vehicle. See at least [0019] “The fourth operational mode preferably displays identification and registration information of the vehicle 10 at a second power consumption level that is less than the first power consumption level. In a variation of this, a message is rendered on the display 110 in addition to the identification and registration information of the vehicle 10, although any one or combination of a message, identification information of the vehicle 10, registration information of vehicle 10, or any other information may be rendered on the display 110 when in the fourth operational mode.” See also [0025] “This allows a traffic official to drive past a series of parked cars ( shown in FIG. 4), and only those vehicles ( shown as vehicle 10b in FIG. 4) that have been parked past the time limit of two hours will activate the third mode and display the official registration information [payment status], indicating to the traffic official that the vehicle 10 has been parked in the parking spot for over two hours.”
Boston does not explicitly teach payment transactions from the digital plate. Eid teaches:
pay a parking fee from the processing device to the geofenced space facility in response to leaving a parking space within the geofenced space facility (Eid [0036]); See at least “some aspects of the instant technology [processing device] provides for mechanisms for collecting payments for parking,” and “the payment transactions can be initiated automatically, for example, when a vehicle moves through a tollgate [geofenced space]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in the method of displaying electronic information on a license plate, as taught by Boston, the method of using the electronic license plate to communicate transaction as taught by Eid, to minimize the manual effort involved in paying parking charges while also ensuring that the charges are paid (Eid [0005]).
Neither reference explicitly teach the following limitation, Carter teaches:
determine, via a processing device, entry of the defined by a plurality of wireless beacons, the processing device identifies signal strength from each of the plurality of wireless beacons and sends a plurality of data packets to the geofenced space facility (Carter [0004]); See “an object location monitoring system tracks the locations of portable, wireless transceivers that attach to movable objects [vehicle]… The system preferably tracks the locations of the transceivers by combining a signal strength based locating process…” See also [0005] for beacons. See also [0004] for the sending and receiving of data by radio frequency [Bluetooth].
detect, via at least one sensor, a position of the with respect to the each of the plurality of wireless beacons based on the signal strength and a number of the plurality of data packets (Carter [0047]); See “each transceiver 30 includes a motion sensor (not shown) to determine whether the object to which the transceiver is connected has moved since the last data transmission.”
wirelessly search, via a communication module, for the geofenced space facility corresponding to the geofenced space and having the payment requirement (Carter [Figure 9]); See “Search signal strength table for beacon pair…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to include in the method of displaying electronic information on a license plate and facilitate transactions, as taught by Boston and Eid, the method of using beacon technology to determine the position of the object as taught by Carter, to get a more accurate arrival times (Carter [0003]).
Claim 2
Modified Boston discloses the limitations above, and Boston further discloses:
wherein the display further comprises an electrophoretic display (Boston [0014]). See at least “The display 110 is preferably of a substantially low power display, such as an LED display, an LCD display, an e-ink display, an organic LED display, an interferometric modulator display (iMoD), a display that uses electrophoretic deposition (EPD), a cholesteric liquid crystal display (ChLCDs), or any other suitable display.
Claim 4
Modified Boston discloses the limitations above, and Boston further discloses:
wherein the at least one light source includes a non-visible light source attachable to a vehicle (Boston [0015]) See at least “The display 110 may also include a backlight. The backlight functions to control the light intensity of the information displayed by the display 110. The backlight preferably includes a plurality of degrees of light intensity…. the display 110 may include a light-reflective surface that functions to illuminate the display 110 with reflected light. The light-reflective surface may be a mirror or any other suitable type of reflective material. The light-reflective surface may also be of a retroreflective material that reflects light back in the direction of the light source.”
Claim 11
Modified Boston discloses the limitations above, and Boston further discloses:
wherein the visual indicator is a visually recognizable parking sticker or tag (Boston [0025]). Where Boston teaches a tag that indicates overdue parking. See at least “the third mode is activated for a first time after the vehicle 10 has been parked. The trigger device may then start counting a time interval of two hours and only allow the fourth mode to be reactivated after the two hours have past. This allows a traffic official to drive past a series of parked cars ( shown in FIG. 4 ), and only those vehicles (shown as vehicle 10b in FIG. 4) that have been parked past the time limit of two hours will activate the third mode and display the official registration information, indicating to the traffic official that the vehicle 10 has been parked in the parking spot for over two hours.”
Claim 12
Modified Boston discloses the limitations above, and Boston further discloses:
wherein the display of a digital license plate further presents visually recognizable advertising (Boston [0029][Figure 1, 110]). See at least “The communication device 140 may receive content, information, and/or data from a content database. Preferably, the content database is arranged substantially remote from the processor 130. The content database also preferably contains content provided by an institution, for example, an advertiser, a school, a record company, or a sports team or venue; content provided by the institution preferably includes advertisements.”
Claim 13
Modified Boston discloses the limitations above, and Boston further discloses:
wherein the display of a digital license plate is a bistable display (Boston [0013]). Where a bi-stable display is defined as a display with images that do not disappear or fade when the power is removed and remain stable for long periods of time making the device ideal for digital signage.
Boston does not explicitly disclose a bi-stable display. However, Boston teaches the “power source of the display system 100 allows for power generated while the vehicle is in operation to be used at a later time by the display system 100. “ Examiner interprets the reference’s disclosure of a display that allows for prolonged power course would include a bi-stable display so that cars that are parked for extended amounts of time will not need to worry if the vehicle information is accessible to satisfy the limitation.
Claim 14
Modified Boston discloses the limitations above, and Boston further discloses:
wherein the digital license plate has or is connectable to a GNSS system to assist in determining position information (Boston [0010][0024]). See at least “The display system 100 may also include a location sensor 160, for example, a Global Positioning System (GPS) device, a cellular tower location triangulation device, or any other suitable location sensor that determines the location of the vehicle 10 on which the display 110 is arranged. The location sensor 160 may provide a substantially general location or a substantially exact location of the vehicle.”
Claim 15
Modified Boston discloses the limitations above, and Boston further discloses:
wherein the digital license plate has or is connectable to an accelerometer to assist in determining parking status information (Boston [0016]). See “The vehicle speed sensor 120 is preferably a sensor that measures the actual velocity and/or acceleration of the vehicle 10, such as an accelerometer coupled to the vehicle 10 or a tachometer coupled to the drivetrain of the vehicle 10 and which measures the number of revolutions of a drivetrain component, such as a wheel, for a period of time in order to determine the speed of the vehicle 10.” Where the speed of the vehicle could be zero and would indicate that the vehicle was parked.
Claim 16
Modified Boston discloses a digital license plate that communicates information but does not explicitly teach sending payment information. Eid teaches:
wherein the digital license plate can provide a succession of automatic payments (Eid [0037]). See at least “In some embodiments, parking payments can be automated in two possible ways….the payment transactions can be performed regularly, for example, every 15-minute time period, 30-minute time period, 60-minute time period, and so forth until the parking status is not switched to 'on travel' status.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in the modified method of Boston, further using the wireless passive or active identification tags, such as, but not limited to, RFID tags, Wi-Fi tags, Bluetooth tags, and so forth, on all or certain motor vehicles [electronic license plate] to communicate payments as taught by Eid, to minimize the effort involved in paying parking charges while also ensuring that the charges are paid [0004].
Claim 17
Modified Boston discloses the limitations above, and Boston further discloses:
wherein the digital license plate locally provides parking related information to a user device (Boston [0027][0028]). See “The communication device 140 functions to allow content, information, and/ or data to be transferred to and from the display system 100. The communication may be conducted with an official organization (such as a DMV office or a law enforcement agency), a content database, the driver of the vehicle [locally], the owner of the vehicle [locally], or any other suitable party.” See also, “the communication device 140 may also be a wired communication device [locally].”
Claim 18
Modified Boston discloses the limitations above, and Boston further discloses:
wherein the digital license plate remotely provides parking related information to a user device (Boston [0027][0028]). See “The communication device 140 [digital license plate of Figure 1] functions to allow content, information, and/ or data to be transferred to and from the display system 100. The communication may be conducted with an official organization (such as a DMV office or a law enforcement agency)[remote], a content database [remote], the driver of the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle, or any other suitable party. See also “The communication device 140 is preferably of a wireless communication device, for example, one that communicates with cellular phone towers, Wi-Fi hubs, or any other suitable type of wireless communication.”
Claim 19
Modified Boston discloses the limitations above, and Boston further discloses:
wherein the digital license plate remotely provides information related to change in status to a user device (Boston [0022]). Where the reference teaches a change in status of the vehicle.
Modified Boston does not explicitly disclose a change in parking status. However, modified Boston teaches a third operational mode, wherein a third content, including identification information of the vehicle 10 [parking status] and/or identification information of the driver of the vehicle 10, is rendered on the display 110 when a trigger event [parked car] is identified. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that this identifying the status of the vehicle on the electronic license would include parking status to make it easier for parking enforcement [0024][0025].
Claim 21
Modified Boston discloses the limitations above, and Boston further discloses:
wherein the pass can be presented on the display of the digital license plate as an electronic parking authorization (Boston [0025]). See at least “The trigger device may then start counting a time interval of two hours and only allow the fourth mode to be reactivated after the two hours have past. This allows a traffic official to drive past a series of parked cars ( shown in FIG. 4 ), and only those vehicles ( shown as vehicle 10b in FIG. 4) that have been parked past the time limit of two hours will activate the third mode and display the official registration information, indicating to the traffic official that the vehicle 10 has been parked in the parking spot for over two hours. This may facilitate the traffic official in determining which vehicles have parked past the time limit in a potentially more efficient fashion.”
Claim 22
Modified Boston discloses the limitations above, and Boston further discloses:
presenting the pass on the display of the digital license plate as an electronic parking authorization (Boston [0025]). See at least “The trigger device may then start counting a time interval of two hours and only allow the fourth mode to be reactivated after the two hours have past. This allows a traffic official to drive past a series of parked cars ( shown in FIG. 4 ), and only those vehicles ( shown as vehicle 10b in FIG. 4) that have been parked past the time limit of two hours will activate the third mode and display the official registration information, indicating to the traffic official that the vehicle 10 has been parked in the parking spot for over two hours. This may facilitate the traffic official in determining which vehicles have parked past the time limit in a potentially more efficient fashion.”
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boston (2011/0291822) in view of Eid (2015/0221140), Carter (2003/0146835) and Hsu (2012/0181340).
Claim 9
The combination of Boston, Eid and Carter disclose the limitations above but do not teach a bar code on the license plate. Hsu specifically teaches:
wherein the visual indicator is an electronically readable bar code (Hsu [Figure 1][0023]). See at least “An application of the present invention to parking management is shown in FIG. 3. The bar code 2 can be also scanned for entrance management.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to include in the modified method of displaying electronic information on a license plate and facilitate transactions, position information and using geofence technology to determine the position of the vehicle, as taught by Boston, Eid and Carter, the method of scanning a barcode on a license plate of Hsu, to improve parking management and reduce writing for tracking parking [0023].
Claim 10
The combination of Boston, Eid and Carter disclose the limitations above but do not teach QR code on the license plate. Hsu specifically teaches:
wherein the visual indicator is an electronically readable [QR] code (Hsu [Figure 1][0023]). See at least “An application of the present invention to parking management is shown in FIG. 3. The bar code 2 can be also scanned for entrance management.
Hsu does not explicitly disclose a QR code. However, Hsu teaches a scannable barcode that can be scanned by a short range scanner for identification and record. While Hsu does not explicitly disclose a QR code, Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a QR code could serve as an alternative to a barcode because a QR code is a type of barcode and they share the same functionality of being scannable for identification and therefore improving parking management efficiency as well as reducing lapse of writing [0007][0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the invention to include in the modified method of displaying electronic information on a license plate and facilitate transactions, position information and using geofence technology to determine the position of the vehicle, as taught by Boston, Eid and Carter, the method of scanning a QR code on a license plate of Hsu in view of Official Notice to improve parking management and reduce writing for tracking parking [0023].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC 112. Please see above.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant respectfully asserts that claims 20 and 22 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under the MPEP and existing case law.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, location based detection is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of location based detection is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Eid is absolutely silent as to the payment initiated in response to leaving the parking space.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Eid teaches “provides for mechanisms for collecting payments for parking.” Eid teaches in in paragraph [0038][0080] that the status is changed once payment is remitted. Furthermore, the claim states the payment is made when the car leaves, and goes on to state that the payment authorization is displayed on the license plate upon payment. See [0010] where Eid teaches that the charge transaction occurs in accordance with predetermined rules [vehicle exit]. Paragraph [0011] teaches a charge amount when the user passes through a tollgate [exit]. Examiner notes: displaying the parking status would make sense for verification purposes while the car is parked, and it is unclear why the parking status would need to be displayed on the license plate after leaving the parking facility.
Applicant Argues: Berns and Sheshadri do not cure the deficiencies of Boston and Eid.
Examiner agrees and has withdrawn the Berns and Sheshadri reference and has cited Carter (2003/0146835) for the teaching.
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 RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm. 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights