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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 25th 2022. These drawings are accepted.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
The certified copy has been filed on July 4th 2022.
Status of the Claims
This None-Final action is in response to the applicant’s filing on December 18th 2025.
Claims 2-4, 10-12 and 14-16 are canceled.
Claims 1, 5-9 and 13 are pending and examined below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding the limitation “determining whether a necessary charging capacity has been designated for the battery that operates the predetermined device; upon the determination that the necessary charging capacity has been designated, calculating a charging time required for charging the battery based on a current residual capacity of the battery and the necessary charging capacity with a first charging capacity for each of a plurality of charging methods including regular charging and fast charging; displaying the charging times for each of the plurality of charging methods ", specifically, applicant argues that the rejection base on unsupported assertion to necessary charging capacity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as in broadest reasonable interpretation necessary capacity can be read as fully charged. Further, the amendments presented by the applicant does not overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejection. Specifically, “notifying the predetermined device of information of a first spot…and a second spot” is mere post solution actions, which are a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The examiner further notes that in Paragraph 17 of the applicant’s specification the “acquiring charging time” is not performed by the sensor or like but it is obtained from a server, which is considered an index data. As such, the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
Applicant is encouraged to review the specification for subject matter that incorporates the recited abstract ideas into a practical application and / or claiming to reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technology field [ie. Charged battery as in paragraph 0011].
Examiner understand that but the claims as recited are still claiming a mental process, sending and displaying data (i.e. notifications), wherein the sending is not limited by the high-level limitation of “appropriate timing”.
As such, the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments, and has maintained the claim rejections under 35 USC § 101 herein.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are moot. The examiner agrees that the prior art does not explicitly teach as it is currently recited in claim language; “ …plurality of charging methods in the vicinity of the predetermined device, so that information of the first spot and the second spot corresponding to the plurality of charging methods and the calculated charging times is notified to a user at an appropriate timing when charging is possible to provide the battery with enough energy to perform the operating of the predetermined device in the predetermined time.”. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn; However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is made for clams 1, 9 and 13 being unpatentable over Nikulin (Patent No. US20180143029A1) in view of Sakai (Patent No. JP2021092473A) and He (Patent No. CN112356737A).
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 1, 5-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1:
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed mental process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1
An information processing device comprising a control unit configured to perform:
before charging a battery that operates a predetermined device, determining whether a necessary charging capacity has been designated for a battery that operates a predetermined device;
upon the determination that the necessary charging capacity has not been designated, designate the necessary charging capacity based on an amount of electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in operating of the predetermined device in a predetermined time;
upon the determination that the necessary charging capacity has been designated, calculating a charging time required for charging the battery, based on a current residual capacity of the battery and the necessary charging capacity, with a first charging capacity for each of a plurality of charging methods including regular charging and fast charging;
displaying the charging times for each of the plurality of charging methods on a display included in the predetermined device; and
notifying the predetermined device of information of a first spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the regular charging among the plurality of charging methods, and a second spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the fast charging among the plurality of charging methods in the vicinity of the predetermined device, so that information of the first spot and the second spot corresponding to the plurality of charging methods and the calculated charging times is notified to a user at an appropriate timing when charging is possible to provide the battery with enough energy to perform the operating of the predetermined device in the predetermined time.
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of claim 1 highlighted above merely consist of determining different charging times depending on the device used for charging. These steps are merely to determine how long does different charging devices will take to charge the battery. More specifically, a person can mentally estimate how much time it will take for battery to charge. Thus, the applicant argues that the invention provides an improvement to the functioning of a technology field. Examiner understand that but the claims as recited are still claiming a mental process, sending and displaying data (i.e. notifications), wherein the sending is not limited by the high-level limitation of “appropriate timing”.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1
An information processing device comprising a control unit configured to perform:
before charging a battery that operates a predetermined device, determining whether a necessary charging capacity has been designated for a battery that operates a predetermined device;
upon the determination that the necessary charging capacity has not been designated, designate the necessary charging capacity based on an amount of electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in operating of the predetermined device in a predetermined time;
upon the determination that the necessary charging capacity has been designated, calculating a charging time required for charging the battery, based on a current residual capacity of the battery and the necessary charging capacity, with a first charging capacity for each of a plurality of charging methods including regular charging and fast charging;
displaying the charging times for each of the plurality of charging methods on a display included in the predetermined device; and
notifying the predetermined device of information of a first spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the regular charging among the plurality of charging methods, and a second spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the fast charging among the plurality of charging methods in the vicinity of the predetermined device, so that information of the first spot and the second spot corresponding to the plurality of charging methods and the calculated charging times is notified to a user at an appropriate timing when charging is possible to provide the battery with enough energy to perform the operating of the predetermined device in the predetermined time.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an
abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The processing device is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer This generic processing device limitation is no more than mere a generic computer. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Still further, displaying is recited at a high level of generality (as merely the determined/observed information) lastly, sending and displaying data (i.e. notifications), wherein the sending is not limited by the high-level limitation of “appropriate timing”and amounts to mere insignificant extra solution activity.
As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the acquiring steps are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); (Fed. Cir. 2015) or indicate that mere performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not
recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is
clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 5-8 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, the limitations of claims 2 and 3 are further limitations that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation in the mind using a similar analysis to claim 1 above.
With respect independent to claims 9 and 13, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 1 which is commensurate in scope to claims 9 and 13, with claim 9 being drawn to method and claim 13 being drawn to non-transitory storage medium.
As such, claims 1, 5-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikulin (Patent No. US20180143029A1) in view of Sakai (Patent No. JP2021092473A) and He (Patent No. CN112356737A).
Regarding claim 1 Nikulin teaches, before charging a battery that operates a predetermined device, determining whether a necessary charging capacity has been designated for the battery that operates the predetermined device; (See Nikulin paragraph 0027; “By tracking the output current and output voltage, intelligent route planning system 100 can track and profile (e.g., voltage/current profile) the battery for both maintenance purposes as well as provide an indicator of power capacity (e.g., old batteries tend to have lower energy storage capacity). In some examples, the output current and output voltage tracking is associated with location (e.g., GPS coordinates). This association provides additional information that can be used for estimating the remaining charge on the battery along routes. That said, status information block 224 of FIG. 2A can provide higher accuracy for the remaining charge when provided with a database of output current and output voltage associated with locations along route 251.”); upon the determination that the necessary charging capacity has not been designated, designate the necessary charging capacity based on an amount of electric power of the battery which is scheduled to be consumed in operating of the predetermined device in a predetermined time upon the determination that the necessary charging capacity has been designated ; (See Nikulin paragraph 0031 and 0034; “the route planning system 100 estimates the status of the vehicle at future locations based on the remaining charge of the battery, the characteristics of the occupants, and the characteristics of the charging stations. As depicted in status information block 224, the route planning system 100 estimates that the total travel time to reach the destination is 70 minutes, the charging time is estimated to take 35 minutes (including wait time), and the battery is estimated to arrive at charging station 214 with 2% charge remaining…As in FIG. 2A, the intelligent route planning system 100 determines that the remaining charge of the battery is estimated to have insufficient charge to reach the specified destination. As such, the intelligent route planning system 100 alerts the occupant (e.g., insufficient charge alert 241) that it is estimated that there is an insufficient amount of charge to reach the specified destination. As depicted in FIG. 2C, charging station 211 is estimated to cost less than charging station 212. For instances where the intelligent route planning system 100 is configured to place more weight on the cost, the intelligent route planning system 100 will determine a route to charging station 211 over charging station 212.”);
for each of a plurality of charging methods including regular charging and fast charging;(See Nikulin paragraph 0046 and 0047; “At block 310, vehicle 220 identifies one or more charging stations located between the present location of the vehicle and the specified destination…At block 312, vehicle 220 obtains one or more characteristics of the one or more charging stations. In some instances, the intelligent route planning system 100 of vehicle 220 retrieves capabilities and/or features for each of the charging stations. For example, the intelligent route planning system 100 of vehicle 220 can connect to a service that provides the cost and wait time associated with each charge station. Such a service can provide additional information such as supported batteries, connector types, facilities (e.g., restrooms, showers, eateries, etc.)…).”);
displaying the charging times for each of the plurality of charging methods on a display included in the predetermined device; (See Nikulin Figure 2D);
PNG
media_image1.png
840
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And notifying the predetermined device of information of a first spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the regular charging among the plurality of charging methods, and a second spot in which the predetermined device is able to be charged using the fast charging among the plurality of charging methods in the vicinity of the predetermined device; (See Nikulin paragraph 0049 and Figure 2D; “At block 316, vehicle 220 prompts the one or more present occupants of the vehicle with an alert of insufficient battery charge to reach the specified destination, in accordance with a determination that the vehicle is estimated to have an insufficient charge to reach the destination. That is, the intelligent route planning system 100 of vehicle 220 can alert the occupant that there is insufficient battery charge prior to departure. The alert can be a prompt on display 200 or in dashboard 102. For example, FIGS. 2A and 2C display insufficient charge alert 241 and marks it at the specified destination. In some examples, the insufficient charge alert can be marked at the estimated location of ˜0% charge. In some examples, the alert includes a list of charging stations with an estimated time to charge the battery for each charging station. As depicted in FIGS. 2A-2D, the list of charging stations can be visually displayed (e.g., overlaid at actual locations in the map and route). In some examples, a mouse over, or touch from the touch screen at the location of a particular charging station can provide additional information gathered for the particular charging station.”); so that information of the first spot and the second spot corresponding to the plurality of charging methods and the calculated charging times is notified to a user at an appropriate timing when charging is possible to provide the battery with enough energy to perform the operating of the predetermined device in the predetermined time; (See Nikulin paragraph 0040-0041; “FIG. 2D is a display illustrating an example of a route generated using the intelligent route planning system 100 without a specified destination. In this example, an occupant is traveling in vehicle 220 while the remaining charge drops below a charge threshold. In such an example, the intelligent route planning system 100 alerts the occupant of low charge (e.g., low charge alert 242) and displays an estimated remaining charge of the battery at the instance of detected low charge. The intelligent route planning system 100 further identifies charging stations 211-215 that are within range of vehicle 220 for charging. In some instances, intelligent route planning system 100 can be configured for the occupant to select the charging station. For instance, in one example, an occupant may already know the route to the specified destination but failed to sufficiently charge the vehicle. As such, along the route the intelligent route planning system 100 alerts the occupant of low charge and prompts the occupant with a list of potential charging stations. In other instances, the list of potential charging stations are prioritized based on the characteristics of the occupants and the characteristics of the charging station. For example, the route planning system 100 can search a database (e.g., cloud, storage 512) for route patterns associated with the occupant (e.g., heuristically determined route patterns) as well as search a database (e.g., cloud, storage 512) for charging costs, wait times, compatibility, and the like, for each identified charging station. Based on occupant patterns and the charge stations charging costs, wait times, manufacture compatibility, etc., the route planning system 100 determines that the charging station 215 is the most favorable charging station. As such the route planning system 100 determines route 254 to the charging station 215 as depicted in FIG. 2D. It should be appreciated that tracking and heuristically determined route patterns can also be applied to the examples depicted in FIG. 2A-2C.
FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary process 300 for determining a route according to examples of the disclosure. Process 300 can be performed when the vehicle determines a low charge threshold is detected or when an occupant selects a destination and it is determined that the remaining charge of the battery is estimated to be insufficient to reach the specified destination. The method can be performed by an autonomous vehicle or non-autonomous vehicles. In some instances, vehicle 220 is a gas-electric hybrid.”).
Nikulin does not explicitly teach but Sakai teaches, an information processing device comprising a control unit configured to perform; (See Sakai paragraph 0021; “The information processing device 10 includes a communication unit 11…and a control unit 15.).
Both Nikulin and Sakai are in the same field of processing system, method and system for vehicle charging. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Nikulin the necessary charging capacity, calculating charging time and displaying plurality of charging methods with Sakai processing device comprising a control unit. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Nikulin by adding the processing device comprising a control unit which allows better control of the invention futures and data. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Nikulin does not explicitly teach but He teaches, calculating a charging time required for charging the battery; (See He paragraph 0044; “…The battery cell parameters determine the displayed SOC value of the battery in each charging stage, and then calculate the amount of power change in each charging stage through each displayed SOC value, so as to calculate the charging time of each charging stage based on the amount of power change in each charging stage. Through real-time detection of the working voltage of the battery during the charging process, the charging stage of the battery can be determined, and the corresponding relationship between each charging stage and the charging time has been obtained, and the remaining battery corresponding to the current working voltage can be calculated Charging time.”);based on a current residual capacity of the battery and the necessary charging capacity; (See He paragraph 0055; “The display SOC (State of Charge) value of the battery is used to display the remaining power of the battery. The displayed SOC value corresponds to the remaining charging time of the battery, and the displayed SOC value is synchronized and adapted to the remaining charging time of the battery, so that the user can visually check the current completed charging power and remaining charging time of the battery.”).
Both Nikulin and He are in the same field of processing system, method and device for vehicle charging. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to modify Nikulin the necessary charging capacity, calculating charging time and displaying plurality of charging methods with He determining charging capacity and calculating a charging time. No new functionality would arise from the combination and the combination would improve usability of Nikulin by adding the determining charging capacity and calculating a charging time and will provide the user with more detail information on charging capacity and charging time. Further, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Sakai in view of He, You and Sakuma teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, Sakai further teaches wherein the predetermined device is a portable terminal, wherein the information processing device is a server that communicates with the terminal, and wherein the control unit is configured to transmit the acquired charging time to the terminal; (See Sakai paragraph 0016; “The information processing device 10 is, for example, a dedicated computer configured to function as a server…”; Also see Sakai paragraph 0051; “The control unit 15 of the information processing device 10 determines the charging time of the battery of the vehicle 20…”).
Regarding claim 6, Sakai in view of He and You teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, Sakai further teaches wherein the predetermined device and the information processing device are the same portable terminal; (See Sakai paragraph 0016; “The information processing device 10 may be a general-purpose PC (Personal Computer).”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Sakai in view of He, You and Sakuma teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, Sakai does not teach but Thakur teaches, wherein the predetermined device is a vehicle that is able to travel autonomously, wherein the information processing device is a server that communicates with the vehicle; (See Nikulin paragraph 0037 and 0029; “the vehicles is an autonomous vehicle capable of driving to a selected destination without a driver … the intelligent route planning system 100 searches a database (e.g., cloud, storage 512) for characteristics); and wherein the control unit is configured to transmit the acquired charging time to the vehicle; (See Nikulin paragraph 0031; “FIG. 2A, the route planning system 100 automatically determines that charging station 214 is the top choice for charging based on the gathered information associated with the remaining charge of the battery, the characteristics of the occupants, and the characteristics of the charging stations. It should be appreciated that in some examples, the route planning system 100 estimates the status of the vehicle at future locations based on the remaining charge of the battery, the characteristics of the occupants, and the characteristics of the charging stations. As depicted in status information block 224, the route planning system 100 estimates that the total travel time to reach the destination is 70 minutes, the charging time is estimated to take 35 minutes (including wait time), and the battery is estimated to arrive at charging station 214 with 2% charge remaining.”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Sakai in view of He, You and Sakuma teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, Sakai does not teach but Thakur teaches, wherein the predetermined device is a vehicle that is able to travel autonomously, and wherein the information processing device is a computer that is mounted in the vehicle; (See Nikulin paragraph 0037 and 0065; “the vehicles is an autonomous vehicle capable of driving to a selected destination without a driver… Vehicle control system 500 can include an on-board computer 510 coupled to the cameras 106, microphone 108, and sensors 507, capable of receiving the image data from the camera, audio data from microphone 108, and/or outputs from the sensors 507. The on-board computer 510 can be capable of determining a route for the vehicle to a destination based on the remaining charge of the battery, the one or more characteristics of one or more occupants, and the one or more characteristics of one or more charging stations.”).
With respect to independent claim 9 and 13, please see the rejection above with respect to claim 1 which is commensurate in scope to claim 9 and 13, with claim 1 being drawn to device, with claim 9 being drawn to method and claim 13 being drawn to non-transitory storage medium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIDIA KWIATKOWSKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5161. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666