DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 2 January 2026
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 14-16 and 20 have been amended.
Claim 8 has been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
All rejections as written in the previous office action have been withdrawn as neccessited by the amendment.
Claims 1-7, 9-21 are pending. Claims 1, 15, and 20 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-21 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 1 recites the limitation “different types of personal mobility devices” in the analyzing step. However, claim 1 already introduced a “plurality of personal mobility devices” in the collecting step. It is unclear to the Examiner if the element(s)/term(s) “personal mobility devices” in the analyzing step should depend on the “personal mobility devices” in the collecting step of claim 1 or viewed as its own element(s). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will view claim 1 as “analyzing, by the dynamic transportation matching system, the characteristics of the designated road lane for the personal mobility vehicles with respect to physical characteristics of different types of the plurality of personal mobility vehicles managed by the dynamic transportation matching system and”
Independent Claims 15 and 20 and dependent claims 2-3, 7, 16-17, and 19 recite similar limitation(s) with similar issue(s) and are rejected under similar rationale.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
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 1-7, 9-21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Note: In response to applicant’s amendments to the claims which significantly change the scope of the claims, The Examiner adds that 35 USC 101 rejection has been updated after further consideration and reanalysis of the claim with Applicant’s amendments incorporated.
Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation “determining, by the dynamic transportation matching system, one or more routes from the first location to the second location” ” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “dynamic transportation matching system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “determining” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “dynamic transportation matching system”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identity look at a map and determine the best route between two points.
Similarly, the limitation “determining, by the dynamic transportation matching system based on a traffic density, that the one or more routes can be more efficiently traversed by a personal mobility vehicle than a car” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “dynamic transportation matching system”, “personal mobility vehicles” and “car”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually can make judgement as to the best route given having the conditions at hand, for example, what roads have bike lanes that aren’t crowded.
Similarly, the limitation “…analyzing, by the dynamic transportation matching system, the characteristics of the designated road lane for the personal mobility vehicles with respect to physical characteristics of different types of personal mobility vehicles managed by the dynamic transportation matching system” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “dynamic transportation matching system” and “personal mobility vehicles”, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually can determine which vehicle is better for the selected path based on the conditions (e.g. terrain, surface) of the path.
Similarly, the limitation “selecting, based on the analysis, by the dynamic transportation matching system, a particular type of personal mobility vehicle from the different types of personal mobility vehicles” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “dynamic transportation matching system” and “personal mobility vehicles”, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually can choose the best vehicle type for the selected path based on the conditions (e.g. terrain, surface) of the path.
Similarly, the limitation “matching, by the dynamic transportation matching system, a transportation requestor with the particular type of personal mobility vehicle to traverse a particular route of the one or more routes” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “dynamic transportation matching system” and “personal mobility vehicles”, the user manually chooses a vehicle that meets the items on a user’s checklist. Furthermore, the “matching” limitation could also be interpreted as a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as limitation E could be interpreted as suggesting a behavior to a human, see MPEP 2106.04(b) II.C.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organized human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements:
collecting, by a dynamic transportation matching system, road condition information associated with a plurality of routes via one or more hardware sensors equipped with a plurality of personal mobility vehicles, the road condition information comprising information regarding characteristics of a designated road lane for the personal mobility vehicles
receiving, by the dynamic transportation matching system, a transportation request from a transportation requestor device to travel from a first location to a second location using a car or a personal mobility vehicle, the personal mobility vehicle being one of a scooter or a bicycle
The “collecting” and “receiving” limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and/or transmitting data, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05. The elements: dynamic transportation matching system, one or more hardware sensors, personal mobility vehicles, transportation requestor device, car, scooter, and bicycle in the limitations is claimed at a high level of generality such that the listed elements used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering or transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: dynamic transportation matching system, one or more hardware sensors, personal mobility vehicles, transportation requestor device, car, scooter, and bicycle to perform the displaying, obtaining, determining, and/or interpreting steps. The other additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic dynamic transportation matching system, one or more hardware sensors, personal mobility vehicles, transportation requestor device, car, scooter, and bicycle performing a generic computer function collecting, receiving, determining(x2), analyzing, selecting and/or matching functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do 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 an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The “collecting” and “receiving” limitation(s) is recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well understood, routine, conventional activity(e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The obtaining step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a processing and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using dynamic transportation matching system, one or more hardware sensors, personal mobility vehicles, transportation requestor device, car, scooter, and bicycle to perform the displaying, obtaining, determining, and/or interpreting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites the corresponding system of the method of claim 1 wherein the system of Claim 15 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the method of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding system of Claim 15 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of Claim 1. Furthermore, Claim 15 has the following additional elements: medium. In regards to the medium:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements: memory, processors, dynamic transportation matching system, one or more hardware sensors, personal mobility vehicles, transportation requestor device, car, scooter, and bicycle to perform the displaying, obtaining, determining, and/or interpreting steps. The other additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic dynamic transportation matching system, one or more hardware sensors, personal mobility vehicles, transportation requestor device, car, scooter, and bicycle performing a generic computer function collecting, receiving, determining(x2), analyzing, selecting and/or matching functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do 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 an abstract idea.
Step 2B
In addition, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using memory, processors, dynamic transportation matching system, one or more hardware sensors, personal mobility vehicles, transportation requestor device, car, scooter, and bicycle to perform the displaying, obtaining, determining, and/or interpreting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites the corresponding medium of the method of claim 1 wherein the system of Claim 20 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the medium of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding medium of Claim 20 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the method of Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-19, 21
Claims 2-3, 10 and 16-17, further limit the abstract ideas identified in claim 1, and do not add additional elements, as they are still making a judgement with information.
Claims 4-6, 11 and 18, extend the abstract idea of limitation D to preferences, which can also be interpreted as an observation or evaluation
Claim 7, 14 and 19 does not significantly alter the abstract ideas and are evaluated the same as claim 1, as it does not add additional elements.
Claim 8-9 is directed to an additional element of data gathering, which is still mere data gathering regardless of its use of a machine (sensor)
Claim 12, 13, output messages that are instructions for a human. This is a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as limitation E could be interpreted as suggesting a behavior to a human, see MPEP 2106.04(b) II.C. There is also additional element of the sending of the message which is mere data output and necessary data gathering and outputting, and therefore insignificant extra-solution activity in the meaning of Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B.
Claim 21 recite(s) the limitation “analyzing…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “dynamic transportation matching system” and “personal mobility vehicles”, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually can evaluate whether a road has bike lanes.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein determining…” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “dynamic transportation matching system”, “car” and “personal mobility vehicle(s)”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually can determine if scooter or car is faster to travel on the road at that time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-14, in regards to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that: Argument A: none of the claim limitations recited in claim 1 are directed to mental processes but instead relate to computer-executed methods that require particular computing device to operate in a particular way to carry out the operations recited in the claims. Argument B: In addition, Applicant argues that that claim comprises a technical improvement amounts to a specific improvement over prior systems in which technical improvement involved the additional limitations of collecting and using specific data related to the invention. Thus, Applicant states the claim, considered as a whole, integrated the mental process into a practical application that amounted to a technical improvement. Therefore, Applicant argues the 35 USC 101 rejection should be withdrawn. However, the Examiner disagrees.
Response to argument A)The Examiner respectfully states that the Applicant’s claim 1 does not result in integrating the claimed abstract into a practical application being performed, as explained in Step 2A, Prong One and Two. In regards to Step 2A, Prong One. As explained above, the claims fall into one of the three groupings of subject matter, mathematical concepts, organizing human activity, or mental process. In regards to explicitly argued subject matter, the Examiner explained that the limitation “determining, by the dynamic transportation matching system, one or more routes from the first location to the second location” ” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “dynamic transportation matching system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “determining” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “dynamic transportation matching system”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually identity look at a map and determine the best route between two points.
In addition, the examiner explained the limitation “determining, by the dynamic transportation matching system based on a traffic density, that the one or more routes can be more efficiently traversed by a personal mobility vehicle than a car” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “dynamic transportation matching system”, “personal mobility vehicles” and “car”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually can make judgement as to the best route given having the conditions at hand, for example, what roads have bike lanes that aren’t crowded.
In addition, the examiner explained the limitation “…analyzing, by the dynamic transportation matching system, the characteristics of the designated road lane for the personal mobility vehicles with respect to physical characteristics of different types of personal mobility vehicles managed by the dynamic transportation matching system” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “dynamic transportation matching system” and “personal mobility vehicles”, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually can determine which vehicle is better for the selected path based on the conditions (e.g. terrain, surface) of the path.
In addition, the examiner explained the limitation “selecting, based on the analysis, by the dynamic transportation matching system, a particular type of personal mobility vehicle from the different types of personal mobility vehicles” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “dynamic transportation matching system” and “personal mobility vehicles”, “analyzing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually can choose the best vehicle type for the selected path based on the conditions (e.g. terrain, surface) of the path.
Furthermore, the examiner explained the limitation “matching, by the dynamic transportation matching system, a transportation requestor with the particular type of personal mobility vehicle to traverse a particular route of the one or more routes” is drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or performed by a human with a pen and paper but for generic computer components but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for “dynamic transportation matching system” and “personal mobility vehicles”, the user manually chooses a vehicle that meets the items on a user’s checklist. Furthermore, the “matching” limitation could also be interpreted as a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as limitation E could be interpreted as suggesting a behavior to a human, see MPEP 2106.04(b) II.C.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organized human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas.
Furthermore, in regards to Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner states that the claim recites judicial exception wherein the subject matter limitations (collecting, by a dynamic transportation matching system, road condition information associated with a plurality of routes via one or more hardware sensors equipped with a plurality of personal mobility vehicles, the road condition information comprising information regarding characteristics of a designated road lane for the personal mobility vehicles; receiving, by the dynamic transportation matching system, a transportation request from a transportation requestor device to travel from a first location to a second location using a car or a personal mobility vehicle, the personal mobility vehicle being one of a scooter or a bicycle) recite additional elements that do not integrate claimed abstract into a practical application.
The “collecting” and “receiving” limitations are mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05. The elements: dynamic transportation matching system, one or more hardware sensors, personal mobility vehicles, transportation requestor device, car, scooter, and bicycle in the limitations is claimed at a high level of generality such that the listed elements used as tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the argued claim recites these other additional elements: dynamic transportation matching system, one or more hardware sensors, personal mobility vehicles, transportation requestor device, car, scooter, and bicycle to perform the displaying, obtaining, determining, and/or interpreting steps. These other additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic dynamic transportation matching system, one or more hardware sensors, personal mobility vehicles, transportation requestor device, car, scooter, and bicycle performing a generic computer function collecting, receiving, determining(x2), analyzing, selecting and/or matching functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. In other words, these listed other additional elements are claimed at a high level of generality such that each of these listed other elements are merely used as a tool to perform the generic computer functions of collecting, receiving, determining(x2), analyzing, selecting and/or matching. Accordingly, these additional elements do 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 an abstract idea.
Response to argument B) In response, in regards to improvement of a technological field, the Examiner respectfully states MPEP 2106.05(a) states “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome”. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In addition, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”.
The Examiner respectfully states the applicant fails to identify that the claims and the limitations themselves at issue are directed toward overcoming a problem within the technology. In addition, the Examiner respectfully states the claims themselves provide no evidence of an improvement in computer- related technology beyond the abstract idea, and the computer hardware cited/claimed (i.e. dynamic transportation matching system, one or more hardware sensors, personal mobility vehicles, transportation requestor device, car, scooter, and bicycle) is merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea as opposed to claiming the process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result. Thus, the claims are merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. Furthermore, while the Applicant states that the present invention provides the effect of “additional limitations of collecting and using specific data related to the invention; the claim, considered as a whole, integrated the mental process into a practical application that amounted to a technical improvement”; the Examiner states these statement(s) are merely conclusionary statements that provide no evidence/reasoning to counter the Examiner’s reasoning/rationale on how the claims or elements within the claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained, the claim limitations of “collecting” and “receiving” do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims merely disclose data gathering recited at a high level of generality. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a using dynamic transportation matching system, one or more hardware sensors, personal mobility vehicles, transportation requestor device, car, scooter, and bicycle to perform the collecting, receiving, determining(x2), analyzing, selecting and/or matching steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The MPEP 2105.06(a) states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” Thus, the additional elements of Applicant’s claims are merely improving the abstract idea and not an improvement in technology.
Independent claims 15 and 20 recite similarly argued limitation(s) as in Claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 1/2/26, with respect to 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection(s) of Claims 1-7, 9-20 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, as listed on the PTO-892, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The amendment to the independent claims changes the scope of the claims and the interpretation of the claimed invention when interpreted as whole. Therefore, the Examiner has updated the 101 rejection overall to address Applicant’s amendment and the changed scope of the claim was a whole. In addition, the 112(b) rejection was neccessited in response to Applicant’s amendments. Therefore, 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.
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights