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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4-16 and 18-19, as amended, are pending in this application per the claim amendments and remarks filed on 06/18/2026. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims reciting vehicle and mobile device claims, and have been amended only. Claims 4-10 and 12-19 are respective dependent claims. Claims 2-3, 17 and 20 are shown as cancelled.
This Office Action is a final rejection in response to the claim amendments and remarks filed on 18 JUNE 2026 for its original application of 22 FEBRUARY 2023 that is titled: “Vehicle and Mobile Device Communicating with Vehicle”.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 4-16 and 18-19 are now being rejected herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 31 recites an amended phrase “vehicle control right information” that is unclear. While this phrase “vehicle control right information” is recited twice in Specification’s paras [0073] & [0160], these paras don’t shed more light as to what this phrase means. This phrase appears to be a literal translation of its provisional Korean application. This phrase seems to be derived from Specification’s para [0066] that recites “control right information of the vehicle”, which also appears to be a literal translation of provisional Korean application. Examiner asks for clarification from the Applicant as to what does “vehicle control right information” mean??, i.e., does “right” mean ‘directional right’, like left and right?? or does “right” mean ‘correct’?? Examiner believes that “right” means ‘correct’ here, and thus, suggests modifying the phrase in para [0066] to “control correct information of the vehicle” for proper context; and further Examiner suggests using this modified phrase “control correct information of the vehicle” in its claims (instead of the amended phrase “vehicle control right information”).
Claim 1, lines 3-4, as amended, recite “a communicator comprising a wireless communicator configured to communicate with a mobile device” which is unclear. Examiner notes that “a wireless communicator”, as amended in the claims listing of 06/18/2026, is the same as ‘second communicator 210’ described in Specification; and para [0252] of the Specification states that --- {“The mobile device 2 includes a second communicator 210, a user interface 220, a second sound output device 223, a second information input device 224, a second processor 230, and a second memory 230a.”}, i.e., “second communicator 210 is an integral part of mobile device 2” and not separate from the mobile device!! Examiner asks for clarification from the Applicant about “a wireless communicator” added as amendment on 06/18/2026, requiring ‘configuration to communicate with a mobile device’.
Claim 11, lines 25-26 recites an amended phrase “vehicle control right information” that is unclear. While this phrase “vehicle control right information” is recited twice in Specification’s paras [0073] & [0160], these paras don’t shed more light as to what this phrase means. This phrase appears to be a literal translation of its provisional Korean application. This phrase seems to be derived from Specification’s para [0066] that recites “control right information of the vehicle”, which also appears to be a literal translation of provisional Korean application. Examiner asks for clarification from the Applicant as to what does “vehicle control right information” mean??, i.e., does “right” mean ‘directional right’, like left and right?? or does “right” mean ‘correct’?? Examiner believes that “right” means ‘correct’ here, and thus, suggests modifying the phrase in para [0066] to “control correct information of the vehicle” for proper context; and further Examiner suggests using this modified phrase “control correct information of the vehicle” in its claims (instead of the amended phrase “vehicle control right information”).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(NOTE: Latest ‘amendments to the claims’ filed by the Applicant on 06/18/2026 are shown as bold and underlined additions, and all deletions may not be shown, or may not be underlined when stricken through. Underlined amendments to the claims that are shown below are from previously submitted claim amendments by the Applicant.)
Claims 1, 4-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more, wherein Claims 1 & 11 are independent vehicle and mobile device claims respectively.
Exemplary Analysis.
Claim 1: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of steps. The claim is directed to a “vehicle” (i.e. an apparatus) reciting a series of steps, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1 -- YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites a vehicle: communicating with a mobile device; transmitting an authentication request signal when performing a car payment service, and proceed with a payment when authentication success information is received; and cancel the payment when the authentication failure information is received from the mobile device. In other words, the claim describes an execution of a car payment service in response to the receiving of the authentication request signal and transmit the authentication success information or the authentication failure information to the vehicle during the execution of the car payment service (see Summary para [0021] of the Specification). These limitations, as drafted, are steps of an apparatus/ vehicle (which appears to be an application and/or software per se) that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations via a method of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including payments, hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and/or managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer/s and/or computer component/s such as the mobile device/s. These limitations fall under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1 -- YES).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional limitations of: the vehicle comprising a communicator and a display that outputs authentication failure information; perform a digital key service for controlling operation; wherein the mobile device is configured to share the car payment service when a digital key is received from another mobile device, and the received digital key is configured to control functions related to the electronic device of the vehicle selected from another mobile device; control interworking with the digital key service; determine whether the mobile device is present in the vehicle; transmit the authentication request signal to the mobile device; and wherein the processor is configured to perform encrypted communication with the mobile device and a remote controller corresponding to the vehicle to perform user authentication automatically [[]] when a payment mode of the car payment service is set to an automatic payment mode; wherein the processor comprises an authentication processor and a body processor, the authentication processor being configured to perform user authentication based on a digital key received from the mobile device through the wireless communicator, the digital key including identification information of the mobile device, authentication information of the mobile device, and vehicle control right information; and wherein the authentication processor is further configured to transmit the authentication success information to the body processor through the in-vehicle communicator upon successful user authentication, and to transmit the authentication failure information to the body processor through the in-vehicle communicator upon failed user authentication, and wherein the body processor is configured to control an operation of at least one electronic device of the vehicle based on an operation control command received from the mobile device through the wireless communicator upon successful authentication. The communicator, display, mobile device/s, remote controller, processor and digital key service in these steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer/s functions of processing data. These generic processors are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. Examiner notes that “to control” (in many steps) are not interpreted as “controlling” in the affirmative, therefore the recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the intended purpose of using the digital key does not improve the technology or technical field, rather is interpreted as “apply it” at a high level of generality. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because they do not impose any meaningful limits own practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2 -- NO).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional elements in this claim that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer/s and/or computer component/s. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer and/or computer components over a network cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the additional elements of: the vehicle comprising a communicator and a display that outputs authentication failure information; perform a digital key service for controlling operation; wherein the mobile device is configured to share the car payment service when a digital key is received from another mobile device, and the received digital key is configured to control functions related to the electronic device of the vehicle selected from another mobile device; control interworking with the digital key service; determine whether the mobile device is present in the vehicle; transmit the authentication request signal to the mobile device; and wherein the processor is configured to perform encrypted communication with the mobile device and a remote controller corresponding to the vehicle to perform user authentication automatically [[]] when a payment mode of the car payment service is set to an automatic payment mode; wherein the processor comprises an authentication processor and a body processor, the authentication processor being configured to perform user authentication based on a digital key received from the mobile device through the wireless communicator, the digital key including identification information of the mobile device, authentication information of the mobile device, and vehicle control right information; and wherein the authentication processor is further configured to transmit the authentication success information to the body processor through the in-vehicle communicator upon successful user authentication, and to transmit the authentication failure information to the body processor through the in-vehicle communicator upon failed user authentication, and wherein the body processor is configured to control an operation of at least one electronic device of the vehicle based on an operation control command received from the mobile device through the wireless communicator upon successful authentication, were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. The disclosure does not provide any indication that these devices (processors) are anything other than generic processors and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner(as it is here). Also, paras [0094] and [0179] of Pub. No. US 2018/ 0005221 by Lee et al. published on 04 JANUARY 2018 as well as paras [0052]-[0053] and [0054] of Pub. No. US 2019/ 0318071 by Hwang, Jin-ha published on 17 OCTOBER 2019 as well as Abstract and paras [0031], [0033]-[0034], [0036], [0205] and [0258] of Pub. No. US 2008/ 0006685 by Rackley III et al. published on 10 JANUARY 2008 clearly prove that the arguments of Applicant traversing 101 rejection are moot, wherein the Applicant has stated {“the processing/operation is not a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the technical field to which the present application pertains (for example, communication between a mobile device and a server, or between a mobile device and a vehicle)”}, and said paras of three references (Lee and Hwang and Rackley) state as follows ---
Lee reference teaches at least in these paras as follows ---
{“[0049] The mobile device 1000, the vehicle 10, the vehicle terminal 2000, the store terminal 3000, and the payment server 4000 illustrated in FIG. 1 may communicate with one another in at least one network. The at least one network should be understood to mean a comprehensive data communication network including a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a value-added network (VAN), a mobile radio communication network, a satellite communication network, and a combination thereof, and enabling subjects of these networks as illustrated in FIG. 1 to smoothly communicate with one another. The at least one network may include a wire Internet, a wireless Internet, and a mobile wireless communication network. Examples of wireless communication may include, but are not limited to, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy, ZigBee, Wi-Fi direct (WFD), ultra-wide band (UWB), infrared data communication (IrDA), near-field communication (NFC), etc.
[0179] Alternatively, the card company server 4020 may transmit the payment authentication result to the at least one among the vehicle terminal 2000, the mobile device 1000, the store terminal 3000, and the store server 5000 without going through the payment agent server 4010. In this case, the card company server 4020 may receive beforehand information for communicating with the vehicle terminal 2000, the mobile device 1000, the store terminal 3000, and the store server 5000 from the payment agent server 4010. For example, when receiving the request to pay for the item, the card company server 4020 may receive before-hand the information for communicating with the vehicle terminal 2000, the mobile device 1000, the store terminal 3000, and the store server 5000 from the payment agent server 4010.”} ---
Hwang reference teaches at least in these paras as follows ---
{“[0052] Therefore, when the user is connected to the server 300 through the mobile device
100 in a house, the mobile device 100 may perform near-field communication with the refrigerator 200-1 to obtain the unique number of the refrigerator 200-1, and generate the simple authentication information based on the obtained unique information of the refrigerator 200-1 and the unique information of the mobile device 100 itself.
[0053] When the user is connected to the server 300 through the mobile device 100 at a company, the mobile device 100 may perform near-field communication with the CCTV 200-2 or the router 200-3 installed at the company to obtain the unique information, and then generate the simple authentication information.
[0054] Similarly, when the user is connected to the server 300 by boarding a vehicle, the mobile device 100 may perform near-field communication with an electronic system mounted on the vehicle, for example, a hidden navigation system to obtain unique information, and generate the simple authentication information.”}
Rackley reference teaches at least in these paras as follows ---
Abstract:- Methods and systems for obtaining real time account balance information for a plurality of financial accounts maintained at one or more financial service providers utilizing a mobile device such as a mobile telephone (cellphone) or wireless connected personal digital assistant (PDA). A mobile financial transaction system (MFTS) is coupled for wireless communications with a mobile device of a user and is also coupled for electronic communication with one or more financial service providers with which the user maintains one or more accounts. The mobile device stores a cached account balance representative of the balance in each account as of a particular date. The MFTS communicates with financial service providers to obtain updated account balance information for a user's accounts. The updated account balance information is wirelessly communicated to a user's mobile device. In response to receipt of updated account balance information from the MFTS, the mobile device displays updated account balance information corresponding to the plurality of user accounts.
[0031] One aspect of the invention relates to monitoring a plurality of financial accounts maintained at one or more financial service providers using a mobile device connected for communications with a wireless network. Such aspect involves: (i) providing a mobile financial transaction system (MFTS) coupled for wireless communications with a mobile device of a user, (ii) storing a cached account balance in the mobile device representative of the balance in a plurality of user accounts as of a particular date, (iii) causing the MFTS to communicate with at least one financial service provider to obtain updated account balance information for at least one account of the user, (iv) wirelessly communicating updated account balance information from the MFTS to a user's mobile device, and (v) displaying updated account balance information corresponding to the plurality of user accounts to the user via the mobile device, in response to receipt of the updated account balance information from the MFTS.
[0033] Another aspect of the invention relates to security for accessing information relating to a user's financial accounts in a mobile environment. Such aspect involves: (i) providing a user authentication function at the user's mobile device so as to authenticate a user to access the cached account balance information on the mobile device, (ii) providing a user identifier to the MFTS indicative of user login and connection for wireless communications, in response to user authentication at the mobile device, and (iii) initiating communication to the one or more financial service providers so as to request updated account balance information, in response to receipt of the user identifier at the MFTS. After the user activation and login, updated account balance information is automatically obtained for the plurality of financial accounts and provided in real time to the user's mobile device.
[0034] According to another aspect of the invention, a user's mobile device is connected to and in wireless communications with the MFTS, once the user's mobile device is connected and authenticated to do so. At the MFTS, in response to receipt of a mobile device connected signal, communication with a financial service provider is effected to obtain updated account balance information for one or more accounts of the user is initiated.
[0036] In one exemplary aspect, the user identifier is used to determine a plurality of financial service providers and receive updated account balances corresponding to a plurality of different accounts at the plurality of different financial service providers. The user identifier includes one of a mobile phone number, a MIN, a code, and/or a name. Related aspects involve wirelessly communicating updated account information to a user's mobile device upon receiving the updated account information from at least one financial service provider at the MFTS, and forwarding the updated account information to the user's mobile device in a passthrough operation.
[0205] Referring now to FIG. 3A, a software architecture diagram of a mobile device application 400 ("Mobile Wallet") is shown according one embodiment of the present invention. The mobile device application 400 comprises: a mobile device main program 335 for controlling the operation of the mobile device application 400; a mobile device input/output interface 331 for displaying messages, receiving user selections or inputs, and facilitating the user's operation; a security manager 333 for providing security measures for wireless communication; a mobile device storage interface 337 for storing and retrieving data to/from a local storage device 341 such as a non-volatile memory device within the mobile device; and a mobile device communication interface 339 for communicating with the mobile device radio hardware 343 on the mobile device, which in turn communicates with the mobile communication service providers (MCSPs) 110 according to their specific protocols.
[0258] Preferably, the JAR file used to distribute the mobile client application is digitally signed with a code signing digital key issued to the MFTS 18 by an authentication process, e.g. a digital key process provided by VeriSign, Inc. This allows users to verify the authenticity of the mobile client application. Details of the mobile security techniques provided by VeriSign are available in the literature and web site of VeriSign, Inc.
and that Lee and Hwang and Rackley references (attached herewith as Appendix to this Office Action) clearly indicate that the concept described by the extra-solution additional elements is conventional and well-known more than a year before the priority date of the instant application (19 MAY 2022). Accordingly, a conclusion that the aforementioned extra-solution additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer option 3.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B -- NO), and the claim is not patent eligible.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of the invention including independent mobile device Claim 11, which perform the steps similar to those of the independent vehicle Claim 1. Furthermore, the limitations of dependent vehicle Claims 4-10, further narrow the independent vehicle Claim 1 with additional steps & limitations (e.g., determine presence of mobile service, status of surroundings; determine whether to subscribe to the car payment service through the mobile device; probability of position; perform user authentication based on the password or the pattern received through the input device, and to proceed with the payment when the user authentication is successful; etc.), and do not resolve the issues raised in rejection of the independent vehicle Claim 1. Similarly, dependent mobile device Claims 12-16/18-19 also further narrow the its independent Claim 11, which are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101 based upon the same analysis.
Therefore, claims 1, 4-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and claim amendments dated 18 JUNE 2026 with respect to the rejection of amended claims 1, 4-16 and 18-19 have been carefully considered, but they are not persuasive, and do not put these amended claims in condition for allowance. Thus, the rejection of claims 1, 4-16 and 18-19 has been maintained as described above. Additionally, Examiner notes that all of the previous rejections under 35 USC §112(a) have now been withdrawn based on the claim amendments & remarks. Thus, the rejection of claims 1, 4-16 and 18-19, as described above, is being maintained under 35 USC 101. Examiner notes that a new Claims Objection has been added above based on claim amendments of 06/18/2026.
In response to Applicant’s arguments of 06/18/2026 state {“in independent claim 1 that a vehicle is controlled based on information received from a mobile device (the digital key and a motion control command).”}, and further state {“claim 11 is integrated into a practical application.”}, Examiner notes that attached Wikipedia searches for “Connected Car” (14 pages) and “Telematics” (8 pages) show that these concepts were well-known before the priority date (19 MAY 2022) of the instant application.
In response to the Applicant’s traversing the Lee and Hwang references for Berkheimer 3 option, Examiner has added a Rackley III reference from JAN 2008, and thus Applicant’s arguments against Lee and Hwang references are moot (as shown above).
The proposed amendments do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant amended the claims to include the bold amended 06/18/2026 claim limitations that are additional elements, as described above. The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed above and in the previous office action rejections.
The claims apply the abstract idea on the computer system at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The focus of the claims in the present case is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. Rather, they are directed to the use of generic technology in a well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any computer specific problem.
The courts found that “… if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2358. The claimed invention does not indicate that specialized computer hardware is necessary to implement the claimed systems, similar to the claims at issue in Alice Corp. See Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (determining that the hardware recited in the claims was “purely functional and generic,” and did not “offer [] a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers”).
In the instant case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, because none of the above criteria is met. The amended limitations of the claims do not result in computer functionality improvement or technical/technology improvement when the underlying abstract idea is implemented using technology. The amendments to the claims only further define the data being used. The advantages over conventional systems are directed towards improving the abstract idea. Hence, the additional elements in the claims are all generic components suitably programmed to perform their respective functions. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP 2106. 05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claims as a whole are not integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are directed to an improvement computer technology. As found by the courts “In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly . . ..” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Content Extraction, 2013 WL 3964909, at *12 (“the mere use of a computer to more quickly and efficiently . . . accomplish a given task does not create meaningful limitation on an otherwise abstract and wide-ranging concept”).
A claim may be found to be eligible if it integrates a judicial exception into a practical application as cited by Applicant. However, examiner notes that "claiming the improved efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).) Claiming improved data processing efficiency inherent with applying any improvement to the judicial exception itself on a computer does not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. Also, limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment’ does not confer patent eligibility as this cannot be considered an improvement to computer or technology and so cannot be “significantly more.”
The claims as a whole do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions. The processor is a general-purpose processor that performs general-purpose functions. The recitation of the claimed limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (using the processor as a tool to implement the abstract idea). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, each step of the process performs purely generic computer functions. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply a generic recitation of a computer processor performing its generic computer functions. Accordingly, claims are ineligible.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 USC § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See at least 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, listed in Form 892, that is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure and review for not traversing already issued patents and/or claimed inventions by the claims of the current invention of the Applicant. Examiner notes that Form 892 contains more references than those cited in the rejection above under 35 USC 103, and that all the references cited on said Form 892 are relevant to this application and form a part of the body of prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Sanjeev Malhotra whose telephone number is (571) 272-7292. The Examiner can normally be reached during Monday-Friday between 8:30-17:00 hours on a Flexible schedule.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. The facsimile/fax phone number for the organization, where this application or proceeding is assigned, is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with an Examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP §502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record. The Examiner’s e-mail address is provided below at the end of this Office Action.
/S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3691
sanjeev.malhotra@uspto.gov
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights