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 the Claims
Claims 1-16 of US Application No. 18/122,193 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1-7 and added claims 8-16.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed June 24, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-16 are currently pending in the Application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 16th, 2025.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Initially, applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite any mental processes that could practically be performed in the human mind with a pen and paper, such as a mental process could not receive an electrical signal carrying data from a communicator, or read the electrical signal carrying data and conduct calculations on this bases, or control a vehicle to stop and stay at a nap spot, as recited in claim 1, because the limitations are rooted in computer technology. Applicant submits that Example 39 recites a similar situation and that the claim was directed to a method of training a neural network for facial detection. Applicant further submits that the claim in Example 39 did not recite a judicial exception as being abstract. Applicant submits the claims recite a practical application and is not directed toward a judicial exception by optimizing battery usage by strategically identifying locations with external power supply facilities, which are then prioritized based on predicted air conditioner usage, which enhances the safety and reliability of electric vehicles during travel and contributes to a more sustainable and efficient use of battery resources. Applicant submits the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception set forth into a practical application if determining abnormal driving and correcting vehicle control amounts accordingly. Applicant submits the claims reflect an improvement to the battery usage of electric vehicles while implementing a judicial exception with particular components of an electric vehicle that is integral to the claims (See pages 9-13 of Applicant’s remarks).
The Examiner has considered such arguments, but respectfully submits that the claim limitations, as currently presented, do not have to be interpreted as narrowly as argued by the applicant. Claim 1 merely recites “choosing nap spots...”, “acquiring…data…”, “calculating…a respective power consumption amount...”, “calculating...a respective deterioration level…”, “selecting…a nap spot...”, “causing the electric vehicle to stay...” which are claimed broadly, and can be done mentally if the person is given the collected data. For example, the recited steps of choosing nap spots along a travel route, calculating a respective power consumption amount of the battery, calculating a respective deterioration level of the battery, and selecting a nap spot from nap spots, are all activities that can be carried out by a human using observation and manual calculations given the data. These steps therefore fall within the “mental process” category of abstract ideas, which is a judicial exception. While applicant is arguing a mental process cannot receive electrical signals from a communicator, such data types are 1) generically collecting data and 2) does not improve the functioning of a computer, but is merely using a generic computer (server/processor) to process the information faster. Furthermore, Applicant’s reliance on Example 39 is not persuasive. Example 39 relates to training a neural network for facial detection, which is factually distinct from the present claims directed to choosing nap spots based on temperature. Example 39 therefore does not support eligibility for the instant claims. While applicant is arguing that the limitations improve the functionality of the computer and technological process of the information processing apparatus, the limitations “acquiring data...”, “causing the vehicle to stay...”, are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering and post solution actions, which are a form of insignificant extra solution activity. The limitation “causing the electric vehicle to stay” merely describes a control action following the calculations. Because the specification does not describe the vehicle as autonomous, the step is considered insignificant post solution actions, as a human operator could perform the action. While applicant is arguing that the limitations improve the technological process of the apparatus, the improvement is not shown in the steps of the limitations in the claims. Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process, which is a judicial exception, and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 claims 1, 5 and 7 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1, 5 and 7 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claims are directed toward a method including at least one step, an apparatus, and an apparatus.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are 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. A nap spot selection method comprising:
choosing nap spots positioned along a traveling route of an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle including a battery and an air conditioner, each of the nap spots indicating a location to stay for a respective predetermined time to take a break in a compartment of the electric vehicle;
acquiring, from a communicator located outside of the electric vehicle, data on an outside air temperature of each of the chosen nap spots;
calculating, based on the outside air temperature data acquired from the communicator, a respective power consumption amount of the battery when the air conditioner is operated for the respective predetermined time at each of the nap spots;
calculating, based on the outside air temperature data acquired from the communicator, a respective deterioration level of the battery when the electric vehicle stays for the respective predetermined time at each of the nap spots;
selecting, from the nap spots, a nap spot in which the respective power consumption amount of the battery and/or the respective deterioration level of the battery are/is relatively low, based on the calculated respective power consumption amount of the battery and the calculated respective deterioration level of the battery;
and causing the electric vehicle to stay for the respective predetermined time at the selected nap spot when traveling along the traveling route.
The method in claim 1, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of choosing nap spots, calculating a power consumption amount, calculating a deterioration level, and selecting a nap spot. This is equivalent to a person mentally viewing the battery, selecting nap spots, determining the power consumption amount, determining the deterioration level, and choosing a nap spot.
Claim 5. A nap spot selection system comprising:
a communicator configured to acquire data on an outside air temperature from outside of an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle including a battery and an air conditioner;
one or more processors;
and one or more memories storing instructions for causing the one or more processors to:
choose nap spots positioned along a traveling route of the electric vehicle, each of the nap spots indicating a location to stay for a respective predetermined time to take a break in a compartment of the electric vehicle;
obtain, from the communicator located outside of the electric vehicle, the data on the outside air temperature of each of the chosen nap spots;
a first calculating unit configured to calculate, based on the outside air temperature data acquired by the communicator, a respective power consumption amount of the battery when the air conditioner is operated for the respective predetermined time at each of the nap spots,
calculate, based on the outside air temperature data acquired by the communicator, a respective deterioration level of the battery when the electric vehicle stays for the respective predetermined time at each of the nap spots,
and select, from the nap spots, a nap spot in which the respective power consumption amount of the battery and/or the respective deterioration level of the battery are/is relatively low, based on the calculated respective power consumption amount of the battery and the calculated respective deterioration level of the battery;
and cause the electric vehicle to stay for the respective predetermined time at the selected nap spot when traveling along the traveling route.
The method in claim 5, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of choosing nap spots, calculating a power consumption amount, calculating a deterioration level, and selecting a nap spot. This is equivalent to a person mentally viewing the battery, selecting nap spots, determining the power consumption amount, determining the deterioration level, and choosing a nap spot.
Claim 7. A nap spot selection system comprising:
a communicator configured to acquire data on an outside air temperature from outside of an electric vehicle that includes a battery and an air conditioner;
and circuitry coupled to the air conditioner and the communicator, and configured to:
choose nap spots positioned along a traveling route of the electric vehicle, each of the nap spots indicating a location to stay for a respective predetermined time to take a break in a compartment of the electric vehicle;
obtain, from the communicator located outside of the electric vehicle, the data on the outside air temperature of each of the chosen nap spots;
calculate, based on the outside air temperature data acquired by the communicator, a respective power consumption amount of the battery where the air conditioner is operated for the respective predetermined time at each of the nap spots;
calculate, based on the outside air temperature data acquired by the communicator, a respective deterioration level of the battery when the electric vehicle stays for the respective predetermined time at each of the nap spots;
and select, from the nap spots, a nap spot in which the respective power consumption amount of the battery and/or the respective deterioration level of the battery are/is relatively low, based on the calculated respective power consumption amount of the battery and the calculated respective deterioration level of the battery;
and cause the electric vehicle to stay for the respective predetermined time at the selected nap spot when traveling along the traveling route.
The method in claim 7, specifically the limitations emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of choosing nap spots, calculating a power consumption amount, calculating a deterioration level, and selecting a nap spot. This is equivalent to a person mentally viewing the battery, selecting nap spots, determining the power consumption amount, determining the deterioration level, and choosing a nap spot.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do 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 effect 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.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract “idea”).
Claim 1. A nap spot selection method comprising:
choosing nap spots positioned along a traveling route of an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle including a battery and an air conditioner, each of the nap spots indicating a location to stay for a respective predetermined time to take a break in a compartment of the electric vehicle;
acquiring, from a communicator located outside of the electric vehicle, data on an outside air temperature of each of the chosen nap spots;
calculating, based on the outside air temperature data acquired from the communicator, a respective power consumption amount of the battery when the air conditioner is operated for the respective predetermined time at each of the nap spots;
calculating, based on the outside air temperature data acquired from the communicator, a respective deterioration level of the battery when the electric vehicle stays for the respective predetermined time at each of the nap spots;
selecting, from the nap spots, a nap spot in which the respective power consumption amount of the battery and/or the respective deterioration level of the battery are/is relatively low, based on the calculated respective power consumption amount of the battery and the calculated respective deterioration level of the battery;
and causing the electric vehicle to stay for the respective predetermined time at the selected nap spot when traveling along the traveling route.
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 step of “acquiring data on an outside air temperature of each of the chosen nap spots…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The step of “causing the electric vehicle to stay…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to post solution actions, which are a form of extra solution activity. The limitation “…of an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle including a battery and an air conditioner” and “…based on the outside air temperature data acquired from the communicator…” are claimed generically and are operating in its ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The electric vehicle including the battery and air conditioner and communicator merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The electric vehicle including the battery and air conditioner and communicator recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the choosing, acquiring, calculating, selecting, and staying steps. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5. A nap spot selection system comprising:
a communicator configured to acquire data on an outside air temperature from outside of an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle including a battery and an air conditioner;
one or more processors;
and one or more memories storing instructions for causing the one or more processors to:
choose nap spots positioned along a traveling route of the electric vehicle, each of the nap spots indicating a location to stay for a respective predetermined time to take a break in a compartment of the electric vehicle;
obtain, from the communicator located outside of the electric vehicle, the data on the outside air temperature of each of the chosen nap spots;
calculate, based on the outside air temperature data acquired by the communicator, a respective power consumption amount of the battery when the air conditioner is operated for the respective predetermined time at each of the nap spots,
calculate, based on the outside air temperature data acquired by the communicator, a respective deterioration level of the battery when the electric vehicle stays for the respective predetermined time at each of the nap spots,
and select, from the nap spots, a nap spot in which the respective power consumption amount of the battery and/or the respective deterioration level of the battery are/is relatively low, based on the calculated respective power consumption amount of the battery and the calculated respective deterioration level of the battery;
and cause the electric vehicle to stay for the respective predetermined time at the selected nap spot when traveling along the traveling route.
Claim 5 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “obtain, from the communicator located outside of the electric vehicle, the data…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The step of “cause the electric vehicle to stay…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to post solution actions, which are a form of extra solution activity. The limitations “A nap spot selection system comprising: a communicator configured to acquire data on an outside air temperature from outside of an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle including a battery and an air conditioner”, “one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions for causing the one or more processors to…”, and “…based on the outside air temperature data acquired by the communicator…”, are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The communicator, the electric vehicle including the battery and air conditioner, the processors, and memories storing instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The communicator, the electric vehicle including the battery and air conditioner, the processors, and memories storing instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the choosing, obtaining, calculating, selecting, and staying steps. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7. A nap spot selection system comprising:
a communicator configured to acquire data on an outside air temperature from outside of an electric vehicle that includes a battery and an air conditioner;
and circuitry coupled to the air conditioner and the communicator, and configured to:
choose nap spots positioned along a traveling route of the electric vehicle, each of the nap spots indicating a location to stay for a respective predetermined time to take a break in a compartment of the electric vehicle;
obtain, from the communicator located outside of the electric vehicle, the data on the outside air temperature of each of the chosen nap spots;
calculate, based on the outside air temperature data acquired by the communicator, a respective power consumption amount of the battery where the air conditioner is operated for the respective predetermined time at each of the nap spots;
calculate, based on the outside air temperature data acquired by the communicator, a respective deterioration level of the battery when the electric vehicle stays for the respective predetermined time at each of the nap spots;
and select, from the nap spots, a nap spot in which the respective power consumption amount of the battery and/or the respective deterioration level of the battery are/is relatively low, based on the calculated respective power consumption amount of the battery and the calculated respective deterioration level of the battery;
and cause the electric vehicle to stay for the respective predetermined time at the selected nap spot when traveling along the traveling route.
Claim 7 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “obtain, from the communicator located outside of the electric vehicle, the data…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The step of “cause the electric vehicle to stay…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to post solution actions, which are a form of extra solution activity. The limitations “A nap spot selection system comprising: a communicator configured to acquire data on an outside air temperature from outside of an electric vehicle that includes a battery and an air conditioner”, “and circuitry coupled to the air conditioner and the communicator, and configured to…”, and “…based on the outside air temperature data acquired by the communicator…” are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The communicator, the electric vehicle including the battery and air conditioner, and the circuitry merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The communicator, the electric vehicle including the battery and air conditioner, and the circuitry are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the choosing, obtaining, calculating, selecting, and staying steps. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do 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.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claims 1, 5, and 7 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “…of an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle including a battery and an air conditioner”, “…based on the outside air temperature data acquired from the communicator”, “A nap spot selection system comprising: a communicator configured to acquire data on an outside air temperature from outside of an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle including a battery and an air conditioner”, “one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions for causing the one or more processors to…”, “…based on the outside air temperature data acquired by the communicator…”, “A nap spot selection system comprising: a communicator configured to acquire data on an outside air temperature from outside of an electric vehicle that includes a battery and an air conditioner” and “and circuitry coupled to the air conditioner and the communicator, and configured to…” is/are merely means to apply the exception and do not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “acquiring data on an outside air temperature of each of the chosen nap spots…”, “causing the electric vehicle to stay…”, “obtain, from the communicator located outside of the electric vehicle, the data…”, and “cause the electric vehicle to stay…” are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the choosing, acquiring, obtaining, calculating, selecting, and staying steps are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures |, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TL! Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and O/P Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), 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). Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 5, and 7 are: (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 claims 1, 5, and 7 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, and 8-16 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more.
As such, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible. For example, in claim 2, the additional limitation of “wherein the respective calculating the power consumption amount comprises calculating a power consumption amount of the battery that is based on traveling of the electric vehicle on the traveling route” are additional steps that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above. The method in claim 2, specifically the limitation above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of calculating a power consumption amount. This is equivalent to a person mentally viewing the vehicle and determining the power consumption amount.
As such, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEWEL ASHLEY KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5542. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JEWEL A KUNTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666