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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment received 05/04/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16, 19, 21-22, and 24 are amended and claims 2, 5, 12, 15, 20, and 23 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, 16-19, 21-22, and 24-25 are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, 13-14, 19, and 21-22 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments: Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 8-9) with respect to the §101 rejection of claims 1-25 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant suggests that the limitations of “correlate the vehicle data into charge-attempt charging-status (CACS) records descriptive of whether charge attempts defined by the vehicle data were successful or unsuccessful, and whether the charge attempts were single-attempt or multiple-attempt,” and “assign reliability scores to the charging stations based on the CACS records” and “update the ratings of properties of the charging stations to include the reliability scores based on the vehicle data,” as recited in independent claim 1 (incorporated from previous dependent claim 5), were not subject to a “reasoned rejection” in the previous OA, argues that “the amended claims now include a specific technical process for dynamically assessing EV charging station hardware reliability using classified vehicle telematics data,” and that “the claims also recite significantly more,” citing the prior art’s failure to teach the correlate, assign, and update steps (Remarks at pg. 9).
In response to applicant’s suggestion that the correlate, assign, and update steps were not subject to a reasoned rejection under §101 (Remarks at pg. 9, first paragraph), the Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs applicant’s attention to pg. 7 of the Non-Final OA mailed on 02/03/2026, which clearly explains that the limitations recited in these dependent claims “are directed to further details that merely narrow the abstract idea,” citing the same abstract ideas as parent claims 1/11/19, while separately identifying and evaluating all additional elements recited in the dependent claims (e.g., claims 2/12/20 and 3/13/20). All dependent claims have been considered, evaluated, and addressed in the previous and current office actions in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106. The §101 rejection of claims 1/11/19 in the instant office action has been updated to address the amendments.
In response to applicant’s suggestion that “the amended claims now include a specific technical process for dynamically assessing EV charging station hardware reliability using classified vehicle telematics data” (Remarks at pg. 9, second paragraph) this argument is not found persuasive because the claims have not been shown to provide an improvement to a “specific technical process,” are not reasonably considered as encompassing a technical solution to a technical problem, nor have the claims been shown to result in an improvement to EV charging station hardware, telematics, or the generic computing elements relied to implement the claims. Notably, the claims do not recite “vehicle telematics data,” instead merely referring to “vehicle data,” which is merely “descriptive of charging events.” Therefore, Applicant’s argument’s is unpersuasive because it relies on applying a narrower interpretation than the claim language requires by seeking to import limitations from the specification, which is impermissible. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also, CollegeNet, Inc. v. Apply Yourself Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims).
Lastly, in response to applicant’s argument that “the claims also recite significantly more,” citing the prior art’s failure to teach the correlate, assign, and update steps (Remarks at pg. 9, third paragraph), the Examiner notes that these features fall squarely within the scope of the abstract idea itself (See Step 2A Prong One of §101 rejection below), and therefore insufficient to render claims eligible. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). Accordingly, applicant’s argument relying on the specificity of certain claim elements (the normalization) is insufficient to render the claims eligible.
For the reasons above, along with the reasons set forth below in the updated §101 rejection, the arguments and amendments concerning the §101 rejection are not persuasive.
Response to §103 arguments: Applicant’s remarks (Remarks at pg. 8) with respect to the §103 rejection of claims independent claims 1/11/19 have been considered and the Examiner agrees that the allowable subject matter previously recited in dependent claims 5/15/23 has been incorporated into amended independent claims 1/11/19, and therefore the §103 rejection of claims 1/11/19 and their respective dependent claims is withdrawn.
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, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, 16-19, 21-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, 16-19, 21-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the claimed system (claims 1, 3-4, and 6-10), method (claims 11, 13-14, and 16-18), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 19, 21-22, and 24-25) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (process, machine, and article of manufacture), and therefore claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, 16-19, 21-22, and 24-25 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping by setting forth limitations for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (user-specific/weighted recommendations to aid a user in selecting a charging station), and also recite activities that fall within the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping by reciting steps that, but for the generic computer recited in the claim, could be performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
a storage configured to maintain, for each of a plurality of charging stations, charging station scores indicating ratings of properties of the charging stations, and maintain, for each of a plurality of users, user weights defining a relative weighting of each of the ratings descriptive of user preferences (The maintaining of scores and use weights describes activity for managing personal behavior or interactions because the maintained data may be indicative of past user behavior and/or user preferences [Spec. at pars. 20-21], and but for the generic computer/storage implementation, the maintaining of the scores/weights could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or with the aid of pen and paper to maintain the scores/weights. In addition, the “maintain” step is insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution data gathering activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)); and
a processor configured to
receive vehicle data from a plurality of vehicles, the vehicle data being descriptive of charging events of the plurality of vehicles at the plurality of charging stations (The receiving of vehicle data describes activity for managing personal behavior or interactions because the request may be from a vehicle user/driver/sender providing data about their vehicle to aid in identifying a charging station for their vehicle, and but for the generic computer implementation, the receiving could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. This step, when implemented by a computer/processor, may also be considered insignificant extra-solution activity which, for the same reasons as provided in the analysis of the “maintain” steps above [which is adopted here as well], fails to amount to a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea),
aggregate the vehicle data into charger visits (CV) records according to benchmark information included in the vehicle data, correlate the vehicle data into charge-attempt charging-status (CACS) records descriptive of whether charge attempts defined by the vehicle data were successful or unsuccessful, and whether the charge attempts were single-attempt or multiple-attempt, assign reliability scores to the charging stations based on the CACS records, update the ratings of properties of the charging stations to include the reliability scores based on the vehicle data, perform clustering of CV records in view of the ratings of the properties to categorize the vehicle data into user behaviors, determine the user weights according to the clustering (The steps for aggregating, correlating, assigning, updating, performing clustering, and determine the user weights are considered activities for managing personal behavior or interactions because they may be based on user/driver behavior in charging their vehicle, e.g., past behavior or preferences, pursuant identifying a user-specific charging station to charge their vehicle, and but for the generic computer implementation, the identify and computer steps could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
receive a charger request from a vehicle, the charger request including an identifier of a sender of the charger request and a location of the vehicle (The receiving of a request describes activity for managing personal behavior or interactions because the request may be from a vehicle user/driver/sender attempting to identify a charging station to charge their vehicle, and but for the generic computer implementation, the receiving could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. This step, when implemented by a computer/processor, may also be considered insignificant extra-solution activity which, for the same reasons as provided in the analysis of the “maintain” steps above [which is adopted here as well], fails to amount to a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea);
identify one or more charging stations in proximity to the location of the vehicle, for each identified charging station, compute a user-specific charger score using the plurality of charging station scores for the charging station weighted according to the user weights corresponding to the identifier (The steps for identifying and computing user-specific charge scores are considered activities for managing personal behavior or interactions because they may be based on user/driver/sender behavior and/or preferences pursuant identifying a user-specific charging station to charge their vehicle, and but for the generic computer implementation, the identify and computer steps could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion), and
send a charger recommendation to the vehicle responsive to the charger request, the charger recommendation including, for each of the one or more charging stations, a location of the charging station and the user-specific charger score corresponding to the charging station (The step for sending a recommendation is considered activity for managing personal behavior or interactions because the recommendation and sending thereof may be based on user/driver/sender behavior and/or preferences and directly in support of a user seeking a user-specific charging station to charge their vehicle, and but for the generic computer implementation, the sending of recommendation could be implemented as mental activity such as via human observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, or with the aid of pen and paper or verbally [e.g., a verbal dispatch instruction to the vehicle operator]. This step, when implemented by a computer/processor, may also be considered insignificant extra-solution output activity which, for the same reasons as provided in the analysis of the “maintain” and “receive” steps above [which is adopted here as well], fails to amount to a practical application or add significantly more to the abstract idea).
Independent claims 11 and 19 recite limitations similar to the limitations discussed above and have been determined to recite the same abstract idea(s) as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d) the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 19 include a storage, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium. These elements have been fully considered, but are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). See also, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). With respect to the maintain/receive/send activity, in addition to merely being implemented by the generic computer, these activities also fall under insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 19 include a storage, a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium. These additional elements fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). See also, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Applicant's Specification describes generic and/or off-the-shelf computing devices for implementing the invention covering virtually any computing device under the sun (Spec. at par. [0028], noting for example that “various types of portable computing device, such as cellular phones, tablet computers, smart watches, laptop computers, portable music players, or other devices having processing and communications capabilities”). Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
With respect to the maintain/receive/send steps, in addition to being implemented by a generic computer, these activities also fall under insignificant extra-solution activity, and such extra-solution activities have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea, as noted by the CAFC with respect to storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See also, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). See also, OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 3-4, 6-10, 13-14, 16-18, 21-22, and 24-25 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings, and with the exception of the additional elements addressed below, are directed to further details that merely narrow the abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry along with the same or similar generic computing elements as independent claims 1/11/19 and addressed above (which is incorporated herein), which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claims.
With respect to the unsupervised clustering in claims 3/13/21, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and the claims fail to provide any details, technique, or algorithm as to how the unsupervised clustering is performed, and as admitted in the Specification, the unsupervised clustering could be implemented with mathematical algorithms such as k-means clustering (Spec. at par. [0038]), and thus falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” abstract idea grouping, such that “Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea” (fundamental economic practice) “does not render the claim non-abstract.” See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326-27, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claim reciting multiple abstract ideas, i.e., the manipulation of information through a series of mental steps and a mathematical calculation, was held directed to an abstract idea and thus subjected to further analysis in part two of the Alice/Mayo test). Nevertheless, even if evaluated as an additional element, the unsupervised clustering is recited at a high level of generality and fails to yield a technical improvement or otherwise add a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, given the high-level of generality and lack of “how” as to its implementation by the claimed invention, the unsupervised clustering, even when implemented by a computer, is similar to merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., generic computing environment), which does not amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, under Step 2B, it is noted that unsupervised clustering is well-understood, routine and conventional in the art. See, e.g., Sun et al., US 2014/0372351, noting in par. [0038] that “machine learning algorithm used to implement the classifier 304 may include any machine learning algorithm known in the art, including, for example, a supervised or unsupervised learning algorithm.” See also, Ur et al., US 2021/0334812, noting in par. [0095] that “ implementing an unsupervised clustering model as known in the art.”
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fails to add significantly to the claims beyond the abstract idea itself.
Allowable over the prior art
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, 16-19, 21-22, and 24-25 are allowable over the prior art. The closest prior art reference of record, Miller et al. (US 2017/0168493), is directed to features for identifying acceptable vehicle charging stations. Miller et al. and the other prior art of record teach several features recited by independent claims 1/11/19 (See pgs. 9-13 of OA mailed 02/03/2026). However, Miller et al. and the other prior art of record do not teach or render obvious the sequence of limitations directed to: correlate the vehicle data into charge-attempt charging-status (CACS) records descriptive of whether charge attempts defined by the vehicle data were successful or unsuccessful, and whether the charge attempts were single-attempt or multiple-attempt; assign reliability scores to the charging stations based on the CACS records; and update the ratings of properties of the charging stations to include the reliability scores based on the vehicle data, as recited and arranged in claims 1/11/19 in combination with the other limitations required by these claims, thereby rendering claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, 16-19, 21-22, and 24-25 as allowable over the prior art. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, 13-14, 16-19, 21-22, and 24-25 are not allowed, however, because they stand rejected under 35 USC §101, as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Allamsetty et al. (US 2024/0211522): discloses a charging station search engine in an electric vehicle management system, including requests that include user preferences (par. 3) and include charging location result scores (par. 38).
Teske (US 2019/0383637): discloses features for displaying charging options for an electric vehicle, including user/vehicle profiles and historical user data (par. 29).
S. Shahriar, A. R. Al-Ali, A. H. Osman, S. Dhou and M. Nijim, "Machine Learning Approaches for EV Charging Behavior: A Review," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 168980-168993, 2020: discloses techniques for analyzing consumer EV charging behavior using machine learning techniques, including unsupervised learning to find structures and patterns and cluster analysis.
S. P. R. and S. P., "Cloud based Smart EV Charging Station Recommender," 2022 6th International Conference On Computing, Communication, Control And Automation (ICCUBEA, Pune, India, 2022, pp. 1-7: discloses features of a customer-oriented EV charging station recommender.
Y. Zhao, Z. Wang, Y. Man, H. Wen, W. Han and P. Wang, "Intelligent charging recommendation model based on collaborative filtering," 2021 IEEE International Conference on Electronic Technology, Communication and Information (ICETCI), Changchun, China, 2021, pp. 7-10: discloses techniques for analyzing a user’s historical behavior data to provide intelligent recommendations for EV charging.
Z. Tian et al., "Real-Time Charging Station Recommendation System for Electric-Vehicle Taxis," in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 3098-3109, Nov. 2016: discloses a real-time charging recommendation system for EV taxis based on driver recharging behavior patterns.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571.270.5389. The 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). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
05/21/2026
Prosecution Insights