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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 01/20/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. The applicant elected to prosecute the invention of claim 10 (group II) and its dependent claims. Currently claims 10, 11, 13-27 are pending with claims 16-20 being in a withdrawn status as being directed to the non-elected invention of group I. Claims 10, 11, 13-15, 21-27 have been examined as is set forth in this office action.
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 10, 11, 13-15, 21-27, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 recites a method and passes step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For claim 10, at step 2A, the claim is facilitating the rental of a machine by providing identification of the machine that is being rented, by allowing access to the machine that is being rented, and by activating the machine that is to be rented. This is defining a process of facilitating the rental of a machine via a process of providing the machine to the user for their use. The abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving, from a user, an indication that a user is at a pickup location for a rented machine;
generating a graphic including selectable elements comprising:
an identify equipment element;
an access equipment element; and
an activate equipment element;
receiving, from the user, a selection of the identify equipment element;
causing the machine to generate one or both of an audible signal or a visible signal;
receiving, from the user, a selection of the access equipment element;
causing a door of the machine to unlock or a lockbox coupled to the machine to unlock;
receiving, from the user, a selection of the activate equipment element; and causing the machine to be activated
The above limitations are defining a rental process by which a renter of a machine is alerted to the location of the machine to be rented, is allowed access to the machine by unlocking a door of the machine, and where the machine is activated for use. This is considered to be reciting a fundamental economic practice that is renting of a machine to a user and allowing access and use of the machine. When a customer shows up at a location to rent a vehicle, the renter has to be made aware of the location in some manner. The renter is given access to a vehicle by unlocking the door of the vehicle for the renter. Activating a vehicle is allowing its use by the renter, such as by starting a vehicle engine. The claimed elements are considered to be reciting a fundamental economic practice that is a certain method of organizing human activities, which is facilitating the rental of a machine such as a rental vehicle.
For claim 10, the additional element is the user device, the generation of a graphical user interface with selectable elements, the sending of instructions to the machine, and the machine (item being rented).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (user device) and use of an interface (that all computers have) as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited user device and the use of a user interface to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web) and that has an interface of some kind, all generically recited. The claim is using the recited interface to receive selection(s) from a user that are part of the abstract ide and that can be received by two people talking. This is a general link to the use of a graphical user interface for performance of a step that is part of the abstract idea. The claimed use of the GUI is a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea, with the rationale set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f) being relevant. Additionally, the sending of the instructions to the machine is an instruction for one to use a computer and a network to send an instruction to the machine to perform a step that is part of the abstract idea (causing an audible sound, unlocking, activating the machine), all of which are steps that can be performed by a person. The claim as a whole is just instructing one to use a user device and a GUI as a tool to execute the abstract idea. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device (user device) and a generically recited user interface to perform steps that define the abstract idea, as is set forth above for the 2nd prong. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary. This is consistent with the eligibility guidance found in the MPEP 2106. Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that with the claim as a whole would provide for significantly more. The claim is using the recited interface to receive selection(s) from a user that are part of the abstract ide and that can be received by two people talking. This is a general link to the use of a graphical user interface for performance of a step that is part of the abstract idea. The claimed use of the GUI is a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea, with the rationale set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f) being relevant. Additionally, the sending of the instructions to the machine is an instruction for one to use a computer and a network to send an instruction to the machine to perform a step that is part of the abstract idea (causing an audible sound, unlocking, activating the machine), all of which are steps that can be performed by a person. This is a mere instruction for one to use a computer with a network and is akin to reciting “apply it” with a computer. The claim as a whole is just instructing one to use a user device and a GUI as a tool to execute the abstract idea. Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements that with the claim as a whole would provide for significantly more.
For claim 13-14, generation of a signal that generates an audible or visible signal is part of the abstract idea in terms of turning on the headlights at night for a renter. A person can do this. Claim 12 is open to either an audible or visible signal and further limiting the two options in claims 13 and 14, without expressly requiring either one, is still leaving the claim scope open to either the audible or visible signal such that turning on headlights satisfies what is claimed. This is part of the abstract idea. Claim 14 does not further define that the signal is in fact an audible signal as opposed to the visible signal that is recited in claim 12 and that is still in the claim scope. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 11, 15, determining that the user has permission to pick up the machine is verifying that the user has a reservation, and ensuring that the user picks it up during the reservation timeframe. This is part of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 21, the claim is reciting the subject matter of the canceled claim 1, and that was directed to the non-elected sub-combination. For claim 21, the abstract idea is being further defined by the elements of:
receiving, from the user, a rental search request including search criteria, the search criteria comprising a type of machine, a rental period, and a jobsite location;
identifying one or more machines of the received type of machine that are available to rent during the rental period and are located within a predetermined distance of the jobsite location, the one or more machines comprising the rented machine;
receiving, a fuel level or a battery charge level of the respective machine;
generating a list of entries, each entry comprising an identity of a machine and the fuel level or the battery charge level of the respective machine;
receiving, from the user, a filter request to filter the one or more machines based on fuel level or battery charge level;
updating to remove entries from the list based on the filter request;
receiving, from the user, a selection of an entry remaining from the filtered list corresponding to the rented machine, the selection indicating a request to rent the rented machine; and
updating, in response to receiving the selection, to include a selectable rental agreement element, selection of the rental agreement element causing a rental agreement for the rented machine to be generated
The above elements are further defining the same abstract idea of claim 10, and/or can be considered as introducing a second abstract idea into the claim that is the receipt of a search request for available machines and providing the user with information about the machines, including by allowing for the filtering of data. Regardless of whether or not the claim recites one abstract idea or two, the elements identified by the examiner are reciting a judicial exception. These elements are simply further defining the overall rental process by which the rental of a machine is being realized. The additional elements of the claim are the recited user device, the use of the interface, and sending the user interface to the user device, receipt of the user interface causing a screen of the user device to display the user interface. The additional element of the mobile device has been treated in the same manner that was set forth in claim 10, to which the applicant is referred. The claimed use of the interface and sending the interface to the user device for display is claiming a general link to the use of a computer as a tool to execute the abstract idea, just like was stated for claim 10. For a user to be provided with a display via an interface the user device must receive the data to be displayed, therefore, the limitation reciting the sending of the interface and its display upon receipt is taken as an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the steps that defines the abstract idea. The list of entries could be provided to a user via paper; the fact that an interface is being used is simply a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea. For these reasons, the claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 22, the claimed sorting of the list based on an additional attribute serves to define more about the abstract idea of claim 10, 21. The search and sorting of the results and the data used for the search criteria are elements that are part of the abstract idea. The user interface has been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1 and does not represent more than a link to computer implementation for the abstract idea, as was addressed for claim 10 and 21 with respect to the interface. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 23, the recited map is also considered to be part of the abstract idea of the claim. Having a map that identifies locations of machines, such as rental locations of stores, is part of the abstract idea. The user interface has been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 24, the claimed receiving of usage statistics, such as fuel level or operating time are elements that are defining more about the abstract idea. When a vehicle is returned, it can be checked to see the status of the fuel level. The calculation of the fee based on the usage statistics is also part of the abstract idea in the form of the rental fee. This is an integral aspect to renting, namely that there is a fee for the rental. The claimed use of a connectivity module that the data is received from, is an instruction for one to use a computing device to send the usage statistic data. This does not provide for integration or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
For claim 25, the receiving of availability is part of renting machines as far as you have to know what the availability is. This is part of the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 26, 27, the generation of the rental agreement for the selected machine, showing the agreement to the user (via the interface) receiving an indication of consent, allowing access, etc., is the act of the customer viewing and entering into a rental agreement via a contract and taking possession of the rental. This is claiming a legal obligation as part of the rental which is the rental agreement and having the user agree to the terms and conditions. This is part of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons claims 10, 11, 13-15, 21-27, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al. (20130238167).
For claims 10, 14, Stanfield discloses a system and method of renting vehicles to users. The vehicles satisfy the claimed limitation of a machine. Standfield discloses that an indication is received from a user that indicates they are at a pickup location for a vehicle that is reserved for rent or that is desired to be rented on the spot. See paragraph 017, 031, 032. The use of a mobile device is disclosed in paragraphs 019, 023, 050, 057. Standfield discloses that a mobile device of a user is employed to perform the disclosed functions of the invention. When a user is proximate a vehicle, it is disclosed that information such as a GPS location can be received from the user device, for example see paragraph 031. This is an indication that a user is located at a pickup location, which is the location where the vehicle happens to be located at that time. In paragraph 057 it is disclosed that the user device has a graphical user interface that responds to one or more inputs to the mobile device. The use of a mobile device and a mobile device app to affect the disclosed functions of Stanfield is satisfying the limitation reciting the graphical user interface. With respect to the receipt of a selection of an access equipment element, Stanfield discloses in paragraphs 038 and 041 that upon the user being in range of the vehicle (at the pickup location), an access request signal is received by the vehicle from the mobile device of the user, and upon receipt of the signal will unlock the doors. This satisfies the access equipment function and claimed unlocking of a door of the machine (the vehicle). Stanfield discloses in paragraph 031 that the horn of a vehicle can be caused to render an audible signal, to alert the user to the vehicle that is in their proximity and that can be rented (or that is rented because Stanfield recognizes a reservation for a vehicle and a spontaneous rental). In paragraph 050 Stanfield discloses that through the mobile app a user can make a selection to activate the machine. Stanfield discloses that the mobile device app has an interface that allows a user to select a “start vehicle” element/button. This satisfies the claimed selection of an activate equipment element of the GUI and the sending of a signal to active the machine (start the vehicle).
However, not expressly disclosed by Stanfield is that the graphical user interface includes a selectable access equipment element and an identify equipment element, such that the user can select the elements from the interface. Stanfield teaches the use of a mobile app on a mobile device of a user (that has a GUI) that is used to perform the disclosed functions, as was addressed above. Additionally, it is noted that Stanfield expressly teaches that the activation equipment element is present in the interface and allows a user to make a selection to start the vehicle. Not disclosed is that the interface also includes a selectable element for the identify equipment function and for the access equipment function that is recited for the selectable elements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the GUI of Stanfield with the ability to have selectable elements for the identify equipment function and for the access equipment function, so that those functions are also represented as options that can be presented to the user on the mobile app, just like the activate equipment function that is selectable by a user from the GUI of the mobile app. This minor difference between the claimed invention and Standfield would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Stanfield itself, as noted above.
For claims 11, 15, not disclosed is that a pickup window is used to determine if the user can be given access to the machine and/or that the identify equipment instructions is/are sent. Stanfield discusses how a vehicle and/or seats of a vehicle may be reserved and are not available, see for example paragraph 017. Knowing that one does not want to alert a user to a vehicle that is reserved, and knowing that one does not want to allow a user to take a vehicle that is already reserved for use, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine if the user is within their rental period (confirm that the rental time is the present time or later, and confirm that the rental time has not passed such that it is not rented anymore) so that one can make sure it is the authorized user (the renter) that is made aware of the identity of the vehicle and that is granted access to the vehicle. This is just the act of confirming if the user has a reservation for the use of a vehicle and if the answer is yes, then identifying the vehicle by using the horn (as taught by Stanfield) and by granting access to the vehicle (as taught by Stanfield). The contrary is obvious as well, if the user is not in the pickup window, such as they are a day early, it would have been obvious to not identify the vehicle using the horn, and to no allow access to the vehicle by not sending the instruction to unlock the doors.
For claim 13, the claim scope is open to the audible signal because the claim is not further specifying that it cannot be the an audible signal, as was addressed for claim 12. This satisfies what is claimed. Simply further limiting one of the two options of claim 12 is not further requiring only one of the two options.
Claim(s) 21, 25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al. (20130238167) in view of Nishiyama (20020013712) in view of Ishiguma et al. (20130218405) and further in view of Pyle et al.(20070185777).
For claim 21, Stanfield does not teach the claimed elements.
With respect to the receiving of a rental search request that includes search criteria as claimed, and that identifies one or more machines that are available to rent during the rental period and located within a predetermined distance of a jobsite location, and that allows a user to select a machine, Nishiyama teaches a construction rental system and method that rents construction machines to users. A rental request is received from a user as claimed, see paragraphs 013, 041, 042. A request is received from a user that includes information such as machine type, rental period, and location of a worksite as has been claimed. The search criteria from the user is used to search for a machine that matches the entered data, and search results are provided to a user via an interface and via a computer display. See paragraphs 013 and figure 4. Paragraph 045 teaches that a search will be executed based on the entered criteria from the user. This allows the user to request a selected machine for rent as claimed. This is done by a system that has a network server that is connected to client terminals through the Internet, see paragraphs 024, 027, 028, 071. See figure 4 and paragraph 047 that teaches the display of the search results so that a user can determine the closest rental location for a given machine. This satisfies what is claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Stanfield with the ability to receive a search request from a user as taught by Nishiyama so that search results can be provided to a user that shows the available machines for rent during a particular time period and their respective locations, so a user can make an informed decision about a rental and can make an appropriate selection. Searching for machines for rent and providing search results to a user based on search criteria, that includes location and type of machine and period are all very well known to those of ordinary skill in the art as is evidence by Nishiyama, and would have been obvious to provide to Standfield. A rental agreement is inherent to the teachings of Stanfield as modified with Nishiyama, as upon selection of a vehicle (machine) to rent, a rental agreement is entered into via an interface.
With respect to receiving a fuel level or battery level from the machine via a connectivity module and the generation of an interface that shows machines for rent with their respective fuel or battery level, Ishiguma et al. teaches a vehicle rental system and method that allows a user to search for rentals such that the user is presented with a listing of vehicles and their respective fuel or battery level. See paragraph 007, 034, and figure 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Stanfield such that the user is provided with search results that show the vehicles that are available and their respective fuel or battery levels. This is considered to yield the predictable result of allowing a user to be informed of the fuel level (or the battery level) of an vehicle so that they can make an informed decision about the vehicle they want to rent.
With respect to the claimed filter request based on the fuel or battery level (claims 21, 22), and updating the interface to remove entries from the list based on the filter request, this is claiming the concept of allowing a user to sort and filter search results based on search criteria. Pyle teaches a system and method that allows a user to filter search results based on user specified criteria. See paragraph 002. Also see paragraph 035 that teaches the filtering or sorting of search results based on search criteria. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Stanfield with the ability to allow a user to filter the search results for available vehicles by specifying filtering criteria such as distance or type or even the battery or fuel level of the vehicle that is recognized as a form of search criteria that can be used in the system of Stanfield. Allowing a user to filter and sort search results based on criteria is something that spans many types of intended uses and is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art of providing search results to users.
For claim 25, availability data is received as claimed which is the receipt by the system of the availability data for each of the vehicles. This comes from a device as claimed, with the name or labeling of the device as a limiting feature to the claimed device itself.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al. (20130238167) in view of Nishiyama (20020013712) in view of Ishiguma et al. (20130218405) in view of Pyle et al.(20070185777) and further in view of Shike et al. (20030074134). Stanfield as modifieds above for claim 21 teaches the invention substantially as claimed.
For claim 23, not disclosed is the use of map as claimed.
Shike teaches a construction machine rental system that uses a map to display locations of machines for rent, see paragraphs 011, 247, and figure 76. Locations of machines for rent are represented on a map as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Stanfield with a map that shows locations of machines for rent, as taught by Shike. This would yield the predictable result of allowing a user to view the locations on a map as opposed to in a list format.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al. (20130238167) in view of Nishiyama (20020013712) in view of Ishiguma et al. (20130218405) in view of Pyle et al.(20070185777) and further in view of in view of Adachi et al. (20030110667). Stanfield as modifieds above for claim 21 teaches the invention substantially as claimed.
Not disclosed is the receiving of the usage statistics as claimed and estimating the final price based on the usage statistics.
Adachi teaches a construction machine rental system that collects usage data for the rented machine, and determines the rental fee based on the collected usage data. See paragraphs 006, 037, 040, 046. The fee for the rental is based on usage data such as operating time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Stanfield with the ability to receive operating data from the machines that is used to determine the rental fee, for the reasons disclosed by Adachi in paragraph 046 (accurate billing, fees based on operating time). This would yield predictable results of a more accurate billing for the rental.
Claim(s) 26, 27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield et al. (20130238167) in view of Nishiyama (20020013712) in view of Ishiguma et al. (20130218405) in view of Pyle et al.(20070185777) and in view of official notice of a rental agreement as is known in the art.
Not disclosed explicitly by the combined prior art of Stanfield is that there is a rental agreement that is generated and sent for display so that a user can provide an indication of consent. This is claiming what is known in the art as a rental contract or agreement that sets forth the terms and conditions for a rental. This is something that is well known to those of ordinary skill in the rental art, and the examiner takes official notice of such a fact. Rental agreements that memorialize the terms and conditions for a rental is something that is very well known in the rental field. This would yield the predictable result of informing both parties to the contract of the terms and conditions that apply to the rental. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Stanfield with a rental agreement as claimed that is agreed upon by the renter (indication of consent to the agreement) via the mobile device app of the mobile device in Stanfield.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection found in the reply of 08/08/25 is not persuasive. For claim 10, the applicant argues on page 15-17 of the reply that the claims are eligible. The applicant argues that the claims have been amended and do not recite an abstract idea when the claim is viewed as a whole. This is not persuasive as the rejection of record moots the presented argument. The applicant is referred to the rejection of record in this regard. The claims do not contain sufficient additional elements to overcome the 101 rejection. The use of the interface is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea and does not amount to a controlling of the machine that is somehow rooted in computer technology and that is not a business practice. Renting vehicles (a machine) to users by performing the claimed steps is an abstract idea of facilitating the rental of a machine. The allegation that the claims contains additional elements that is more than the abstract idea is not persuasive. The ability for a user to identify a rented machine, to gain access to the machine, and to active the machine (turn it on, enable it for use) are elements that are part of the abstract idea. The user of the user device and the interface is simply an instruction for one to use a computer to implement the abstract idea. This does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to the argument that the claimed features of claim 10 are not well understood, routine, and conventional, this is not persuasive. This is not relevant to the issue at hand which is the mere computer implementation of the abstract idea. The examiner has not taken the position that anything is well understood, routine, or conventional at step 2B because nothing has been found to be an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong. Examiners do not have to prove that a claimed invention in total was well understood, routine, and conventional in a given field to find that the claims are not eligible. To do so would be injecting a prior art analysis into the eligibility inquiry. Something that is well understood, routine, and conventional is more than just known in the art, it means that something is more or less ubiquitous in a given field. There is no requirement that an examiner prove with evidence that a claimed invention is so well known in a given field that it rises to the level of being well understood, routine, and conventional. The rejection of record does not find anything to be an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong so there is nothing to reassess at step 2B with respect to the issue of being well understood, routine, and conventional (the Berkheimer memo). The argument is not persuasive.
The 101 rejection is being maintained.
The traversal of the prior art rejection of claim 10 and its dependent claims is not found to be persuasive because it is rendered moot by the new grounds of rejection that has been applied to the examined claims. The amendment to the claims necessitated a new grounds of rejection so the arguments are moot. The arguments for canceled claim 1 are moot due to the cancellation of claim 1.
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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights