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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are pending.
Claims 1-5 and 7-14 have been amended.
Claim 6 has been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b): Applicant’s amendments have necessitated 112(b) rejections that are presented below.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §101: Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the rejection of record. The 101 rejections are maintained.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Applicant’s amendment to the claims overcome the 103 rejections of record. The rejections under 103 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §101: Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
A. Prong Two of Step 2A: Independent Claims 1 and 9 Integrate the Recited Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
The Office asserts that the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims recite the server at a high generality and recite performing the method on these generic components. See the Office action, page 5. To expedite the examination but without acquiescing to the rejection, the applicants have amended claims 1 and 9 to add limitations disclosed in paragraphs [0091], [0092], [0094], [0098], and [0117]- [0123] of the instant application. No new matter is added.
Independent claims 1 and 9 are directed to a practical application. Independent claims 1 and 9 are directed to a practical application. Rather, the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 9 pertains to an improvement in a concrete and technical vehicle guiding system by using a first vehicle, which has first reached a first destination, and a second vehicle, which has not reached the first destination. Independent claims 1 and 9 are not directed to a server recited at a high generality. First, the subject matter of claims 1 and 9 may identify the reset destination without using a separate communication means such as a smartphone, and a route may be changed without a driver's intervention, thereby improving safety. See paragraph [0098] of the instant application. Second, the subject matter of claims 1 and 9 may a change occurring in a destination during group driving may be rapidly dealt with, and an operation for changing a route of the remaining group member vehicles 1 may be minimized, thereby improving safety. See paragraphs [0162] and [0163] of the instant application.
To this end, amended independent claims 1 and 9 now recite performing the following operations:
i) determine, based on the GPS information received from the plurality of vehicles, that a first vehicle among the plurality of vehicles has first reached a first destination;
ii) transmit, via the communication unit, an inquiry to the first vehicle as to whether to reset the first destination to a second destination;
iii) receive, from the first vehicle, a response signal regarding whether to reset the first destination to the second destination;
iv) obtain the second destination from the first vehicle, store the second destination in the memory, and generate, by using a navigation system, route information from a current location of each second vehicle to the second destination;
v) automatically update, by the second vehicle, its navigation route based on the second destination and the generated route information received from the server device
Here, at least the first vehicle and the second vehicle are not recited at a high generality, e.g., merely transmitting and receiving signals. Instead, the current traveling of the first vehicle and the second vehicle affect the operation of the future traveling of the second vehicle. Thus, the "first vehicle" and the "second vehicle" as a whole yield a specific result that overrides the traditional functions of generic computer components.
Therefore, the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 9 is integrated into a practical application, provides a technical solution to a technical problem, and as such is not abstract. Accordingly, the applicants respectfully submit that claims 1-15 are not directed to an abstract idea and thus are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, that independent claims 1 and 9 “pertains to an improvement in a concrete and technical vehicle guiding system by using a first vehicle, which has first reached a first destination, and a second vehicle, which has not reached the first destination Independent claims 1 and 9 are not directed to a server recited at a high generality” as the claims as a whole are directed to a server device and a controlling method of a server device respectively. Further the first vehicle and second vehicle are additional elements that are recited at a high generality and perform transmitting and receiving steps which amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and therefore would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and also would not particularly affect the operation of the future traveling of the second vehicle as there is not a positive recitation of a control step that would actually change the travelling as the claim recites automatically update its navigation route based on the second destination which in light of the specification amounts to outputting a reset destination and/or route (see at least [0132] from Applicant’s specification as filed) which amounts to post solution outputting (displaying) which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and would not integrate the additional element into a practical application.
Further outlined in MPEP §2106.05(a) in order to show improvement to other technology or technical field “the claim must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component of machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP §2016.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception”. Specifically, the claims as currently drafted, merely recite instructions to perform a method of a server device and/or group driving on generic component(s) or machinery (server). Therefore due to the recitation of the server and vehicle(s) at a high generality and mere recitation of instructions to perform the method on these generic components, for example in the limitations of receive GPS information in real time from each of a plurality of vehicles belonging to a pre-set group; and a controlle: ; receive, from the first vehicle, a response signal regarding whether to reset the first destination to the second destination; [[and]] when the response signal indicates acceptance of resetting to the second destination, obtain the second destination from the first vehicle, store the second destination in the memory, and transmit, via the communication unit, the second destination and the generated route information to a second vehicle among the plurality of vehicles, wherein the second vehicle is configured to , the claim would not qualify as an improvement to an existing technology and/or specific technological improvements.
Applicant also argues “B. Step 2B: Independent Claims 1 and 9 Provide an Inventive Concept.
In claims 1 and 9, the above additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 9 pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the vehicle technology pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the vehicle technology.
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 9 recite limitations significantly more than the abstract idea and thus are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Accordingly, the applicants respectfully submit that the rejection against claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. §101 should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, that independent Claims 1 and 9 Provide an Inventive Concept, the above additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself, and that the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 9 pertain to an improvement in the functioning of the vehicle technology pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the vehicle technology for reasons stated above in response to arguments pertaining to Prong Two of Step 2A: Independent Claims 1 and 9 Integrate the Recited Judicial Exception into a Practical Application. Therefore the 101 rejections are maintained.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103: Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks made in an Amendment pages 9-13, filed 02/13/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 recites the limitation "each second vehicle" in lines 19-20 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is not prior mention of a second vehicle. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets that “each second vehicle” refers to each of the plurality of vehicles belonging to the pre-set group.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7-8, Claims 2-5 and 7-8 are also rejected as they are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherit its deficiencies.
Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 is rejected on similar grounds as that detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 10-15, Claims 10-15 are also rejected as they are dependent on claim 9 and therefore inherit its deficiencies.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A server device comprising:
a communication unit configured to ; and
a controlle:
determine, based on the GPS information received from the plurality of vehicles, that a first vehicle among the plurality of vehicles has first reached a first destination;
;
receive, from the first vehicle, a response signal regarding whether to reset the first destination to the second destination; [[and]]
when the response signal indicates acceptance of resetting to the second destination, obtain the second destination from the first vehicle, store the second destination in the memory, and generate, by using a navigation system, route information from a current location of each second vehicle to the second destination; and
transmit, via the communication unit, the second destination and the generated route information to a second vehicle among the plurality of vehicles,
wherein the second vehicle is configured to .
Claim 9. A controlling method of a server device including a processor and a memory, the controlling method comprising:
receiving GPS information in real time from each of a plurality of vehicles belonging to a pre-set group;
determining, based on the GPS information, that a first vehicle among the plurality of vehicles has first reached a first destination during group driving
transmitting an inquiry to the first vehicle as to whether to reset the first destination to a second destination;
receiving, from the first vehicle, a response signal regarding whether to reset the first destination to the second destination; [[and]]
when the response signal indicates acceptance of resetting to the second destination, obtaining the second destination from the first vehicle, storing the second destination in the memory, and generating, by using a navigation system, route information from a current location of each second vehicle to the second destination; and
transmitting the second destination and the generated route information to a second vehicle among the plurality of vehicles,
wherein the second vehicle is configured to .
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite a server device and a controlling method of a server device including at least one step respectively. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes and Certain methods of organizing human activity.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claims recite the limitations of determine, based on the GPS information received from the plurality of vehicles, that a first vehicle among the plurality of vehicles has first reached a first destination and generating, by using a navigation system, route information from a current location of each second vehicle to the second destination. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “server device” and “navigation system”. That is, other than reciting “server device” and “navigation system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server device” and “navigation system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected to determine if a vehicle have reached a first destination, once the vehicle has reached the first destination determining a second destination to travel to, and determining a route for another vehicle to travel to the second destination. The mere nominal recitation of by a server or navigation system do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claims 1 and 9 as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a controller (or server), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the controller (or server), this claim encompasses a first driver in a group of drivers travel to a first destination and when the first driver reaches the destination the first driver is prompted to determine whether or not to reset the first destination of the group of drivers to a second destination described in the identified abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite additional elements or steps of receiving and transmitting GPS information, inquiries and acceptances of destination resetting, a second destination, and route information, and updating (outputting) a navigation route. The receiving steps from the sensors and from the vehicles are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering GPS information and destination data for use in the determining and generating steps), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The updating (outputting) step on to the second vehicle is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting or updating route information from the generating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying (outputting), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “server device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose control environment, i.e. a computer. The server device is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step.
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.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication the GPS information is anything other than conventional GPS information received form a global positioning system (GPS) and further does not provide any indication that the server and navigation system is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, and 10-15 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are also directed to transmitting and receiving steps which amount to mere collection or receipt of data over a network and is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as detailed above. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, and 10-15 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 9.
Therefore, claims 2-5, 7-8, and 10-15 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are allowable over the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record do not teach or suggest limitations pertaining to “determine, based on the GPS information received from the plurality of vehicles, that a first vehicle among the plurality of vehicles has first reached a first destination; in response to a determination that the first vehicle has reached the first destination, transmit, via the communication unit, an inquiry to the first vehicle as to whether to reset the first destination to a second destination” among other limitations
The closest prior art of record Deselaers et al. (US2021/0333115A1), Beaurepaire et al. (US2017/0118307A1), Suzuki et al. (US2011/0133959A1), Ishida (US2023/0204365A1), Koike et al. (US2021/0284155A1), and Hase et al. (US2020/0174496A1), hereinafter Deselaers, Beaurepaire, Suzuki, Ishida, Koike, and Hase respectively, do not teach of suggest the claimed invention recited in claims 1 or 9. The combination of Deselaers, Beaurepaire, and Suzuki does not teach to “determine, based on the GPS information received from the plurality of vehicles, that a first vehicle among the plurality of vehicles has first reached a first destination; in response to a determination that the first vehicle has reached the first destination, transmit, via the communication unit, an inquiry to the first vehicle as to whether to reset the first destination to a second destination”. Deselaers teaches a navigation service that determines that a first user intends to navigate to a shared destination from a first location, at a first time, and that a second user intends to navigate to the shared destination from a second location, at a second time within a threshold interval of the first time. The navigation service notifies the first user using an electronic notification that the second user intends to navigate to the shared destination, receives from the first user an electronic request to coordinate navigation to the shared destination with the second user, and in response to receiving the electronic request, provides navigation directions to the shared destination to a device associated with the first user in view of a progress of the second user toward the shared destination (see at least Deselaers, Abstract) and after some but not all of the client devices reach the shared destination, the navigation service can provide further support to some or all of the participants at block 208 . For example, a multi-car navigation group can include users of the client devices 104 A, 1046 , and 104 C. After the user of the client device 104 A reaches the destination, the navigation service can automatically prompt the user to provide an indication of parking spaces (see at least Deselaers, [0037]) but does not teach determine, based on the GPS information received from the plurality of vehicles, that a first vehicle among the plurality of vehicles has first reached a first destination; in response to a determination that the first vehicle has reached the first destination, transmit, via the communication unit, an inquiry to the first vehicle as to whether to reset the first destination to a second destination.
Beaurepaire teaches identifying and coordinating parking spaces for a group of vehicles travelling to a common destination. A group parking platform determines parking criteria information associated with at least one vehicle group comprising a plurality of vehicles, wherein the at least one vehicle group is associated with at least one common navigation destination (see at least Beaurepaire, Abstract) but does not teach determine, based on the GPS information received from the plurality of vehicles, that a first vehicle among the plurality of vehicles has first reached a first destination; in response to a determination that the first vehicle has reached the first destination, transmit, via the communication unit, an inquiry to the first vehicle as to whether to reset the first destination to a second destination.
Suzuki teaches a data generation unit that generates parking schedule data, which includes information on an expected arrival time of a vehicle at a parking lot, for each vehicle being due to arrive at the parking lot. An arrival time calculation unit that calculates an expected arrival time of a first vehicle at a parking lot. An unoccupied state calculation unit that calculates a predicted value of an unoccupied state of the parking lot at the expected arrival time of the first vehicle, according to a number of expected parked vehicles, each having an expected arrival time before the expected arrival time of the first vehicle, and a present number of unoccupied parking cells in the parking lot. A notification unit that provides a notification to a user of the first vehicle according to the calculated predicted value(see at least Suzuki, Abstract) but does not teach determine, based on the GPS information received from the plurality of vehicles, that a first vehicle among the plurality of vehicles has first reached a first destination; in response to a determination that the first vehicle has reached the first destination, transmit, via the communication unit, an inquiry to the first vehicle as to whether to reset the first destination to a second destination.
Further Ishida, Koike, and Hase do not cure the deficiencies of the combination of Deselaers, Beaurepaire, and Suzuki as they do not teach determine, based on the GPS information received from the plurality of vehicles, that a first vehicle among the plurality of vehicles has first reached a first destination; in response to a determination that the first vehicle has reached the first destination, transmit, via the communication unit, an inquiry to the first vehicle as to whether to reset the first destination to a second destination. Therefore, it would have not been obvious to modify the teachings of Deselaers, Beaurepaire, and Suzuki with the teachings of Ishida, Koike, and Hase to have the features of the claimed invention because it would significantly change the design and/or functionality of the invention.
Further search did not yield results that would teach, in combination with the other elements at least “determine, based on the GPS information received from the plurality of vehicles, that a first vehicle among the plurality of vehicles has first reached a first destination; in response to a determination that the first vehicle has reached the first destination, transmit, via the communication unit, an inquiry to the first vehicle as to whether to reset the first destination to a second destination” “determine, based on the GPS information received from the plurality of vehicles, that a first vehicle among the plurality of vehicles has first reached a first destination; in response to a determination that the first vehicle has reached the first destination, transmit, via the communication unit, an inquiry to the first vehicle as to whether to reset the first destination to a second destination” or provide teachings that can present an obvious modification to have the features of the claimed invention without significantly changing the design and/or functionality of the prior art of record.
The indication of allowable subject matter assumes that the 112(b) and 101 rejections will be overcome by amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gum (US2019/0120629A1) Discloses a mobile device including processor(s) coupled to memory, an input device, an output device, and a wireless transceiver. The mobile device can determine whether a destination is in a no wireless network coverage area. If so, then the route data used to provide navigation instructions to the destination is retained in the memory of the mobile device. In subsequent navigation, the mobile device can use the route data for navigation to a subsequent destination.
Nix et al. (US2019/0072964A1) Discloses systems and methods for controlling an autonomous vehicle. In one example embodiment, a computer-implemented method includes receiving data representing a first location associated with a service request. The method includes controlling the autonomous vehicle to travel in accordance with a first route that leads to the first location. The method includes determining a second location for the service request when the autonomous vehicle is en route to the first location. The method includes controlling the autonomous vehicle to provide the requested service at the second location.
Okada (US2019/0293449A1) Discloses a terminal device including a communication unit configured to transmit and receive information, an input unit configured to receive input of state information indicating a state of a movable object, and a controller configured to determine whether a predetermined state change has occurred in the movable object based on the input state information, acquire, as attention information, state-changed position information indicating a state-changed position that is a position of the movable object when the predetermined state change has occurred and attention voice information including an attention content for the state-changed position as voice when it is determined that the predetermined state change has occurred, and cause the communication unit to transmit the acquired attention information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA N RORIE whose telephone number is (571)272-6962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (out of office every other Friday) 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights