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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 March 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 18/392,843, filed on 21 December 2023, are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 7, 13, 16, and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, see REMARKS, filed 04 September 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 1-20 under § 101 are maintained.
Applicant first argues that map matching to road segments is not a mental process because it cannot be practically performed in the human mind. At its basic level, map matching is simply matching coordinate points, such as navigation points as a vehicle travels, with corresponding locations, such as roads, on a map. A person having the coordinate points that correspond to vehicle positions as it travels can match those points to correlating coordinates on a road network map to identify the roads on which the vehicle has traveled. The claims do not provide any additional detail as to how the map matching is performed such that this basic level of map matching cannot be performed mentally. Applicant references Ex Parte Cajias (Appeal 2024-003198) as support for determining that map matching cannot be performed mentally. However, Ex Parte Cajias is related to claims involving creating the map itself, not to map matching. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant then argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by improving the technical field of digital traffic analysis. The Examiner disagrees. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See MPEP 2106.05(a). In addition, for improvements to any other technology or technical field, to show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims 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 or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Applicant asserts an improved method of computer-based traffic analysis. The traffic analysis is performed by the determining a vehicle attribute and vehicle path from the probe data and processing the vehicle path to determine trip data crossing travel zones, both of which are abstract ideas, i.e., mental process. The improvement in traffic analysis is found in the limitations previously identified by the Examiner as mental processes. That the traffic analysis is computer based is not enough to find that the claim is an improvement to any other technology. Claim 1, for example, does not even recite a computer. Claim 13 recites a computer at a high level, i.e., a processor and memory, but does not include any details regarding how the computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of the computer to the performance of the method. As claimed, the processor and memory are mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims do not reflect an improvement in any other technology. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by improving the technical field of digital traffic analysis.
Based on the above, the previous rejections of claims 1-20 under § 102 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102, see REMARKS, filed 12 March 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The previous rejections of claims 1-20 under § 102 are maintained. Applicant asserts that Shah fails to teach the newly-added limitation "map matching the probe data to one or more road segments of the plurality of road segments based on the map data". The Examiner disagrees. Applicant does not claim how the map matching is to occur. Rather, the claim generally describes map machine the probe and/or sensor data to road segments. Shah discloses journeys by vehicles on vehicle ways, e.g., roadways. See Figs. 2-9 and [0058]. The map includes connector regions 530 that can be set to be a specific roadway, such as a particular street, route, highway, or similar. See Fig. 5 and [0069]. Journeys for a plurality of vehicles may be tabulated using location data form devices in vehicles. See [0112]. A traffic analysis system analyzes the location data to determine journeys made by the vehicles and can provide information regarding traffic patterns. See [0058]. For example, traffic analysis system can tabulate vehicle journeys that travel between regions 410 and 420 via connector region 530. In other words, vehicle location data is used to determine journeys made on connector regions i.e., roadways. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Shah teaches map matching the probe data to , one or more road segments of the plurality of road segments based on the map data (i.e., vehicle location data is correlated to roadways to tabulate vehicle journeys made on the roadway). The previous rejections under 102 are maintained. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the previous rejections of claims 1-20 under § 102 are maintained.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-13 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1, 13, and 17 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a process and independent claims 13 and 17 are both directed toward a machine, which fall within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, independent claims 1, 13, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Independent claim 1 recites “for each probe vehicle of the plurality of probe vehicles, determining a vehicle attribute and a vehicle path for each probe vehicle form the probe data, the sensor data, or a combination thereof, wherein determining the vehicle path comprises map matching the probe data, the sensor data, or a combination thereof to one or more road segments of the plurality of road segments based on the map data, and determining a start travel zone and an end travel zone of the vehicle path for each probe vehicle” and “processing the vehicle path for each probe vehicle to determine trip data crossing travel zones based on the start travel zone and the end travel zone”. Independent claims 13 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. These limitations may be performed in the human mind. For example, a person having the probe data and/or sensor data may use that data to mentally determine a vehicle attribute and path and may mentally determine the start and end travel zones. Having determined the vehicle path using the probe/sensor data, the person may mentally process the vehicle path to determine trip data related to crossing travel zones. Using a processor/memory/computer readable medium (claims 13 and 17) to perform these abstract ideas does not take the limitations out of the mental process groupings. Therefore, the claims 1, 13, and 17 recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, claims 1, 13, and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the instant application, claims 1, 13, and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional elements “determining probe data, sensor data, or a combination thereof collected from a plurality of sensors of a plurality of probe vehicles traveling in a geographic area of interest”, “determining map data comprising a plurality of road segments associated with the geographic area of interest”, and “providing the trip data as an output based on the vehicle attribute”. Claims 13 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations. Claim 13 also recites the additional element “at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more programs, the at least one memory and computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform” while claim 17 also recites the additional element “non-transitory computer-readable medium carrying one or more sequences of one or more instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause an apparatus to perform”.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The processor, memory, and computer program code (claim 13) and computer-readable medium, instructions, and processor (claim 17), given their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a computer. Using the processor, memory, and computer program code (claim 13) and computer-readable medium, instructions, and processor (claim 17) to determine a vehicle attribute, vehicle path, and travel zones is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas.
Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Determining probe data, using the processor, memory, and computer program code (claim 13) and computer-readable medium, instructions, and processor (claim 17), is data gathering. Determining map data, using the processor, memory, and computer program code (claim 13) and computer-readable medium, instructions, and processor (claim 17), is also data gathering. Providing the trip data as an output, using the processor, memory, and computer program code (claim 13) and computer-readable medium, instructions, and processor (claim 17), is data outputting. Therefore, these additional elements just add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1, 13, and 17 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claims 1, 13, and 17 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1, 13, and 17 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is WURC activity. Generic computing functions include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Determining map data is receiving data. Providing the trip data is encompasses transmitting data over a network.
Further, using sensors on a vehicle to collect probe data, determining map data, and outputting trip data are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. See § 102 rejection below. Therefore, the additional elements, both individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 13, and 17 (a) are directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 2-6, 8, 15, 18, and 19 further define previously-identified abstract ideas, i.e., determine trip data and determine a vehicle attribute. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified abstract ideas may still be performed mentally. The claims do not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claims 1, 13, and 17.
Claims 7 recites “determining traffic flow data, traffic volume data, or a combination thereof based on the map matching, the vehicle attribute, the start travel zone, the end travel zone, or a combination thereof”, which may be performed mentally. Claim 7 also recites “wherein the trip data is further based on the traffic flow data, the traffic volume data, or a combination thereof”, which further defines a previously-identified additional element, i.e., providing the trip data as an output. Claims 16 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 7. Even as further defined, providing the trip data is still extra-solution activity and is still outputting data. Therefore, claims 7, 16, and 20 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claims 1, 13, and 17.
Claim 9 recites “processing the trip data, the sensor data, the trip data, or a combination thereof by the travel zones”, which may be performed mentally. Claim 9 also recites “wherein the processing to determine the trip data comprises transmitting instructions through a web services interface to initiate analysis of the database table using a scripted language”. Transmitting instructions is data outputting. Transmitting the instructions through a web services interface is transmitting data over a network, i.e., well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Therefore, claim 9 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites “partitioning the probe data, the sensor data, or a combination thereof by the travel zones” and “wherein the probe data, the sensor data, the trip data, or a combination thereof is processed to determine the trip data using parallelized computing based on the partitioning”, which may be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. That the processing is performed using “parallelized computing” is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas. Claim 10 does not recite any additional elements. Therefore, claim 10 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11 recites the additional element “rendering the output in a user interface of a display device to visualize the trip data crossing the travel time zones”. Rendering the output in a user interface of a display device is data outputting. Further, rendering output on a display device is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known in the art. Therefore, claim 11 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12 recites “link the travel zones to corresponding one or more map tiles of a geographic database” and “converting the trip data between the travel zones and the one or more map tiles”, which may be performed mentally. “[B]uilding a linking database” and “converting the trip data . . . based on the linking database” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Claim 12 does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, claim 12 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shah et al. (US 2022/0383735 A1, “Shah”).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 17, Shah discloses methods for analyzing vehicle journeys and teaches:
determining probe data, sensor data, or a combination thereof collected from a plurality of sensors of a plurality of probe vehicles traveling in a geographic area of interest (traffic analysis system can receive telematic data, such as location data, from vehicles – see at least ¶ [0060]; journeys for a plurality of vehicles may be tabulated using location data from devices in vehicles – see at least ¶ [0112]);
determining map data comprising a plurality of road segments associated with the geographic area of interest (map-view of geographic regions – see at least Fig. 8 and ¶ [0074]; map includes connector regions 530 that can be set to be a specific roadway, such as a particular street, route, highway, or similar. See Fig. 5 and ¶ [0069]; regions may be defined based on map data – seat least ¶ [0105]);
for each probe vehicle of the plurality of probe vehicles, determining a vehicle attribute and a vehicle path for each probe vehicle from the probe data, the sensor data, or a combination thereof (traffic analysis system may tabulate journeys between regions 410, 420 by any route, i.e., route 490 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0068]; vocation of a vehicle can be automatically determined – see at least ¶ [0099]; vocation or vehicle classification – see at least ¶ [0112]), wherein determining the vehicle path comprises map matching the probe data, the sensor data, or a combination thereof to one or more road segments of the plurality of road segments based on the map data (journeys for a plurality of vehicles may be tabulated using location data from devices in vehicles – see at least ¶ [0112]; a traffic analysis system analyzes the location data to determine journeys made by the vehicles and can provide information regarding traffic patterns – see at least ¶ [0058]. e.g., traffic analysis system can tabulate vehicle journeys that travel between regions 410 and 420 via connector region 530 – see at least ¶ [0058]; in other words, vehicle location data, i.e., probe data, is used to determine journeys made on connector regions i.e., roadways, that correspond to the road segments in the region of interest), and determining a start travel zone and an end travel zone of the vehicle path for each probe vehicle (traffic analysis system may tabulate the number of journeys between regions 410, 420 by any route, i.e., route 490 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0068]);
processing the vehicle path for each probe vehicle to determine trip data crossing travel zones based on the start travel zone and the end travel zone (number of journeys between origin and destination regions may be determined – see at least Fig. 10 and ¶ [0114]); and
providing the trip data as an output based on the vehicle attribute (resulting traffic analysis can be output by communication interface 2116 – see at least ¶ [0118]; tabulating journeys may be based on vehicle vocation – see at least ¶ [0112]).
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 18, Shah further teaches:
wherein the trip data includes a trip speed, a trip time, a trip volume (traffic analysis system may tabulate the number of journeys between regions 410, 420 by any route, i.e., route 490 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0068]), or a combination thereof crossing the travel zones.
Regarding claim 3, Shah further teaches:
wherein the travel zones correspond to geographic zones defined by a user, a governmental authority, a regulatory authority, or a combination thereof (geographic regions 410, 420 can be cities, counties, street blocks, street addresses, or any other geographic location as appropriate for a given application – see at least ¶ [0068]; user can define regions – see at least ¶ [0076]).
Regarding claim 4, Shah further teaches:
wherein the travel zones correspond to point of interests stored in a geographic database (geographic regions 410, 420 can be cities, counties, street blocks, street addresses, or any other geographic location as appropriate for a given application – see at least ¶ [0068]; user can define regions – see at least ¶ [0076]).
Regarding claims 5, 15, and 19, Shah further teaches:
wherein the vehicle attribute includes a vehicle type, a vehicle make, a vehicle model, a vehicle year, or a combination thereof (vehicle class or vocation, e.g., commercial vehicle, operations – see at least ¶ [0098]).
Regarding claim 6, Shah further teaches:
wherein the vehicle type includes an autonomous vehicle type, an electric vehicle type, a gas vehicle type, a diesel vehicle type, a hybrid vehicle type, or a combination thereof (e.g., truck may be refueled at gas station – see at least ¶ [0087]).
Regarding claims 7, 16, and 20, Shah further teaches:
determining traffic flow data, traffic volume data, or a combination thereof based on the map matching, the vehicle attribute, the start travel zone, the end travel zone, or a combination thereof, wherein the trip data is further based on the traffic flow data, the traffic volume data, or a combination thereof (traffic analysis system may tabulate the number of journeys between regions 410, 420 by any route, i.e., route 490 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0068]).
Regarding claim 8, Shah further teaches:
wherein the trip data crossing travel zones is trip data that crosses between any two of the travel zones or among multiple of the travel zones (traffic analysis system may tabulate the number of journeys between regions 410, 420 by any route, i.e., route 490 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0068]).
Regarding claim 9, Shah further teaches:
processing the trip data to build a database table for at least one geographic entity in the geographic area of interest for storage in a cloud service (table may be populated with a number of vehicle journeys through each origin-destination pair – see at least Fig. 10 and ¶ [0075]; geographic regions 410, 420 can be cities, counties, street blocks, street addresses, or any other geographic location as appropriate for a given application – see at least ¶ [0068]; user can define regions – see at least ¶ [0076]; telematic subsystem may be a managed cloud data warehouse for performing analytics of the data stored therein – see at least ¶ [0046]; management system may include a plurality of datastores – see at least ¶ [0046]), wherein the processing to determine the trip data comprises transmitting instructions through a web services interface to initiate analysis of the database table using a scripting language (user can select a cell of the table, using an interface, and in response the analysis system can display most popular routes – see at least Fig. 21 and ¶ [0076], [0118]).
Regarding claim 10, Shah further teaches:
partitioning the probe data, the sensor data, the trip data, or a combination thereof by the travel zones (number of journeys between zones may be stored in a table – see at least Fig. 10 and ¶ [0076]; raw vehicle data may be stored at a remote subsystem – see at least ¶ [0041]), wherein the probe data, the sensor data, the trip data, or a combination thereof is processed to determine the trip data using parallelized computing based on the partitioning (traffic analysis system can be performed by at least one processor – see at least ¶ [0104], [0118]).
Regarding claim 11, Shah further teaches:
rendering the output in a user interface of a display device to visualize the trip data crossing the travel zones (traffic analysis system can tabulate journeys between different regions and output the results – see at least Fig. 10 and ¶ [0076]).
Regarding claim 12, Shah further teaches:
building a linking database to link the travel zones to corresponding one or more map tiles of a geographic database (user may create regions by drawing or selecting regions on a map – see at least Fig. 8 and ¶ [0105]); and converting the trip data between the travel zones and the one or more map tiles based on the linking database (number of journeys between origin and destination regions may be determined based on the created regions – see at least Fig. 10 and ¶ [0114]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights