DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
In response filed on August 28, 2025, the Applicant amended claims 1 and 3; added claims 6-8; and cancelled claims 2, 4, and 5. Claims 1, 3, and 6-8 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
v Applicant has amended the claims to correct informalities identified in the previous action. These objections have been withdrawn accordingly.
v Applicant has amended the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function and removing the recitation of the generic placeholder).
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 3, and 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues that
1) “The applicant respectfully submits that the claimed subject matter interacts with physical components such as a processor, driving components (e.g., brake pads, tires, or batteries), sensors, memories, user interfaces, and servers. The additional features of calculating an amount of saved money based on operation information from sensors and cost information from servers, and displaying a graph via user interfaces are implemented by a processor communicating with the above physical components over a network. Therefore, the claimed subject matter is not directed to an abstract idea in the manner of claims that merely collect and process data or perform mental steps.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
Applicant’s argument is incommensurate with what is actually claimed. The instant claims do not involve interacting with driving components such as brake pads, tires, batteries, etc. The claims merely involve acquiring information from a sensor. The sensor is understood to be a conventional sensor typically installed on a vehicle (e.g., velocity sensor) that is being used in its ordinary capacity (e.g., sense vehicle speed). Furthermore, the claims merely require obtaining information from this sensor, which amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity. Acquiring information from the server is similarly insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering). That a processor is used to analyze the received information (e.g., operation information, cost information) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. The feature of calculating various amounts of money saved, or generating/presenting various graphs depicting money saved for various time periods are not “additional features”, as these steps are part of the abstract idea. That the graphics are displayed via a user interface amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or serves merely to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces.
Applicant specifically argues that
2) “Furthermore, the claimed subject matter involves additional features of performing a driving diagnosis to estimate a service life of the driving component that is extended or shortened due to the predetermined operation (e.g., a sudden acceleration, braking, or steering), calculating an amount of saved money based on a result of the driving diagnosis and the acquired real-time replacement cost for the driving component, and displaying a graph indicating the amounts of saved money. At least these additional features of amended claim 1 integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application by allowing drivers to visually comprehend how standard or abnormal driving behavior contributes to reduced maintenance costs..”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
Performing driving diagnosis (e.g., analyzing the received driving information), calculating various predicted amounts of money saved, and generating/presenting various graphs depicting money saved for various time periods are not an “additional features” in the claims. These steps/functions are all part of the abstract idea. These steps amount to data analysis steps a human being is capable of performing mentally and/or with paper and pen. Furthermore, these steps together amount to a commercial or legal interaction ( specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior or business relation, as the amount of money may be negative or positive and may correspond to a payment amount owed from the user).
Applicant specifically argues that
3) “In addition, the meaningful limitations placed upon the application of sensor-based operation detection and saved-money computation provide a tangible technical benefit over conventional vehicle diagnostic reporting systems that merely provide driving maneuver scores. When one trip is completed, the device displays multiple graphs and lists to reflect fluctuations in the amounts of saved money (e.g., a bar graph across historical trips or a line graph for the current month). The claimed device displays the amounts of saved money corresponding to operations of the user, enabling users to recognize the benefit of improved driving behavior through visible, concrete feedback (see, e.g., the present specification at paragraphs [0035] and [0042]). These additional features provide a tangible benefit by reducing component replacement costs due to poor driving behavior. The claimed device thus provides a clear practical application in the field of vehicle operation monitoring and user behavior feedback, and offers a technical solution to the problem of unmotivating user feedback. This results in an improvement to the interaction between users and vehicle systems, improving driving habits, system usability, and promoting safe driving (see, e.g., the present specification at paragraphs [0012] and [0043]). Thus, when viewed as a combination, the additional elements yield a claim as a whole that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s third argument.
Providing a user with predicted amounts of money saved over various periods of time is not a technical benefit. Nor does it necessarily result in reducing component replacement costs due to poor driving behavior, as the human driver would still need to choose to drive differently based on their viewing the graphs/reports. Additionally, the problem of” unmotivating user feedback” is not a technical problem. Furthermore, Applicant’s suggestion that the “system usability” is improved is conclusory and not supported by the disclosure. The claims do not recite technical solutions to “technical problems.” They recite data analysis and solution reporting steps performable as mental processes. Any benefits in human understanding of their driving behaviour are not enough. See In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021 - A claim does not “cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.”). See In re Smith, No. 2022-1310, 2022 WL 4112730, *3 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2022 – “But utility is not the test for patent eligibility under the Supreme Court’s cases.”). SAP, 898 F.3d at 1163 (“We may assume that the techniques claimed are ‘[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,’ but that is not enough for eligibility.”) (citation omitted). See also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (using a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and automatically issue instructions is a form of “electronic recordkeeping” and using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and automatically issue instructions does not improve the functioning of the computer itself.
Even if the steps/formulas provide a useful business outcome, that is not enough for eligibility. See Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v.. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019 - the automation of data synthesis technology and device drivers for different bedside machines did not render the claims any less abstract even if the automation resulted in “life altering consequences”); See In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x at 638 (“[T]he fact that an abstract idea may have beneficial uses does not mean that claims embodying the abstract idea are rendered patent eligible.”); See In re Elbaum, No. 2023-1418, 2023 WL 8794636, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023 - holding that the usefulness and tax benefits of the abstract idea were insufficient to confer patent eligibility on the claims).
v Applicant’s arguments and amendments, with respect to the rejection of amended claim 1 (and dependent claims 3 and 6-8) under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) have been considered, and are persuasive. See the Examiner’s indication of novel and non-obvious subject matter below.
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.
v Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6-8 is/are drawn to processing devices (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 3, and 6-8 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps;
acquire…operation information indicating the predetermined operation of the driving component;
acquire…cost information indicating replacement cost for the driving component;
perform a driving diagnosis of the vehicle to estimate a service life of the driving component that is extended or shortened due to the predetermined operation based on the acquired operation information;
calculate a first amount of saved money for replacing the driving component based on a result of the driving diagnosis and the acquired cost information;
calculate a second amount of saved money for a trip based on a total number of occurrences of the predetermined operation and a distance traveled without the predetermined operation being detected;
store the second amount of saved money;
acquire…a plurality of second amounts of saved money respectively stored for a plurality of trips in a current month and a previous month; and
display…a graph indicating each of the plurality of second amounts of saved money, a third amount of saved money for the current month, and a fourth amount of saved money for the previous month
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth analyzing operator information and cost/price information to estimate a service life of a vehicle’s driving component(s) and various amounts of money predicted to be saved for a component of the vehicle and presenting a user with this information (e.g., various amounts of money estimated to be saved over different periods of time), which amounts to a commercial or legal interactions ( specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior or business relations, as the amount of money may be negative or positive and may correspond to a payment amount owed from the user). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally and/or alternatively, each of the above-recited steps of “acquire…acquire…perform a driving diagnosis…calculate a first amount…calculate a second amount…store…acquire…display…”, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) performing each of these steps (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“an information processing device for a vehicle including a driving component performing an predetermined operation relating to driving and a sensor detecting the predetermined operation of the driving component, comprising a memory; and a processor configured to: communicate with a server and a user interface device via a network… from the memory…via the user interface” (claim 1)
“from the sensor… from the server…” (claim 1)
“wherein the processor is configured to” (claims 3 and 6-8 )
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information processing device for a vehicle including a driving component performing an predetermined operation relating to driving and a sensor detecting the predetermined operation of the driving component, comprising a memory; and a processor configured to: communicate with a server and a user interface device via a network… from the memory…via the user interface” (claim 1) and/or “wherein the processor is configured to” (claims 3 and 6-8 ) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s own published disclosure explains that these elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., [0026]-[0032] “server…has a processor…CPU…RAM…ROM…computer-readable recording medium. The server 30 may be a single computer or may include a plurality of computers linked together…The series of processes executed by the server 30 can be executed by hardware or software….The user terminal 20 is, for example, a small computer such as a smart phone, a mobile phone, a tablet terminal, a personal information terminal, a wearable computer (such as a smart watch), or a Personal Computer (PC). The user terminal 20 has a processor 201, a storage unit 202, an input unit 203, a display 204 and a communication unit 205… Since the processor 201 and the storage unit 202 are the same as the processor 301 and the storage unit 302 of the server 30, description thereof will be omitted. The processor 201 of the user terminal 20 functions as a control unit. That is, the processor 201 executes the processing according to the embodiment according to the computer program on the storage unit 202.”, [0038] “Next, the function of the server 30 will be described. The processor 301 of the server 30 functions as a control unit. That is, the processor 301 of the server 30 executes the processing according to the embodiment according to the computer program on the storage unit 302”, and [0051]-[0053] “the processes described as being executed by one device may be shared and executed by a plurality of devices. Alternatively, the processes described as being executed by different devices may be executed by one device. In the computer system, it is possible to flexibly change the hardware configuration (server configuration) for realizing each function….The present disclosure can also be implemented by supplying a computer with a computer program that implements the functions described in the above embodiment, and causing one or more processors of the computer to read and execute the program. Such a computer program may be provided to the computer by a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium connectable to the system bus of the computer”). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “from the sensor… from the server…” (claim 1)
serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recited element(s) of “acquire, from the sensor, operation information indicating the predetermined operation of the driving component” (claim 1) and/or “acquire, from the server, cost information indicating replacement cost for the driving component” (claim 1), and/or “acquire, from the memory, a plurality of second amounts of saved money respectively stored for a plurality of trips in a current month and a previous month” (claim 1), and/or “display, via the user interface device, a graph indicating each of the plurality of second amounts of saved money, a third amount of saved money for the current month, and a fourth amount of saved money for the previous month” (claim 1), even if treated as “additional” elements for the purpose of this examination, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and because such data gathering and solution-outputting/transmission steps have long been held to be insignificant pre/post-solution activity. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s as-filed specification suggests that it is advantageous for advertisers/business to implement the process of performing the driving diagnosis and determining/presenting the amount of money saved, because doing so can help a driver to understand the financial consequences of their driving behavior and because doing so can motivate a driver to improve their driving habits (see, for example, paragraphs [0004] & [0015] & [0018] & [0020] & [0049]of Applicant’s published disclosure). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved way of presenting a user with feedback regarding their driving behavior).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an information processing device for a vehicle including a driving component performing an predetermined operation relating to driving and a sensor detecting the predetermined operation of the driving component, comprising a memory; and a processor configured to: communicate with a server and a user interface device via a network… from the memory…via the user interface” (claim 1) and/or “wherein the processor is configured to” (claims 3 and 6-8 ) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “from the sensor… from the server…” (claim 1) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited element(s) of “acquire, from the sensor, operation information indicating the predetermined operation of the driving component” (claim 1) and/or “acquire, from the server, cost information indicating replacement cost for the driving component” (claim 1), and/or “acquire, from the memory, a plurality of second amounts of saved money respectively stored for a plurality of trips in a current month and a previous month” (claim 1), and/or “display, via the user interface device, a graph indicating each of the plurality of second amounts of saved money, a third amount of saved money for the current month, and a fourth amount of saved money for the previous month” (claim 1), even if treated as “additional” elements for the purpose of this examination, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional element(s), taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of vehicle driving analysis. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice that these steps (receiving driving data, presenting driving diagnosis information) were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Independent claim 1 recites novel and non-obvious subject matter. Each of the dependent claims similarly recite novel and non-obvious subject matter by virtue of their dependency on this claim.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of novel and non-obvious subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Liu et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2021/0215491, July 15, 2021 - hereinafter "Liu”); Reeves (U.S. PG Pub No. 2021/0091439, March 25, 2021); Koppensteiner-Reidy et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2017/0344924, November 30, 2017); Lerner et al. (U.S. PG Pub No. 2022/0252414, August 11, 2022); Kobulnicky et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,861,566, January 2, 2024); and Brannan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,900,330, February 14, 2024).
Liu discloses collecting and analyzing sensor data to determine various driving behaviors and to determine trip-specific wear costs associated with components (e.g., brakes) and further displaying predicted amount of money saved for the component(s).
Reeves teaches collecting and analyzing driving data to determine carious driving behaviors and to determine trip-specific wear costs associated with a battery component of a vehicle.
Koppensteiner-Reidy teaches collecting and analyzing driving data to determine various driving behaviors and to determine trip-specific wear costs associated with components (e.g., brakes) and wherein the costs could be negative or positive (e.g., cost savings) when the vehicle is driven well (e.g., results in less depreciation).
Lerner teaches collecting and analyzing driving data to determine carious driving behaviors and to determine trip-specific wear costs associated with components (e.g., brakes) and associated costs.
Kobulnicky teaches collecting and analyzing driving data to determine carious driving behaviors and to determine trip-specific wear costs associated with components.
Brannan teaches collecting and analyzing driving data to determine carious driving behaviors and to determine trip-specific wear costs associated with components. Discloses adjusting a lease payment accordingly.
As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the particular combination of features as claimed. Specifically, although the prior art discloses the specific combination of “calculate a second amount of saved money for a trip based on a total number of occurrences of the predetermined operation and a distance traveled without the predetermined operation being detected…acquire…a plurality of second amounts of saved money respectively stored for a plurality of trips in a current month and a previous month; and display…a graph indicating each of the plurality of second amounts of saved money, a third amount of saved money for the current month, and a fourth amount of saved money for the previous month”. While each of these individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine all of these features other than with impermissible hindsight.
Claims 3 and 6-8 depend upon claim 1 and have all the limitations of claim 1, and therefore similarly recite novel and non-obvious subject matter.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621