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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 01/21/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 01/21/2026, have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on page 3 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but are considered to be not persuasive.
On page 3 of the Response, the Applicant argues “the added limitations are additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended independent claim recites additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The amended independent claim introduces a plurality of modules to apply the abstract idea (i.e., collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a results of the analysis), and steps for “using a first algorithm” to perform certain determinations/analysis. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they are merely considered to be generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. The Examiner notes “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and The Examiner further notes that “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include […] Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer […] Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception […] Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)).
Furthermore, the claim further introduces additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network (i.e., transmitting a real-time charging to terminals/charging stations and transmitting an estimated profit to a charging station). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on page 3 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered. In view of the amendments, independent claim 1 and its dependents are found to overcome the prior art of record. The Examiner has provided a detailed explanation of why the claims are found to overcome the pertinent prior art of record on page 15 herein.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the three prong test to determine if 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) can be invoked was applied.
Claim 1 recites the limitations (1.) “a position information collection module collecting position information…”, (2.) “a path calculation module calculating a driving path…”, (3.) “a traffic volume calculation module calculating a current electric vehicle traffic volume…”, (4.) “a charging price determination module determining a real-time charging price…”, (5.) “a price transmission module transmitting the real-time charging price…”, (6.) “a charging pattern analysis module analyzing a first charging pattern…”, and (7.) “a profit estimation module estimating a profit…”. Thus, these limitations use generic placeholders for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the respective limitations. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is subsequently modified by the functional language “for setting” or “configured to”. The generic placeholder for the term “means” in each limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed functions.
The term “position information collection module” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “a position information collection module” is subsequently modified by the functional language “collecting position information…”. The limitation “a position information collection module collecting position information…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The non-structural term “position information collection module” is not defined as structure in the specification and has no dictionary definition connoting structure and is not modified before or afterwards by a structural term. The non-structural term “position information collection module” is not subsequently modified by any structural language, limitations or terms in the claim.
The term “path calculation module” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “path calculation module” is subsequently modified by the functional language “calculating a driving path…”. The limitation “a path calculation module calculating a driving path…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The non-structural term “path calculation module” is not defined as structure in the specification and has no dictionary definition connoting structure and is not modified before or afterwards by a structural term. The non-structural term “path calculation module” is not subsequently modified by any structural language, limitations or terms in the claim.
The term “traffic volume calculation module” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “traffic volume calculation module” is subsequently modified by the functional language “calculating a current electric vehicle traffic volume…”. The limitation “a traffic volume calculation module calculating a current electric vehicle traffic volume…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The non-structural term “traffic volume calculation module” is not defined as structure in the specification and has no dictionary definition connoting structure and is not modified before or afterwards by a structural term. The non-structural term “traffic volume calculation module” is not subsequently modified by any structural language, limitations or terms in the claim.
The term “charging price determination module” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “charging price determination module” is subsequently modified by the functional language “determining a real-time charging price…”. The limitation “a charging price determination module determining a real-time charging price…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The non-structural term “charging price determination module” is not defined as structure in the specification and has no dictionary definition connoting structure and is not modified before or afterwards by a structural term. The non-structural term “charging price determination module” is not subsequently modified by any structural language, limitations or terms in the claim.
The term “price transmission module” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “price transmission module” is subsequently modified by the functional language “transmitting the real-time charging price…”. The limitation “a price transmission module transmitting the real-time charging price…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The non-structural term “price transmission module” is not defined as structure in the specification and has no dictionary definition connoting structure and is not modified before or afterwards by a structural term. The non-structural term “price transmission module” is not subsequently modified by any structural language, limitations or terms in the claim.
The term “charging pattern analysis module” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “charging pattern analysis module” is subsequently modified by the functional language “analyzing a first charging pattern…”. The limitation “a charging pattern analysis module analyzing a first charging pattern…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The non-structural term “charging pattern analysis module” is not defined as structure in the specification and has no dictionary definition connoting structure and is not modified before or afterwards by a structural term. The non-structural term “charging pattern analysis module” is not subsequently modified by any structural language, limitations or terms in the claim.
The term “profit estimation module” is considered to be a generic placeholder for the term “means” for performing the claimed function of the limitation. The generic placeholder “profit estimation module” is subsequently modified by the functional language “estimating a profit…”. The limitation “a profit estimation module estimating a profit…” has therefore been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation. The non-structural term “profit estimation module” is not defined as structure in the specification and has no dictionary definition connoting structure and is not modified before or afterwards by a structural term. The non-structural term “profit estimation module” is not subsequently modified by any structural language, limitations or terms in the claim.
Therefore, the limitations discussed above are considered to have invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and should be treated accordingly. Furthermore, no other terms in claims exist that would impart structure to the aforementioned generic placeholder terms to remove these limitations from 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and the limitations therefrom, as described above, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure for the “position information collection module”, “path calculation module”, “traffic volume calculation module”, “charging price determination module”, “price transmission module”, “charging pattern analysis module”, and “a profit estimation module” that perform the functions of the respective limitations in the claim. Although claim 1 and the specification recite a “server” comprising these modules, the specification is devoid of any technical structure for either the server or modules themselves. For example, the specification does not describe the modules or server as comprising computer system components such as a processor, CPU, memory, computer-readable medium, or any other type of computer component. As such, the claims and disclosure are devoid of any technical structure for the modules identified above.
Therefore, claim 1 and claim 3, by virtue of dependence, are rendered indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1 and 3 are directed to a machine (“a system”). Thus, claims 1 and 3 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1 and 3, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
[…] searching electric vehicle charging stations and making an electric vehicle charging reservation request;
[…] performing payment when electric vehicle charging corresponding to the electric vehicle charging reservation requested from the user […] is performed;
[…] performing adjustment with the electric vehicle charging station on the basis of payment that is performed […].
[…] collecting position information of the electric vehicle;
[…] calculating a driving path of the electric vehicle using the collected position information;
[…] calculating a current electric vehicle traffic volume on the driving path of the electric vehicle;
[…] determining a real-time charging price for each electric vehicle charging station […] based on the current electric vehicle traffic volume;
[…] transmitting a real-time charging price to the user terminal and each electric vehicle charging station;
[…] analyzing a first charging pattern of each electric vehicle charging station and a second charging pattern of the user […];
[…] estimating a profit of each electric vehicle charging station using the first and second charging patterns and transmitting the estimated profit to each electric vehicle charging station.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2-3, by virtue of dependence, recite certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of facilitating business relations and sales activities, which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [12]. Furthermore, the limitations directed towards determining prices for charging stations and estimation profits for electric vehicle charging stations recite concepts of fundamental economic practices. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). Furthermore, the limitations identified above recite concepts of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis of the information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include an “AI-based dynamic pricing system”, “user terminal being carried by a user who is driving an electric vehicle”, “an electric vehicle charging payment terminal”, “electric vehicle charging adjustment server”, “a position information collection module”, “a path calculation module”, “a traffic volume calculation module”, “a charging price determination module”, “a price transmission module”, “a charging pattern analysis module”, “a profit estimation module”, and steps for “using a first AI algorithm” and “using a second AI algorithm” to perform the claim functions. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network (i.e., searching electric vehicle charging stations, making an electric vehicle charging reservation request via a user terminal, transmitting a real-time charging to terminals/charging stations, and transmitting an estimated profit). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 further recites steps for looking up and checking an electric vehicle charging reservation at an electric vehicle charging station. Thus, the limitations of claim 3 merely further describe the abstract idea of commercial interactions. Furthermore, these limitations recite concepts of collecting information, which is the abstract idea of mental processes.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include an “electric vehicle charging station terminal”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for retrieving information in a memory (i.e., looking up and checking an electric vehicle charging reservation via an electric vehicle charging station terminal). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for retrieving information in a memory amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found retrieving information in a memory to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve retrieving information in a memory, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner Notes
Independent claim 1 has been found to overcome the cited art of record. Further, claim 3, by virtue of dependence, recites the same limitations as claim 1 that overcome the cited art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of claim 1 being found to overcome the cited art of record. None of the prior art of record, taken individual or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of independent claim 1. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are as follows:
Lee et al. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0130318A1;
Hu et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0294078A1;
Wolfe et al. U.S. Publication No. 2024/0222971;
Kim et al. KR20190134881A;
Hecht et al. “Analysis of Electric Vehicle Charging Station Usage and Profitability in
Germany based on Empirical Data” (2022);
Lee discloses a system configured to conduct a search for a charging station positioned within a predetermined distance of a driver using a current position of the driver vehicle. The server may further set a reservation for the charging station, calculate fees, and collect payments from the driver. Lee, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claim 1. In particular, Lee does not teach analyzing a first charging pattern of each electric vehicle charging station and a second charging pattern of the user using a second AI algorithm, estimating a profit of each electric vehicle charging station using the first and second charging patterns, and transmitting the estimated profit to each electric vehicle charging station.
Hu discloses an AI-based system configured to receive requests for charging station recommendations from client terminals, determine charging stations within a preset distance of the client terminal, and transmit an evaluation of each charging station to the client terminal. The system may further maintain a timetable identifying reservations set with chargers disposed in respective charging stations, and calculate a final usage fee for utilization of the chargers. Hu, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claim 1. In particular, Hu does not teach analyzing a first charging pattern of each electric vehicle charging station and a second charging pattern of the user using a second AI algorithm, estimating a profit of each electric vehicle charging station using the first and second charging patterns, and transmitting the estimated profit to each electric vehicle charging station.
Wolfe discloses a system that can use artificial intelligence to determine billing rates for vehicle charging and flexibly change charging costs in different scenarios. The AI algorithm may utilize inputs such as a total site demand to predict a preferred charging cost in order to maximize earnings. Wolfe, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claim 1. In particular, Wolfe does not teach analyzing a first charging pattern of each electric vehicle charging station and a second charging pattern of the user using a second AI algorithm, estimating a profit of each electric vehicle charging station using the first and second charging patterns, and transmitting the estimated profit to each electric vehicle charging station.
Kim discloses a system and method configured to predict charger usage in a certain time periods so that charging cost is determined accordingly, thereby distributing congestion for each charger and maximizing the profits from operating the charging system. Kim, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claim 1. In particular, Kim does not teach analyzing a first charging pattern of each electric vehicle charging station and a second charging pattern of the user using a second AI algorithm, estimating a profit of each electric vehicle charging station using the first and second charging patterns, and transmitting the estimated profit to each electric vehicle charging station.
Hecht discloses research concerning usage patterns of public charging stations (PCSs), such as identifying patterns between different temporal intervals (e.g., between 3-9AM, weekdays-weekends, during Corona virus pandemic, etc.). Furthermore, Hecht discusses estimating the profitability of future PCS sites. Hecht, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claim 1. In particular, Hecht does not teach analyzing a first charging pattern of each electric vehicle charging station and a second charging pattern of the user using a second AI algorithm, estimating a profit of each electric vehicle charging station using the first and second charging patterns, and transmitting the estimated profit to each electric vehicle charging station.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628