DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-6, 10-15, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “receiving” at line 9 of claim 1 should be changed to “receive.”
The term “receiving” at line 12 of claim 19 should be changed to “receive.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-5, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites, “wherein the first condition further includes a condition that the vehicle has entered a general road from an express highway.” However, claim 1 recites only one condition, i.e. “a first condition,” and also specifies what that condition is, i.e. “that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous output of the quotation information.” Therefore, it is unclear how a single condition can include both that a first time length has elapsed and also that the vehicle has entered a general road from an express highway. These seem to be alternative scenarios and not a single condition. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite. Claims 3-5 contain similar deficiencies and are similarly rejected. Claims 11-14 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-5, respectively. Claim 20 contains similar deficiencies and is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the second condition" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 also recites “the second condition is at least one of a condition that the current position of the vehicle is outside an area associated with the user of the vehicle and is within a certain range from a location in which the user lives and a condition that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous output of the quotation information.” However, claim 19 from which this claim depends, already recites that the first condition includes a condition “that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous output of the quotation information,” so the limitation in claim 20 is duplicative and confusing. Moreover, the limitation states that the second condition is “at least one of a condition that the current position of the vehicle … and a condition that a first time length or more has elapsed … or the current position of the vehicle is outside a previous first area.” It is unclear how one condition can be one of condition A and condition B or condition C. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite, “compute a first quotation that indicates market price of energy in the first area based on the read or received one or more selling prices.” There does not appear to be support in the originally filed specification, including in the paragraphs cited by applicant as containing support for the amended subject matter, for computing a quotation that indicates a market price of energy based on selling prices. In fact, market price does not appear to be mentioned in the specification nor is there any description of how it is computed.
Claim 1 has also been amended to recite, “control the vehicle by a user of the vehicle based on the output quotation information.” The originally filed specification, including the paragraphs cited by applicant as containing support for the amended subject matter, does not appear to describe a user controlling the vehicle based on the output quotation information.
Claims 10 and 19 contain similar deficiencies and are similarly rejected. Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 depend upon and inherit the deficiencies of claims 1, 10, and 19.
Claim 3 recites, “wherein the first condition further includes a condition that the current position of the vehicle is outside an area associated with the user of the vehicle and is within a certain range from a location in which the user lives.” There does not appear to be support for this in the originally filed specification. Par [0072] of the specification recites, “In the field for the familiar area, the range of the familiar area of the user of the vehicle 10 is registered. As an example, geographic coordinates of an area of several kilometers to several tens of kilometers radius around the home of the user of the vehicle 10 … may be registered in the field for the familiar area.” This describes a familiar area for a user of a vehicle, but does not describe an area that is both outside an area associated with the user of the vehicle and also within a certain range from a location in which the user lives. Claims 12 and 20 contain similar deficiencies and are similarly rejected.
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.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 10, and 19, as well as their dependent claims, are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
With respect to claims 1 and 11:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An information processing device comprising:
a display or a speaker,
one or more memories; and
one or more processors configured to:
determine a first area that is a certain range from a current position of a vehicle;
determine one or more resupply facilities in the first area in response to satisfaction of a first condition;
read one or more selling prices of energy provided by the one or more resupply facilities from the one or more memories or receiving the one or more selling prices transmitted from an external server;
compute a first quotation that indicates market price of energy in the first area based on the read or received one or more selling prices; and
output quotation information that includes the first quotation by the display or the speaker; and
control the vehicle by a user of the vehicle based on the output quotation information,
wherein the first condition includes a condition that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous output of the quotation information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, “determine a first area that is a certain range from a current position of a vehicle; determine one or more resupply facilities in the first area in response to satisfaction of a first condition; compute a first quotation that indicates market price of energy in the first area based on the read or received one or more selling prices; wherein the first condition includes a condition that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous output of the quotation information” in the context of this claim could encompass a user determining a certain distance from the current location of their vehicle, realizing that it’s been a certain amount of time since they last checked gas prices, checking what gas stations are in their vicinity, and calculating a price of gas in the area. These are all observations, evaluations, and judgements that are able to be performed by the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations,” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An information processing device comprising:
a display or a speaker,
one or more memories; and
one or more processors configured to:
determine a first area that is a certain range from a current position of a vehicle;
determine one or more resupply facilities in the first area in response to satisfaction of a first condition;
read one or more selling prices of energy provided by the one or more resupply facilities from the one or more memories or receiving the one or more selling prices transmitted from an external server;
compute a first quotation that indicates market price of energy in the first area based on the read or received one or more selling prices; and
output quotation information that includes the first quotation by the display or the speaker; and
control the vehicle by a user of the vehicle based on the output quotation information,
wherein the first condition includes a condition that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous output of the quotation information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “read … or receiving…” and “output,” the examiner submits that these limitations constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the read … or receiving…” and “output” steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering and outputting, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations regarding selling price of a resupply object at one or more resupply facilities amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With respect to the limitation "control the vehicle by a user of the vehicle based on the output quotation information," the examiner submits that merely adding the words 'apply it' is not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application of the idea. The additional elements are recited at a high level and there is no specificity as to how the output information is utilized by the user to control the vehicle.
Use of a display, speaker, memories, and processors amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional limitations, considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “read … or receiving…” and “output” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that merely “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is in the present claim). Thereby, a conclusion that the claimed limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer.
Hence, the claim is ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claims 10 and 19 are rejected using the same rationale as claim 1. Claim 19 also includes the use of “a terminal” and “server device,” which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Generally applying an exception using generic computer components does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20:
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-5 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception, i.e. a mental process. They enumerate concepts that can reasonably be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Claims 11-14 and 20 are similarly rejected.
Claim 6 recites additional aspects of the judicial exception (“computing…”) and additional limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution activity under Step 2A, prong 2, and well-understood, routine, conventional activities under step 2B (“acquiring…”). Claim 15 is similarly rejected.
Claims 7 and 9 recite additional limitations that amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claims 16 and 18 are similarly rejected.
Claim 8 recites additional limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution activity under Step 2A, prong 2, and well-understood, routine, conventional activities under step 2B (“outputting…”). Claims 17 is similarly rejected.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasko (US 2017/0148113) in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0106001, hereinafter “Lee”).
In regards to claim 1, Yasko teaches an information processing device comprising:
a display or a speaker (Yasko; pars [0018], [0043]),
one or more memories (Yasko; Fig. 2); and
one or more processors configured to (Yasko; Fig. 2):
determine a first area that is a certain range from a current position of a vehicle (Yasko; par [0020]);
determine one or more resupply facilities in the first area in response to satisfaction of a first condition (Yasko; par [0019] – “re-fueling trigger”);
read one or more selling prices of energy provided by the one or more resupply facilities from the one or more memories or receiving the one or more selling prices transmitted from an external server (Yasko; par [0020]);
compute a first quotation that indicates market price of energy in the first area based on the read or received one or more selling prices (Yasko; pars [0020]-[0023]; Figs. 7, 12A); and
output quotation information that includes the first quotation by the display or the speaker (Yasko; pars [0020]-[0023]); and
control the vehicle by a user of the vehicle based on the output quotation information (Yasko; par [0026]; Fig. 7).
Yasko does not explicitly teach wherein the first condition includes a condition that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous output of the quotation information.
Lee teaches wherein a first condition includes a condition that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous receipt of fuel price information (Lee; [0024] – fuel prices within certain geographic area retrieved periodically).
Since Yasko teaches determining fueling stations in a certain geographic area and collecting and outputting fuel prices in that area, and Lee teaches periodically retrieving fuel prices within a certain geographic area, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the device of Yasko wherein the first condition includes a condition that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous output of the quotation information, as suggested by Lee, in order to keep the user apprised of nearby fuel prices on a periodic basis (Lee; [0024]).
In regards to claim 3, Yasko in view of Lee teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the first condition further includes a condition that the current position of the vehicle is outside an area associated with the user of the vehicle and is within a certain range from a location in which the user lives (Yasko; par [0017] – unfamiliar area; par [0021]; an unfamiliar area is within some range of where a user lives).
In regards to claim 4, Yasko in view of Lee teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the first condition further includes a condition that the current position of the vehicle is outside a previous first area (Yasko; par [0017] – unfamiliar area is “outside a previous first area”).
In regards to claim 5, Yasko in view of Lee teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the first condition further includes a condition that a travel distance determined based on the remaining energy resources of the vehicle is less than a first distance length (Yasko; pars [0019], [0094], [0103], [0118], [0127]).
In regards to claim 6, Yasko in view of Lee teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the acquiring the first quotation includes:
acquiring the selling price of a resupply object at each of the one or more resupply facilities in the first area (Yasko; par [0020]); and
computing the first quotation based on the selling price of the resupply object at each of the one or more resupply facilities (Yasko; pars [0020]-[0021]).
In regards to claim 7, Yasko in view of Lee teaches the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the resupply object is a kind of resupply object that is adapted to the vehicle (Yasko; pars [0021], [0025], [0030] – fuel is a kind of resupply object that is adapted to a vehicle).
In regards to claim 8, Yasko in view of Lee teaches the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the outputting the quotation information includes:
outputting the first quotation (Yasko; par [0020]); and
outputting a position of each of the one or more resupply facilities in the first area and the selling price of the resupply object at each of the one or more resupply facilities (Yasko; pars [0130], Fig. 12B).
In regards to claim 9, Yasko in view of Lee teaches the information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the outputting the quotation information further includes outputting a date when the selling price of the resupply object at each of the one or more resupply facilities in the first area is posted (Yasko; Fig. 12 A; par [0099], par [0128] – time limit includes date (today) that price is posted).
Claims 10 and 12-18 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 3-9, respectively.
In regards to claim 19, Yasko teaches an information processing system comprising:
a terminal associated with a vehicle (Yasko, Fig. 1); and
a server device configured to communicate with the terminal (Yasko, Fig. 1; pars [0035]-[0037]), wherein:
the terminal is configured to send a current position of the vehicle to the server device, in response to satisfaction of a first condition (Yasko; pars [0019]-[0020]);
the server device is configured to
determine a first area that is a certain range from the current position of the vehicle (Yasko; par [0020]);
determine one or more resupply facilities in the first area in response to satisfaction of a first condition (Yasko; par [0019]);
read one or more selling prices of energy provided by the one or more resupply facilities from one or more memories or receiving the one or more selling prices transmitted from an external server (Yasko; par [0020]);
compute a first quotation that indicates market price of energy in the first area based on the read or received one or more selling prices (Yasko; pars [0020]-[0023]; Figs. 7, 12A), and
send quotation information that includes the computed first quotation, to the terminal, (Yasko; pars [0020]-[0023]); and
output the quotation information that includes the first quotation by the terminal (Yasko; pars [0020]-[0023]); and
control the vehicle by a user of the vehicle based on the output quotation information (Yasko; par [0026]; Fig. 7).
Yasko does not explicitly teach wherein the first condition includes a condition that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous output of the quotation information.
Lee teaches wherein a first condition includes a condition that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous receipt of fuel price information (Lee; [0024] – fuel prices within certain geographic area retrieved periodically).
Since Yasko teaches determining fueling stations in a certain geographic area and collecting and outputting fuel prices in that area, and Lee teaches periodically retrieving fuel prices within a certain geographic area, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the device of Yasko wherein the first condition includes a condition that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous output of the quotation information, as suggested by Lee, in order to keep the user apprised of nearby fuel prices on a periodic basis (Lee; [0024]).
In regards to claim 20, Yasko in view of Lee teaches information processing system according to claim 19, wherein:
the first condition includes at least one of a condition that the vehicle has entered a general road from an express highway and a condition that a traveling-continuable distance of the vehicle is less than a first distance length (Yasko; par [0019] – “low fuel level indicator, detection of a particular level of fuel in the vehicle,” “determination of a predetermined number of miles since a previous, or a most-recent, fueling event” – these are all indicative of a “traveling-continuable distance” being less than a particular length); and
the second condition further includes at least one of a condition that the current position of the vehicle is outside an area associated with the user of the vehicle and is within a certain range from a location in which the user lives and a condition that a first time length or more has elapsed from a previous output of the quotation information or the current position of the vehicle is outside a previous first area (Yasko; par [0017] – unfamiliar area; par [0021]; an unfamiliar area is within some range of where a user lives).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasko in view of Lee, further in view of Carpenter (US 12,181,302).
In regards to claim 2, Yasko in view of Lee teaches the information processing device according to claim 1.
Yasko in view of Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the first condition further includes a condition that the vehicle has entered a general road from an express highway.
Carpenter teaches a condition that the vehicle has entered a general road from an express highway (Carpenter; Fig. 6A; col. 6, lines 14-30, col. 9, lines 7-27 – determines that user has taken an exit off the highway and displays destinations, including gas stations, nearby).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the device of Yasko in view of Lee wherein the first condition includes a condition that the vehicle has entered a general road from an express highway, as taught by Carpenter, in order to acquire accurate selling prices for the specific area (Carpenter; col. 8, lines 54-56, col. 9, lines 22-26).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Response to Arguments
The previous objection to claim 19 has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. However, new objections have been raised in view of applicant’s amendments.
The previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. However, new rejections have been raised in view of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-20 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at p.12 of applicant’s remarks that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, applicant argues that the limitation “control…” is not merely implementing an abstract idea in a generic computer and cannot be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. The examiner respectfully asserts that the “control” limitation is not being construed by the examiner as a mental process, as set forth in the rejection above, and also is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as also explained in the rejection above. The claims do not recite with any specificity how the selling prices provided to the user are used to control the vehicle more conveniently or accurately, as alleged by applicant. The alleged improvement must be reflected in the claim and the claim must cover “a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome.” MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant argues at p.13 of applicant’s remarks that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically, applicant argues that the claims include unconventional features, which are not well-understood, routine, and conventional to provide an improvement. The examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons already addressed and set forth in the rejection above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Kavita Stanley whose telephone number is (571)272-8352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Cordelia (Dede) Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153