DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 15-19 objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 8, applicant recites “transmitting an acceptance to the first information processing apparatus when detects an acceptance operation within a predetermined time period,” where it appears applicant has omitted “the rescue vehicle” between “when” and “detects.”
The dependent claims are objected to by virtue of their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claims 1 and 8 are directed to a statutory category of invention (i.e., a machine). However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
obtaining charging information, the charging information comprising information on a respective on-board battery level and charging cost information pertaining to charging the respective on-board battery of a corresponding vehicle of the vehicles, the charging cost being a cost required to accumulate a predetermined unit power in the respective on-board batteries of the vehicles;
receiving a rescue request when [determining] that a condition for transmitting a rescue request has been met, the rescue request comprising rescue content pertaining to resolving the malfunction, the condition for transmitting a rescue request has been met when [detecting] at least one of:
(i) an operation performed by a user of the malfunctioning vehicle to transmit the rescue request, or
(ii) an on-board battery of the malfunctioning vehicle is depleted;
extracting, based on (i) the rescue content, (ii) the information on the respective on-board battery level, and (iii) the charging cost information pertaining to charging the respective on-board battery of a corresponding vehicle of the vehicles, one or more vehicles capable of resolving the malfunction as one or more potential rescue vehicles from among the vehicles;
calculating a reward based on (i) the rescue content, (ii) the information on the respective on-board battery level, and (iii) the charging cost information pertaining to charging the respective on-board battery for each of the one or more potential rescue vehicles;
presenting each of the one or more potential rescue vehicles and the reward to a user of the malfunctioning vehicle;
identifying a vehicle selected by the user of the malfunctioning vehicle from among the one or more potential rescue vehicles as a rescue vehicle to rescue the malfunctioning vehicle; and
notifying a user of the rescue vehicle of the rescue request by [presenting] (i) current location of the malfunctioning vehicle and travel time to reach the malfunctioning vehicle, and (ii) selecting whether to accept the rescue request; and
in response to receiving an acceptance indicating that the user of the rescue vehicle has accepted the rescue request, notifying the user of the malfunctioning vehicle that the rescue vehicle has been determined to rescue the malfunctioning vehicle, wherein the acceptance is transmitted when [detecting] an acceptance operation within a predetermined time period.
The abstract idea of claim 8 is:
obtaining charging information, the charging information comprising information on a respective on-board battery level and charging cost information pertaining to charging the respective on-board battery of a corresponding vehicle of the vehicles, the charging cost being a cost required to accumulate a predetermined unit power in the respective on-board batteries of the vehicles;
receiving a rescue request when [determining] that a condition for transmitting a rescue request has been met, the rescue request comprising rescue content pertaining to resolving the malfunction;
extracting, based on (i) the rescue content, (ii) the information on the respective on-board battery level, and (iii) the charging cost information pertaining to charging the respective on-board battery of a corresponding vehicle of the vehicles, one or more vehicles capable of resolving the malfunction as one or more potential rescue vehicles from among the vehicles;
calculating a reward based on (i) the rescue content, (ii) the information on the respective on-board battery level, and (iii) charging cost information pertaining to charging the respective on-board battery for each of the one or more potential rescue vehicles;
presenting each of the one or more potential rescue vehicles and the reward to a user of the malfunctioning vehicle;
identifying a vehicle selected by the user of the malfunctioning vehicle from among the one or more potential rescue vehicles as a rescue vehicle to rescue the malfunctioning vehicle; and
notifying a user of the rescue vehicle of the rescue request; and
in response to receiving an acceptance indicating that the user of the rescue vehicle has accepted the rescue request, notifying the user of the malfunctioning vehicle that the rescue vehicle has been determined to rescue the malfunctioning vehicle,
transmitting the charging cost information;
determining whether a malfunction has occurred in the associated vehicle by determining whether a condition for transmitting a rescue request has been met, the condition for transmitting a rescue request has been met when [detecting] at least one of,
(i) an operation performed by a user of the malfunctioning vehicle to transmit the rescue request, or
(ii) an on-board battery of the malfunctioning vehicle is depleted;
notifying when it is determined that the malfunction has occurred;
displaying each of the one or more potential rescue vehicles and the reward;
transmitting information for identifying a vehicle selected from among the one or more potential rescue vehicles;
receiving the rescue request;
[presenting] (i) current location of the malfunctioning vehicle and travel time to reach the malfunctioning vehicle, and (ii) selecting whether to accept the rescue request; and
transmitting an acceptance when [detecting] an acceptance operation within a predetermined time period.
The abstract idea steps italicized above relate to the selection of rescue vehicles and assignment of rewards based on rules or instructions communicated between parties, e.g., between a dispatcher, an individual requesting rescue, and an individual assisting with rescue, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(Examiner notes that the extracting step entails no more than selecting a particular vehicle based on criteria. This is still an abstract step and part of the certain method of organizing human activity.)
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
one or more processors; a storage medium on which a program to be executed by the one or more processors is stored, the program comprising one or more instructions; causing a display on a display of the rescue vehicle; an operation element;
from vehicles; transmitted from a malfunctioning vehicle in which a malfunction has occurred; from the rescue vehicle; the malfunctioning vehicle [detects]; the rescue vehicle [detects].
Claim 8 recites the following additional elements:
a first information processing apparatus on a server side; a second information processing apparatus associated with a vehicle; one or more first processors; a first storage medium on which a first program to be executed by the one or more first processors is stored, the first program comprising one or more first instructions; one or more second processors; a second storage medium on which a second program to be executed by the one or more second processors is stored, the second program comprising one or more second instructions; extracted by the first information processing apparatus; performing display in accordance with reception of the rescue request; to the first information processing apparatus; an operation element;
from vehicles; transmitted from a malfunctioning vehicle in which a malfunction has occurred; from the rescue vehicle; the malfunctioning vehicle [detects];
The additional elements in category A are generically recited computers and machinery that are being used in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements and machinery in their specification, as seen in the configuration of server apparatus 1, illustrated in Fig. 2 of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. Simply appending generic computing components to perform the tasks of the abstract idea doesn’t integrate said abstract idea into practical application. The additional elements in category B merely serve to generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, i.e., vehicles, per MPEP 2106.05(g). Similar to Flook, which limited the abstract idea to the petrochemical and oil-refining industries, the limitations describing the field of use don’t meaningfully limit or integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system tied to a field of use. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or generally link to a field of use, as described in MPEP 2106.05(h), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f), (h).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has generically described computers and machinery that are being used in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), and/or generally link to a field of use, as described in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system tied to a field of use. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Claims 2-7 and 9-19 further narrow the abstract idea. There are no additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This narrowing of the abstract idea does not integrate into practical application and does not add significantly more. (Examiner notes that the extracting step in dependent claims entails no more than selecting a particular vehicle based on criteria. This is still an abstract step and part of the method of organizing human activity.)
Accordingly, claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/04/26 have been carefully considered. Examiner’s response follows, with applicant’s headings used for consistency.
IV. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant offers, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, after restating examiner’s position:
Applicant respectfully disagrees but nevertheless has amended the claims in the interest of expediting prosecution of the present application. Upon entry of the foregoing amendments, Applicant respectfully submits that under Prong One of Step 2A in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 PEG"), none of the claim elements of claims 1-19 falls within any of the categories considered as abstract. Under the framework of the 2019 PEG, Applicant submits that amended claims 1-19 do not recite a method of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity - Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People", mathematical algorithms, or a mental process and thus constitute patentable subject matter.
Specifically, Applicant submits that amended independent claims 1 and 8 do not recite a method of organizing human activity, which is used to describe concepts relating to (1) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); (2) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
While well taken, applicant appears to have conflated the abstract idea, identified at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, identified at Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner identified the following abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One (claim 1 being representative):
obtaining charging information, the charging information comprising information on a respective on-board battery level and charging cost information pertaining to charging the respective on-board battery of a corresponding vehicle of the vehicles, the charging cost being a cost required to accumulate a predetermined unit power in the respective on-board batteries of the vehicles;
receiving a rescue request when [determining] that a condition for transmitting a rescue request has been met, the rescue request comprising rescue content pertaining to resolving the malfunction, the condition for transmitting a rescue request has been met when [detecting] at least one of:
(i) an operation performed by a user of the malfunctioning vehicle to transmit the rescue request, or
(ii) an on-board battery of the malfunctioning vehicle is depleted;
extracting, based on (i) the rescue content, (ii) the information on the respective on-board battery level, and (iii) the charging cost information pertaining to charging the respective on-board battery of a corresponding vehicle of the vehicles, one or more vehicles capable of resolving the malfunction as one or more potential rescue vehicles from among the vehicles;
calculating a reward based on (i) the rescue content, (ii) the information on the respective on-board battery level, and (iii) the charging cost information pertaining to charging the respective on-board battery for each of the one or more potential rescue vehicles;
presenting each of the one or more potential rescue vehicles and the reward to a user of the malfunctioning vehicle;
identifying a vehicle selected by the user of the malfunctioning vehicle from among the one or more potential rescue vehicles as a rescue vehicle to rescue the malfunctioning vehicle; and
notifying a user of the rescue vehicle of the rescue request by [presenting] (i) current location of the malfunctioning vehicle and travel time to reach the malfunctioning vehicle, and (ii) selecting whether to accept the rescue request; and
in response to receiving an acceptance indicating that the user of the rescue vehicle has accepted the rescue request, notifying the user of the malfunctioning vehicle that the rescue vehicle has been determined to rescue the malfunctioning vehicle, wherein the acceptance is transmitted when [detecting] an acceptance operation within a predetermined time period.
Examiner notes that there’s nothing inherently technical about these steps. While they do contain reference to obtaining battery charging information, extracting (i.e., selecting) a potential rescue vehicle, calculating a reward associated with the rescue, and presenting options, examiner contends that these are steps an administrator could perform, in communication with the party in need of rescue and/or central dispatch. (Obtaining battery charging information, for example, could entail no more than an administrator referencing a vehicle status printout.)
That the steps of the abstract idea are being facilitated by additional elements – e.g., one or more processors, a storage medium on which a program to be executed by the one or more processors is stored, from vehicles, etc. – does not translate into patent eligibility. Simple using generic computing elements to perform the tasks of the abstract idea is equivalent to “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, merely linking an abstract idea to a field of use doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim, per MPEP 2106.05(g). These sections of the MPEP are clear that this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more.
Applicant continues (brackets indicate portions of applicant’s response omitted for brevity):
Applicant amends claims 1 and 8 by adding additional technical elements regarding the specific application of the claimed solution and a corresponding impact on a malfunctioning vehicle and a rescue vehicle. In particular, the amended independent claim 1 clarifies that: […]
The Office has alleged that the claims merely "apply" the abstract idea to generic computing elements under MPEP 2106.05(f) (Office Action at 10-12). Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Applicant submits that amended claims 1 and 8 recite a complete rescue coordination process that culminates in a tangible end result, i.e., to complete rescue coordination and initiate a rescue operation for the malfunctioning vehicle. This goes beyond merely "applying" an abstract idea to a computer. The amended claim 1 now recites a complete vehicle-to-server-to-vehicle communication loop from the server's point of view. In such a communication loop, the server notifies the rescue vehicle of the rescue request, the server receives an acceptance transmitted from the rescue vehicle, and the server then notifies the malfunctioning vehicle that a rescue vehicle has been determined to perform the rescue. This closed-loop communication results in a concrete technological outcome-the malfunctioning vehicle's system receives confirmation that rescue has been arranged, thus the rescue coordination is completed thereby triggering/initiating the rescue (see paras. [0175] and [0178] of the Specification).
Applicant submits that the amended claims 1 and 8 at least integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they impose a meaningful limitation that provides a tangible result for the malfunctioning vehicle. The claims do not merely recite data processing steps, but additionally they recite a specific technological implementation that coordinates communications between multiple vehicle systems and a server to achieve a practical result, i.e., identifying a potential rescue vehicle, bridging a selected rescue vehicle with the malfunctioning vehicle and ultimately enabling the rescue of the malfunctioning vehicle. In particular, the amended claims 1 and 8 recite that the notifying step causes a display of the rescue vehicle to present the current location of the malfunctioning vehicle and travel time to reach the malfunctioning vehicle, which is a tangible control action on the rescue vehicle's display system.
Applicant continues to conflate the abstract idea, identified at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, identified at Step 2A Prong Two. Examiner identified the following additional elements at Step 2A Prong Two (claim 1 being representative):
one or more processors; a storage medium on which a program to be executed by the one or more processors is stored, the program comprising one or more instructions; causing a display on a display of the rescue vehicle; an operation element;
from vehicles; transmitted from a malfunctioning vehicle in which a malfunction has occurred; from the rescue vehicle; the malfunctioning vehicle [detects]; the rescue vehicle [detects].
Examiner’s position is that these elements, whether viewed alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and do not represent a “specific technological implementation,” as suggested by applicant. MPEP 2106.05(f), cited above, is clear that, unless there’s a “technological solution to a technological problem” described in the specification and reflected in the claimed invention, the mere recitation of computing elements is equivalent to “apply it”:
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
MPEP 2106.05(h) is also supportive of examiner’s position:
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Based on MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h), the additional elements, whether viewed alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application or meaningfully limit the claim. Applicant’s specification and claimed invention describe improvements to identifying and selecting rescue vehicles, i.e., a business process. This is not a technological solution, as applicant argues.
Applicant continues:
In the 2019 PEG, Example 35 presents a similar situation as the present claims. In Example 35, Claim 3 was found eligible because it included "automatically sending a control signal to an input for the automated teller machine to provide access to a keypad when a match from the analysis verifies the authenticity of the customer's identity." Similarly, amended claims 1 and 8 include a responsive action (notifying the malfunctioning vehicle and causing a display of the rescue vehicle to present information) that is triggered in response to receiving an acceptance from the rescue vehicle. This is analogous to the ATM sending a control signal in response to verifying identity.
In the 2019 PEG, Example 46 (Livestock Management) presents the most analogous situation to the present claims. In Example 46, claims 2 and 3 were found eligible because the system collects sensor data about animals, compares and analyzes behavior against herd data (which could be considered abstract or mental steps), but uses the analysis result to control another machine (a feed dispenser or sorting gate) in a particular way. The USPTO found these claims eligible because using the result of the abstract analysis to control the device in a particular way is an "other meaningful limitation" that integrates the exception into a practical application.
Similarly, amended claims 1 and 8 collect technical state data (battery level, charging cost per kWh, equipment, distance/time) and rescue content, analyze that data to identify suitable rescue vehicles and compute rewards, and then use the result to control a distributed technical system through a closed-loop rescue protocol. Specifically, the amended claims now recite that: […]
The Office has expressly indicated that, contingent upon overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, all pending claims are in condition for allowance over the prior art of record. This acknowledgment confirms that the claimed subject matter as a whole is not taught or suggested by the prior art and, therefore, is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. Accordingly, the Office's recognition of the claims' patentable distinction over the prior art supports a finding under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework that the additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to "significantly more" than any alleged judicial exception, and that the claims recite patent-eligible subject matter under § 101.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claims 1-19 are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is respectfully requested.
Applicant’s attempt to draw parallels to Examples 35 and 46 is also not persuasive. Examples 35 and 46 featured a combination of elements that resulted in the claim being integrated into practical application and/or significantly more (claim 46 does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it can employ the information provided by the judicial exception).
Examiner maintains that applicant’s combination of elements – e.g., one or more processors, a storage medium on which a program to be executed by the one or more processors is stored, from vehicles, etc. – does not translate into patent eligibility. Simple using generic computing elements to perform the tasks of the abstract idea is equivalent to “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, merely linking an abstract idea to a field of use doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim, per MPEP 2106.05(g). These sections of the MPEP are clear that this does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more.
Lastly, examiner reminds applicant that novelty is not equivalent to eligibility. MPEP 2106 is clear that an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
In summary, examiner has responded to all of applicant arguments concerning the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210027409, which teaches: A safety method and system for users in a vehicle is provided. The method includes operations that are executed by a circuitry of the system to facilitate safety features to the users. The operations include detecting an emergency input for activating a camera device to record real-time in-vehicle activities. A preferred contact of a user in the vehicle is determined and audiovisual information of the in-vehicle activities is communicated in real-time with each preferred contact. The recorded in-vehicle activities are further processed in real-time for detecting an emergency incident. An alert signal is generated based on the emergency incident, and one or more entities who can provide help are identified based on a location of the vehicle. The alert signal is communicated to the one or more entities along with the recorded in-vehicle activities.
US 20210284128, which teaches: A vehicle rescue device includes a communication unit that is communicable with an onboard communication device or a terminal device of a user of each of a plurality of electric vehicles; a receiving unit configured to store, in a storage unit, vehicle notification information received by the communication unit; a determination unit configured to determine, based on the vehicle notification information of an electric vehicle that has requested an electric power supply and the vehicle notification information of an electric vehicle that has accepted a rescue request, whether or not the electric vehicle that has accepted the rescue request can be dispatched to the electric vehicle that has requested the electric power supply; and a management unit configured to direct the electric vehicle that has accepted the rescue request to a location where electric power supply to the electric vehicle that has requested the electric power supply can be performed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629