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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office action on the merits. Claims 1-12 are currently pending and addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1 and 11-12 are directed to an information processing apparatus (i.e., a machine), and information processing method (i.e., a process), and a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1 and 11-12 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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 claims 1 and 11-12 include limitations that recite an abstract idea and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Independent claims 1 and 11-12 recite the following information:
An information processing apparatus/non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program/method comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions, and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire information indicating a state of at least one of a person riding in a mobile body and an object mounted on the mobile body; and
specify radio communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus based on the acquired information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea of a mental process that gathers information obtained by observation related to state of an object mounted on a mobile body and determines a communication means for communicating between the mobile body and an external system based on the gathered information.
Each of the limitations can be performed in the mental realm or by using pen and paper to gather information based on visual observation of the state of objects mounted on a mobile body and determine a communication means for communicating between the mobile body and an external system based on the gathered information.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. 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.”
Claims 1 and 11-12 do contain additional elements of an information processing apparatus, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions. However, these additional elements do not add to significantly more than the abstract idea of a mental process.
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 elements of an information processing apparatus, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, the examiner submits that these limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose autonomous vehicle information processing system environment. The information processing apparatus, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the state information acquiring and radio communication means specifying components of the system. The examiner submits that these limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., describe general means of the state information acquiring and radio communication means specifying steps) and therefore amount to mere transmission of data between computer processing components which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that merely uses computing components to perform the process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B, representative independent claims 1 and 10 do 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an information processing apparatus, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, data gathering and transmitting, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
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 gathering/transmitting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite and further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. The limitations of the dependent claims are directed towards additional aspects of the judicial exception that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The dependent claims further narrow the scope of independent claims 1 and 11-12, however, the identified additional limitations and elements still do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the identified abstract ideas. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 11-12. Therefore, claims 1-12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 5-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed et al. US 6735506 B2 (“Breed”) in view of Rajanna US 20230118478 A1 (“Rajanna”).
For claim 1, Breed discloses an information processing apparatus (See at least the Abstract of Breed – “… Vehicular telematics system including an occupant sensing system for determining a property or characteristic of occupancy of the vehicle constituting information about the occupancy of the vehicle and a communications device coupled to the occupant sensing system for transmitting the information…”) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (See at least Col. 13 lines 34-44 of Breed – “… The processor 101 may include electronic circuitry and associated, embedded software…”), and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (See at least Col. 13 lines 34-44 of Breed – “… The processor 101 may include electronic circuitry and associated, embedded software. Processor 101 constitutes one form of generating means in accordance with the invention which generates information about the occupancy of the passenger compartment based on the waves received by the transducers 131,132,133…”) to:
acquire information indicating a state of at least one of a person riding in a mobile body and an object mounted on the mobile body (See at least Col. 15 lines 41-50 of Breed – “… One or more of the transducers 131, 132, 133 can also be image-receiving devices, such as cameras, which take images of the interior of the passenger compartment… to determine the status of the occupants of the vehicle…”); and
specify communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus based on the acquired information (See at least Col. 15 lines 41-50 – “… One or more of the transducers 131, 132, 133 can also be image-receiving devices, such as cameras, which take images of the interior of the passenger compartment. These images can be transmitted to a remote facility to monitor the passenger compartment …” and Claim 1 of Breed – “… A vehicle, comprising… a communications device coupled to said occupant sensing system and arranged to automatically establish a communications channel between the vehicle and a remote facility … to thereby enable the information about the occupancy of the vehicle determined by said occupant sensing system to be transmitted to the remote facility… said communications device being arranged to transmit the images obtained by said image-obtaining sensor…”).
Breed fails to specifically disclose specify radio communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus.
However, Rajanna, in the same field of endeavor teaches specify radio communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus (See at least [0023] of Rajanna – “… Vehicle 100 may be configured to be connected to one or more wireless networks (e.g., a cellular network, a Wi-Fi network, a satellite network, short-range communication networks such as, for example, Bluetooth, NFC, RFID, any suitable RF communications protocol…”). Thus, Breed discloses a system that is used to monitor the status of occupants in a vehicle and establishes a communications channel between the vehicle and a remote facility to share monitoring information, while Rajanna teaches a system that uses radio frequency communication protocols between a vehicle and a remote server.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information processing apparatus, information processing method, and non-transitory computer readable medium as disclosed in Breed to include the feature of a radio communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus as taught by Rajanna, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to configure the vehicle to connect to one or more wireless networks as specified in at least [0023] of Rajanna.
For claim 2, Breed discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify the radio communication means used for communication in which the external apparatus performs at least one of monitoring of the mobile body and control of the mobile body (See at least Col. 15 lines 41-50 – “… One or more of the transducers 131, 132, 133 can also be image-receiving devices, such as cameras, which take images of the interior of the passenger compartment. These images can be transmitted to a remote facility to monitor the passenger compartment …”).
For claim 3, Breed discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to acquire an image captured by an image capturing apparatus mounted on the mobile body (See at least Col. 6 lines 26-30 of Breed – “… the occupant sensing system may include a plurality of the same of different sensors, for example, an image-obtaining sensor for obtaining images of the passenger compartment of the vehicle whereby the communications device transmits the images…”).
For claim 5, Breed discloses wherein
the at least one processor is further configured to determine a state of at least one of the person riding in the mobile body and the object mounted on the mobile body based on the acquired image (See at least Col. 15 lines 41-50 – “… One or more of the transducers 131, 132, 133 can also be image-receiving devices, such as cameras, which take images of the interior of the passenger compartment… to determine the status of the occupants of the vehicle prior to the accident. In this manner, it can be ascertained whether the driver was falling asleep, talking on the phone …”), and
the at least one processor is configured to specify the radio communication means based on the determined state (See at least Col. 15 lines 41-50 – “… One or more of the transducers 131, 132, 133 can also be image-receiving devices, such as cameras, which take images of the interior of the passenger compartment. These images can be transmitted to a remote facility to monitor the passenger compartment …”).
For claim 6, Breed discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine at least one of the number of persons riding in the mobile body, an attribute of the person, a posture of the person, and a device used by the person based on the acquired image (See at least Col. 15 lines 41-50 – “… One or more of the transducers 131, 132, 133 can also be image-receiving devices, such as cameras, which take images of the interior of the passenger compartment… to determine the status of the occupants of the vehicle prior to the accident. In this manner, it can be ascertained whether the driver was falling asleep, talking on the phone …”).
For claim 7, Breed discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine at least one of the number of objects mounted on the mobile body, a weight of the object, a size of the object, a shape of the object, a value of the object, and a degree of shaking of the object (See at least Col. 21 lines 57 through Col. 22 line 4 of Breed – “… In FIG. 5, a generalized component 100 emitting several signals which are transmitted along a variety of paths, sensed by a variety of sensors and analyzed by the diagnostic device in accordance with the invention… Various sensors are mounted in the vehicle to detect the signals emitted by the component 100. These include one or more vibration sensors (accelerometers) 130, 150 and/or gyroscopes also mounted to the vehicle, one or more acoustic sensors 110, 151, electromagnetic radiation sensor 115, heat radiation sensor 120, and voltage or current sensor 140...”).
For claim 9, Breed fails to specifically disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify a radio network used for the communication between the mobile body and the external apparatus among a plurality of radio networks based on the acquired information.
However, Rajanna, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify a radio network used for the communication between the mobile body and the external apparatus among a plurality of radio networks based on the acquired information (See at least [0035] of Rajanna – “… In some embodiments, a wireless network used to enable communication between vehicle 400 and one or more of vehicle 404 and landmarks 406, 408, 410, 412, 414 may be determined based on the indication received via selectable option 122… the vehicle security application may automatically determine which alternative network is suitable for such communication… a selection of a network may be made at least in part based on user profile 112, which may indicate historical data concerning which external devices and/or networks were successfully employed in past instances of similar vehicles and/or in a similar geographic area to that of the driver occupant…”). Thus, Breed discloses a system that is used to monitor the status of occupants in a vehicle and establishes a communications channel between the vehicle and a remote facility to share monitoring information, while Rajanna teaches a system that uses radio frequency communication protocols between a vehicle and a remote server.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information processing apparatus, information processing method, and non-transitory computer readable medium as disclosed in Breed to include the feature of specifying a radio network used for the communication between the mobile body and the external apparatus among a plurality of radio networks based on the acquired information as taught by Rajanna, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to select a network that was successfully employed in a similar geographic area to that of the driver occupant as specified in at least [0035] of Rajanna.
For claim 10, Breed fails to specifically disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify a virtual network used for the communication between the mobile body and the external apparatus among a plurality of virtual networks based on the acquired information.
However, Rajanna, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify a virtual network used for the communication between the mobile body and the external apparatus among a plurality of virtual networks based on the acquired information (See at least [0035] of Rajanna – “… In some embodiments, a wireless network used to enable communication between vehicle 400 and one or more of vehicle 404 and landmarks 406, 408, 410, 412, 414 may be determined based on the indication received via selectable option 122… the vehicle security application may automatically determine which alternative network is suitable for such communication… a selection of a network may be made at least in part based on user profile 112, which may indicate historical data concerning which external devices and/or networks were successfully employed in past instances of similar vehicles and/or in a similar geographic area to that of the driver occupant…”). Thus, Breed discloses a system that is used to monitor the status of occupants in a vehicle and establishes a communications channel between the vehicle and a remote facility to share monitoring information, while Rajanna teaches a system that uses radio frequency communication protocols between a vehicle and a remote server.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information processing apparatus, information processing method, and non-transitory computer readable medium as disclosed in Breed to include the feature of specifying a virtual network used for the communication between the mobile body and the external apparatus among a plurality of virtual networks based on the acquired information as taught by Rajanna, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to select a network that was successfully employed in a similar geographic area to that of the driver occupant as specified in at least [0035] of Rajanna.
For claim 11, Breed discloses an information processing method (See at least the Abstract of Breed – “… Vehicular telematics system including an occupant sensing system for determining a property or characteristic of occupancy of the vehicle constituting information about the occupancy of the vehicle and a communications device coupled to the occupant sensing system for transmitting the information…”) comprising:
acquiring information indicating a state of at least one of a person riding in a mobile body and an object mounted on the mobile body (See at least Col. 15 lines 41-50 of Breed – “… One or more of the transducers 131, 132, 133 can also be image-receiving devices, such as cameras, which take images of the interior of the passenger compartment… to determine the status of the occupants of the vehicle…”); and
specifying communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus based on the acquired information (See at least Col. 15 lines 41-50 – “… One or more of the transducers 131, 132, 133 can also be image-receiving devices, such as cameras, which take images of the interior of the passenger compartment. These images can be transmitted to a remote facility to monitor the passenger compartment …” and Claim 1 of Breed – “… A vehicle, comprising… a communications device coupled to said occupant sensing system and arranged to automatically establish a communications channel between the vehicle and a remote facility … to thereby enable the information about the occupancy of the vehicle determined by said occupant sensing system to be transmitted to the remote facility… said communications device being arranged to transmit the images obtained by said image-obtaining sensor…”).
Breed fails to specifically disclose specifying radio communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus.
However, Rajanna, in the same field of endeavor teaches specifying radio communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus (See at least [0023] of Rajanna – “… Vehicle 100 may be configured to be connected to one or more wireless networks (e.g., a cellular network, a Wi-Fi network, a satellite network, short-range communication networks such as, for example, Bluetooth, NFC, RFID, any suitable RF communications protocol…”). Thus, Breed discloses a system that is used to monitor the status of occupants in a vehicle and establishes a communications channel between the vehicle and a remote facility to share monitoring information, while Rajanna teaches a system that uses radio frequency communication protocols between a vehicle and a remote server.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information processing apparatus, information processing method, and non-transitory computer readable medium as disclosed in Breed to include the feature of a radio communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus as taught by Rajanna, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to configure the vehicle to connect to one or more wireless networks as specified in at least [0023] of Rajanna.
For claim 12, Breed discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program (See at least Col. 13 lines 34-44 of Breed – “… The processor 101 may include electronic circuitry and associated, embedded software. Processor 101 constitutes one form of generating means in accordance with the invention which generates information about the occupancy of the passenger compartment based on the waves received by the transducers 131,132,133…”) for causing a computer to:
acquire information indicating a state of at least one of a person riding in a mobile body and an object mounted on the mobile body (See at least Col. 15 lines 41-50 of Breed – “… One or more of the transducers 131, 132, 133 can also be image-receiving devices, such as cameras, which take images of the interior of the passenger compartment… to determine the status of the occupants of the vehicle…”); and
specify communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus based on the acquired information (See at least Col. 15 lines 41-50 – “… One or more of the transducers 131, 132, 133 can also be image-receiving devices, such as cameras, which take images of the interior of the passenger compartment. These images can be transmitted to a remote facility to monitor the passenger compartment …” and Claim 1 of Breed – “… A vehicle, comprising… a communications device coupled to said occupant sensing system and arranged to automatically establish a communications channel between the vehicle and a remote facility … to thereby enable the information about the occupancy of the vehicle determined by said occupant sensing system to be transmitted to the remote facility… said communications device being arranged to transmit the images obtained by said image-obtaining sensor…”).
Breed fails to specifically disclose specify radio communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus.
However, Rajanna, in the same field of endeavor teaches specify radio communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus (See at least [0023] of Rajanna – “… Vehicle 100 may be configured to be connected to one or more wireless networks (e.g., a cellular network, a Wi-Fi network, a satellite network, short-range communication networks such as, for example, Bluetooth, NFC, RFID, any suitable RF communications protocol…”). Thus, Breed discloses a system that is used to monitor the status of occupants in a vehicle and establishes a communications channel between the vehicle and a remote facility to share monitoring information, while Rajanna teaches a system that uses radio frequency communication protocols between a vehicle and a remote server.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information processing apparatus, information processing method, and non-transitory computer readable medium as disclosed in Breed to include the feature of a radio communication means used for communication between the mobile body and an external apparatus as taught by Rajanna, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to configure the vehicle to connect to one or more wireless networks as specified in at least [0023] of Rajanna.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Rajanna, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biala et al. US 20220139209 A1 (“Biala”).
For claim 4, Breed fails to specifically disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to acquire an image of a route along which the mobile body moves captured by an image capturing apparatus installed in such a manner that it is able to capture the image.
However, Biala, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to acquire an image of a route along which the mobile body moves captured by an image capturing apparatus installed in such a manner that it is able to capture the image (See at least [0022] of Biala – “… the vehicle may further include: a vehicle body; a camera that is attached to the vehicle body and configured to capture image data of an environment along the route on which the vehicle is traveling…”). Thus, Breed discloses a system that is used to monitor the status of occupants in a vehicle and establishes a communications channel between the vehicle and a remote facility to share monitoring information, while Biala teaches a vehicle system that includes a camera to capture an image of a route along which the vehicle is travelling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information processing apparatus, information processing method, and non-transitory computer readable medium as disclosed in Breed to include the feature of acquiring an image of a route along which the mobile body moves captured by an image capturing apparatus as taught by Biala, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to transfer the captured image data to a remote server as specified in at least [0022] of Biala.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breed in view of Rajanna, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Breed et al. US 20040130442 A1 (“Breed ‘442”).
For claim 8, Breed fails to specifically disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to calculate a degree of stability of the mobile body based on the information indicating the state of at least one of the person riding in the mobile body and the object mounted on the mobile body, and specifies the radio communication means based on the calculated degree of stability.
However, Breed ‘442, in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to calculate a degree of stability of the mobile body based on the information indicating the state of at least one of the person riding in the mobile body and the object mounted on the mobile body, and specifies the radio communication means based on the calculated degree of stability (See at least [1292] of Breed ‘442 – “… The diagnosis of the state of the vehicle may encompass determining whether the vehicle is stable or is about to rollover or skid … In addition to the transmission of vehicle diagnostic information obtained by analysis of data from sensors performed on the vehicle, at least one property or characteristic of occupancy of the vehicle may be determined (such as the number of occupants, the status of the occupants-breathing or not, injured or not, etc.) and transmitted to a remote location, the same or a different remote location to which the diagnostic information is sent…”). Thus, Breed discloses a system that is used to monitor the status of occupants in a vehicle and establishes a communications channel between the vehicle and a remote facility to share monitoring information, while Breed ‘442 teaches a monitoring system for a vehicle that determines the stability of a vehicle and transmits diagnostic information and characteristics of occupancy of the vehicle to a remote location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information processing apparatus, information processing method, and non-transitory computer readable medium as disclosed in Breed to include the feature of calculating a degree of stability of the mobile body based on the information indicating the state of at least one of the person riding in the mobile body and the object mounted on the mobile body as taught by Breed ‘442, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to transmit the information to a remote location as specified in at least [1292] of Breed ‘442.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J HERRERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5271. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, FADEY JABR can be reached at (571)272-1516. 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.
/M.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights