DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 6/21/2024.
Claims 1-5 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: set point, set value and setting value.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “calculate a maximum usage amount of the second storage unit to be used in conjunction with execution of the new application” in lines 10-11 is unclear as whether the maximum usage amount is referring to the maximum storage that is utilized by the new application or maximum storage that is available or allowable for the new application to utilize. For examination purposes, the examiner considers that the limitation “calculate a maximum usage amount of the second storage unit to be used in conjunction with execution of the new application” as the maximum storage that is utilized by the new application when executing.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-5, these claims are also rejected for being dependent on the base claim 1 without curing the identified deficiency above.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “calculate a maximum usage amount of the second storage unit to be used in conjunction with execution of the new application” “when the calculated maximum usage amount is more than a set value determined in advance” and “when the calculated maximum usage amount is equal to or less than the set value” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception does not integrate into a practical application. The additional elements “A vehicle information processing device comprising” “an execution unit” “a first storage unit that stores an application that is executable by the execution unit” “and a second storage unit that temporarily stores data generated by the execution unit executing the application” and “erase the new application from the first storage unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. The additional element “render the new application executable without erasing the new application from the first storage unit” is also recited at a high level of generality and is at best equivalent to merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements “when a request to store a new application in the first storage unit is received, download the new application and store the new application in the first storage unit” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely storing data/information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A vehicle information processing device comprising” “an execution unit” “a first storage unit that stores an application that is executable by the execution unit” “and a second storage unit that temporarily stores data generated by the execution unit executing the application” and “erase the new application from the first storage unit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. For the additional elements “render the new application executable without erasing the new application from the first storage unit” is also recited at a high level of generality and is at best equivalent to merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. As for the additional element “when a request to store a new application in the first storage unit is received, download the new application and store the new application in the first storage unit” the courts have identified merely transmitting and displaying data/information is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, merely reciting an equivalent to applying the judicial exception, and merely storing data does not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
As for claim 2, the limitations “when applications stored in the first storage unit when the execution unit receives the request are defined as existing applications” “monitors a usage amount of the second storage unit during execution of the new application” and “when calculating the maximum usage amount for the new application” recites additional mental processes. Under Prong 2, the additional elements “the execution unit executes the new application” and “with execution of all the existing applications stopped” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer for applying the judicial exception which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B for the same reasons given for the rejection of claim 1.
As for claim 3, the limitation “when a usage amount of the second storage unit to be used in conjunction with concurrent execution of all the existing applications is defined as a maximum total usage amount, the set value is determined as a value obtained by subtracting the maximum total usage amount from a usable amount determined in advance” recites an additional mental process. Under Prong 2, the additional element “when the new application is rendered executable without erasing the new application from the first storage unit” is recited at a high level of generality, thus is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Under Prong 2, the additional elements “the first storage unit stores, for each of the existing applications, the maximum usage amount of the second storage unit to be used in conjunction with execution of the existing application” and “the execution unit stores the maximum usage amount for the new application in the first storage unit in correlation with the new application” recites additional insignificant extra solution activity of storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Under Step 2B, according to MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have identified storing data as well-understood, conventional, routine activity. Thus, the storing function recited in the claim amounts to merely storing data which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B.
As for claim 4 the limitations “when a level that indicates a priority of continuing execution of an application when the execution unit executes the application is defined as a priority level” “when the new application is rendered executable without erasing the new application from the first storage unit” and “when the total usage amount is larger than the usable amount” recite additional mental processes. Under Prong 2, the additional element “the execution unit is further configured to when a plurality of applications with different priority levels are executed concurrently” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components for applying the judicial exception which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B for the same reasons given for the rejection of claim 1. Under Prong 2, the additional element “stop execution of one or more applications with a lowest priority level, among the applications being executed” is recited at a high level of generality, thus is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B.
As for claim 5, the limitations “when a level that indicates a priority of continuing execution of an application when the execution unit executes the application is defined as a priority level, and when applications stored in the first storage unit when the execution unit receives the request are defined as existing applications” “when the new application is rendered executable without erasing the new application from the first storage unit” and “when the charging rate of the battery is equal to or less than a predetermined value determined in advance” recite additional mental processes. Under Prong 2 the additional element “when a plurality of applications with different priority levels are executed concurrently, stop execution of one or more applications with a lowest priority level, among the applications being executed” is recited at a high level of generality, thus is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B. Under Prong 2, the additional elements “the first storage unit stores the priority level for each of the existing applications” “the execution unit stores the priority level for the new application in the first storage unit in correlation with the new application” and “the execution unit is further configured to acquire a charging rate of a battery that supplies electric power to the vehicle information processing device” recites additional insignificant extra solution activity of storing and acquiring data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Under Step 2B, according to MPEP 2106.05(d), the courts have identified storing and retrieving data as well-understood, conventional, routine activity. Thus, the storing and acquiring functions recited in the claim amount to merely storing and retrieving data which is neither a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Accordingly, claims 1-5 are not patent eligible 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (US 2010/0122257 A1) hereinafter Wada in view of Niimura (US 2012/0233624 A1) hereinafter Niimura, Liu et al. (US 9,684,503 B2) hereinafter Liu and Harata et al. (US 2021/0255805 A1) hereinafter Harata .
Regarding claim 1, Wada discloses an information processing device comprising:
An execution unit; (e.g. Wada [0012] lines 4-6 and [0023]; an execution part/unit of a mobile terminal executes an application)
a first storage unit that stores an application that is executable by the execution unit; (e.g. Wada [0115] and [0039]; the execution part/unit executes an application which is stored in nonvolatile memory.
a second storage unit that temporarily stores data generated by the execution unit executing the application (e.g. Wada [0115] and [0036]; which explains that volatile/secondary memory/storage unit temporarily stores program or data while executing an application.
usage amount of the second storage unit to be used in conjunction with execution of the new application; (Note: ‘usage amount’ is interpreted as meaning the required usage of volatile memory for an executing application; e.g. Wada [0050] lines 2-6; which identifies the volatile memory (second storage) capacity/usage for executing the new application.
render the new application executable without erasing the new application from the first storage unit when the calculated usage amount is equal to or less than the set value. (Note: ‘usage amount’ is interpreted as meaning the required usage of volatile memory for an executing application. And ‘set value’ is interpreted as available volatile memory; e.g. Wada [0009] and [0100-0105]; A method displays/determines/calculates whether an application’s required memory usage amount exceeds a remaining capacity (set value) thereby checking the conditional statement – “more than a set value” or “equal to or less than the set value.”; if usage amount is more than a set value then another application is ended/terminated otherwise the usage amount is equal to or less than the remaining memory capacity and thus the new application is executed; due to the new application being executed it is necessary that the new application is not erased from the nonvolatile/first storage.)
Wada does not disclose:
when a request to store a new application in the first storage unit is received, download the new application and store the new application in the first storage unit;
calculate a maximum usage amount of the second storage unit to be used in conjunction with execution of the new application
erase the new application from the first storage unit when the calculated maximum usage amount is more than a set value determined in advance
However, Niimura discloses:
calculate a maximum usage amount of the second storage unit to be used in conjunction with execution of the new application (Note: ‘maximum usage amount’ is interpreted as meaning the maximum required usage of volatile memory during an application’s execution; e.g. Niimura [0035] lines 1-2, [0040] lines 3-5; FIG. 4 shows application information requirements where “Line 22 indicates the maximum amount of memory required by the subject application (maximum memory usage).” The specifics for the part of the interpretation of “maximum usage amount” as volatile memory usage during an application’s execution are explained above in Wada.
when the calculated maximum usage amount is more than a set value determined in advance (e.g. Niimura [0028] lines 1-5, [0043] lines 9-12 and [0044] lines 1-4; which states termination of a process when its calculated memory usage (maximum usage amount) exceeds a predetermined, control condition known as the ‘upper threshold’ (set value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile terminal of Wada to incorporate the teachings of Niimura by including “calculate a maximum usage amount of the second storage unit to be used in conjunction with execution of the new application; when the calculated maximum usage amount is more than a set value determined in advance ” to enable the monitoring and control of processes in which multiple applications programs are running based on memory usage (Niimura [0007]).
However, Liu discloses:
erase the new application from the first storage unit (e.g. Liu column 4 lines 27-29 ; which states uninstalling (erasing from nonvolatile/first storage) applications based on internal storage usage rate (maximum usage rate) where internal storage may be random-access/second storage; the specifics of “new application” is described above in Wada; the specifics of maximum usage rate being more than a set value is described above in Niimura.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile terminal of Wada to incorporate the teachings of Liu by including erase the new application from the first storage unit to enable power saving by uninstalling particular applications (operation) given the remaining power level and internal storage usage rate (operational state) (e.g. Liu column 2 lines 49-53, 66-67 column 3 lines 1-8).
However, Harata discloses:
when a request to store a new application in the first storage unit is received, download the new application and store the new application in the first storage unit; (e.g. Harata [0286] lines 13-16 and [0305] lines 3-5; download request for a package (application) where data communication module’s (DCM) nonvolatile, flash memory (first storage unit) stores downloaded package/application.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mobile terminal of Wada to incorporate the teachings of Harata by including “when a request to store a new application in the first storage unit is received, download the new application and store the new application in the first storage unit; and erase the new application from the first storage unit” to enable management of the execution order/priority of a plurality of concurrently executing processes/applications/updates/rewrites (Harata [0319] lines 1-7).
As to claim 2, Wada discloses:
when applications stored in the first storage unit when the execution unit receives the request are defined as existing applications (e.g. Wada [0012] lines 2-4; which shows assignment of priorities viewed as defining existing applications. The specifics of “applications stored in the first storage” and “when the execution unit receives a request” are described in Wada of claim 1 above.)
with execution of all the existing applications stopped (e.g. Wada [0013] lines 6-11; which describes termination of applications being executed when a new application is requested to be executed. The specifics of “all the existing applications” are described in Wada of the previous limitation.)
Wada does not disclose:
the execution unit executes the new application and monitors a usage amount of the second storage unit during execution of the new application when calculating the maximum usage amount for the new application
However, Niimura discloses:
the execution unit executes the new application and monitors a usage amount of the second storage unit during execution of the new application when calculating the maximum usage amount for the new application. (Note: ‘usage amount’ is interpreted as meaning the required usage of volatile memory for an executing application; e.g. Niimura [0028] lines 1-2, [0039] lines 5-7 and [0040] lines 3-5; which shows usage amount monitoring of a process (executing application), during which control targets/applications are selected based on memory usage of the process such as the observed/calculated ‘maximum memory usage.’ The specifics of usage amount with respect to “the second storage unit” is described above in Wada of claim 1.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile terminal of Wada to incorporate the teachings of Niimura by including “the execution unit executes the new application and monitors a usage amount of the second storage unit during execution of the new application when calculating the maximum usage amount for the new application” to enable the monitor and control of processes in which multiple applications programs are running based on memory usage (Niimura [0007]).
As to claim 3, Wada discloses:
when the new application is rendered executable without erasing the new application from the first storage unit (The specifics of this limitation are described in Wada of claim 1 above.)
the second storage unit to be used in conjunction with execution of the existing application; (e.g. Wada [0043] lines 1-4; which shows the volatile/second storage used by the interrupted/executing/existing applications should not exceed the maximum capacity of the volatile/secondary memory/storage.)
when a usage amount of the second storage unit to be used in conjunction with concurrent execution of all the existing applications is defined as a maximum total usage amount (Note: ‘usage amount’ is interpreted as meaning the required usage of volatile memory for an executing application; e.g. Wada [0043] lines 1-4; which shows the total of the memory/usage capacities/amounts of volatile memory of concurrent applications being executed. The specifics of “all existing applications” is described in claim 2 above.)
the set value is determined as a value obtained by subtracting the maximum total usage amount from a usable amount determined in advance; (Note: ‘usable amount’ is interpreted as the maximum storage capacity of volatile/secondary storage. And ‘set value’ is interpreted as available volatile memory; e.g. Wada [0043] lines 6-9 and [0037] lines 1-2; which shows remaining memory capacity (set value) is determined by subtracting the total volatile memory capacities, required by all currently executing applications, from the maximum memory capacity (usable amount) of volatile memory; additionally, the maximum memory capacity is said to be predetermined (determined in advance).)
Wada does not disclose:
the first storage unit stores, for each of the existing applications, the maximum usage amount
and the execution unit stores the maximum usage amount for the new application in the first storage unit in correlation with the new application
However, Niimura discloses:
the first storage unit stores, for each of the existing applications, the maximum usage amount (e.g. Niimura [0025] lines 5-9, 16-18, [0035] lines 1-2 and [0040] lines 3-5; which shows an application management unit (stored in HDD/first storage) storing a file for each application, which includes a respective maximum memory/usage.)
and the execution unit stores the maximum usage amount for the new application in the first storage unit in correlation with the new application (The specifics of the limitation with respect to “…for the new application…” is described in the limitation above as the maximum memory/usage of a new application is included when storing the maximum memory/usage of each/all applications.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile terminal of Wada to incorporate the teachings of Niimura by including the first storage unit stores, for each of the existing applications, the maximum usage amount; and the execution unit stores the maximum usage amount for the new application in the first storage unit in correlation with the new application to enable the monitor and control of processes in which multiple applications programs are running based on memory usage (Niimura [0007]).
As to claim 4, Wada discloses:
when a level that indicates a priority of continuing execution of an application when the execution unit executes the application is defined as a priority level (e.g. Wada [0045] lines 1-6; which explains ‘priority order information’ which is the ‘order of priority’ during execution of applications. This information is used to determine whether an executing application terminates.)
the first storage unit stores the priority level for each of the existing applications; (e.g. Wada [0035] the nonvolatile/first storage stores the ‘priority order information’ when executing applications.)
the execution unit stores the priority level for the new application in the first storage unit in correlation with the new application when the new application is rendered executable without erasing the new application from the first storage unit; (e.g. Wada [0039], [0051] lines 1-6; which shows when a user executes a new application (“operation part”) a new ‘priority order information’ is be stored in nonvolatile/first storage; the specifics of “when the new application rendered executable without erasing the new application from the first storage unit” is described in Wada of claim 1.)
and the execution unit is further configured to when a plurality of applications with different priority levels are executed concurrently (e.g. Wada [0014] lines 9-11; which shows executing a set of applications and termination of the lowest priority application where ‘lowest’ indicates “different priority levels” among the executing applications.)
and when the total usage amount is larger than the usable amount, stop execution of one or more applications with a lowest priority level, among the applications being executed. Note: ‘total usage amount’ is interpreted as total amount of memory usage required by all currently executing applications and the newly executed application. And ‘usable amount’ is interpreted as the maximum memory capacity of the volatile/secondary storage. (e.g. Wada [0043] lines 5-12 and [0045] lines 3-6; which shows total memory capacities/usages for executing applications must not exceed maximum memory capacity of the volatile memory (usable amount). The remaining memory capacity is calculated by subtracting the memory capacities of all executing applications from the usable amount. Subsequently a conditional check of if memory usage of the new application is greater than the remaining capacity. This amounts to determining “when the total usage amount is larger than the usable amount.” In the case of a true outcome, “any of the applications interrupted or being executed is ended.” The lowest priority application is terminated, among executing applications being interrupted.)
acquire a total usage amount of the second storage unit for a plurality of applications being executed (The specifics of this limitation are described in the previous limitation.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada, Niimura, Liu and Harata, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Joshi et al. (US 2020/0169107 A1) hereinafter Joshi and Sasidharan et al. (US 2015/0153810 A1) hereinafter Sasidharan.
Regarding claim 5, Wada discloses:
and when applications stored in the first storage unit when the execution unit receives the request are defined as existing applications (e.g. Wada [0012] lines 2-4; which shows assignment of priorities viewed as defining existing applications. The specifics of “applications stored in the first storage” and “when the execution unit receives a request” are described in Wada of claim 1 above.)
when a plurality of applications with different priority levels are executed concurrently, stop execution of one or more applications with a lowest priority level, among the applications being executed (e.g. Wada [0014] lines 9-11; which shows executing a plurality of applications and termination of the lowest priority application where ‘lowest’ indicates “different priority levels” among the executing applications.)
when a level that indicates a priority of continuing execution of an application when the execution unit executes the application is defined as a priority level (e.g. Wada [0045] lines 1-6; which explains ‘priority order information’ which is the ‘order of priority’ during execution of applications. This information is used to determine whether an executing application terminates.)
the first storage unit stores the priority level for each of the existing applications; (e.g. Wada [0035]; the nonvolatile/first storage stores “the order of priority” when executing applications.
the execution unit stores the priority level for the new application in the first storage unit in correlation with the new application when the new application is rendered executable without erasing the new application from the first storage unit; (e.g. Wada [0039], [0051] lines 1-6; which shows when a user executes a new application (“operation part”) a new ‘priority order information’ is be stored in nonvolatile/first storage; the specifics of “when the new application rendered executable without erasing the new application from the first storage unit” is described in Wada of claim 1.)
Wada does not disclose:
acquire a charging rate of a battery that supplies electric power to the vehicle information processing device
when the charging rate of the battery is equal to or less than a predetermined value determined in advance
However, Harata discloses:
a battery that supplies electric power to the vehicle information processing device (e.g. Harata [0290] lines 12-14 and [0309] lines 1-6; which shows that the battery supplies power to the ECU/processing device included in the vehicle’s master device.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile terminal of Wada to incorporate the teachings of Harata by including a battery that supplies electric power to the vehicle information processing device to enable routing power directly from the battery to continue the installation process (Harata [0402] lines 16-17).
However, Joshi discloses:
acquire a charging rate of a battery (e.g. Joshi [0030] lines 3-4, [0141] and [0143] lines 1-4; which states determining/acquiring a battery charge rate in order to determine which applications to regulate/stop, particularly those “that are increasing temperature of the battery.” The specifics of the battery supplying power to the processing device are described in Harata above.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile terminal of Wada to incorporate the teachings of Joshi by including “acquire a charging rate of a battery” to enable the ability to “stop operations of particular applications that are increasing the temperature of the battery…” (Joshi [0143] lines 1-3).
However, Sasidharan discloses:
when the charging rate of the battery is equal to or less than a predetermined value determined in advance (e.g. Sasidharan [0032] lines 7-13, and [0033] lines 15-19; which states when a battery charge level is less than a identified/predetermined threshold (proportion of full battery charge), a low-priority application is terminated. The specifics of acquiring charging rate of the battery are described above in Joshi; more specifics of terminating low-priority apps are discussed in Wada above.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mobile terminal of Wada to incorporate the teachings of Sasidharan by including “when the charging rate of the battery is equal to or less than a predetermined value determined in advance” to dynamically monitor/manage mobile-device battery usage remotely across a networked organization (Sasidharan [0032] lines 1-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE A UPADHYAYA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0864. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 830am-430pm.
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, CHAT DO can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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.
/J.A.U./ Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights