Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-14 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, the independent claims recite:
determine an order on a basis of a loading/unloading time for each of a plurality of vehicles, the order being an order of going around a plurality of buildings each including one or more loading/unloading working areas, and the loading/unloading time being calculated on a basis of an allocated stock among stocks of goods stored in the plurality of buildings, and assign one or more vehicles selected from the plurality of vehicles on a basis of the order to each of one or more target periods during which loading/unloading work is performed in each of the one or more loading/unloading working areas.
The determine and assign steps are mental processes. These steps include observations and evaluations that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper. Further, the determine and assign steps are certain methods of organizing human activity as they relate to commercial interactions. The nominal recitation of an apparatus in claim 1; computer execution in claim 13 and computer program instruction execution in claim 14 does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors in claim 1; computer execution by an information processing apparatus in claim 13 and computer program instruction execution in claim 14 merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite additional abstract ideas and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In dependent claim 2, the allocate…, calculate…, determine…, extract…, calculate…, and assign… steps are mental processes. These steps include observations and evaluations that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper. Further, the steps are certain methods of organizing human activity as they relate to commercial interactions. The information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. In dependent claim 3, the calculate… step is mental processes. This calculating step is an evaluation that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper. Further, the calculate step is certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to commercial interactions. The information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. In dependent claims 4-7, the determine step is mental processes. This determine step is an evaluation that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper. Further, the determine step is certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to commercial interactions. The information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. In dependent claim 8, the extract… step is mental processes. This extract step amounts to selecting a candidate based on conditions and is an evaluation that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper. Further, the extract step is certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to commercial interactions. The information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. In dependent claims 9-10, the calculate… step is mental processes. This calculate step is an evaluation that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper. Further, the calculate step is certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to commercial interactions. The information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. In dependent claims 11-12, the determine…, and assign… steps are mental processes. These steps are evaluations that one could practically perform in the mind or by using pen and paper. Further, the steps are certain methods of organizing human activity as it relates to commercial interactions. The information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors in claim 11 and the information processing apparatus including an order determination unit and an assignment unit in claim 12 merely amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does 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, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “order determination unit” and the “assignment unit” in claim 12.
Examiner is interpreting the hardware structure of both the “order determination unit” and the “assignment unit” of claim 12 as being computer hardware, as recited in paragraph [0043] of the specification. The corresponding algorithm for the order determination unit is recited in paragraphs [0086-0090]. The corresponding algorithm for the assignment unit is recited in [0122-0136].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 establishes that one or more vehicles is assigned. Claims 2 and 8 recite “extract one or more candidates of the vehicle assigned” and “extract the candidates from the plurality of vehicles”. This limitation is unclear. Is the assignment chosen from vehicle candidates? Does the vehicle include candidates? What are the candidates? It is unclear how one would extract candidates from a vehicle assigned. Clarification is requested. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets the claim language to recite a selection process to choose a vehicle based on the order.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Masche-Pakkala et al, US 2022/0164765.
As per claim 1, Masche-Pakkala et al discloses an information processing apparatus comprising one or more hardware processors [0073-0074] configured to: determine an order on a basis of a loading/unloading time for each of a plurality of vehicles, the order being an order of going around a plurality of buildings each including one or more loading/unloading working areas, and the loading/unloading time being calculated on a basis of an allocated stock among stocks of goods stored in the plurality of buildings ([0023-0027, 0035-0040] – logistics planning system that generates an optimal route for trucks to deliver items from inventory locations and includes a process of determining the time required to load and unload a vehicle), and
assign one or more vehicles selected from the plurality of vehicles on a basis of the order to each of one or more target periods during which loading/unloading work is performed in each of the one or more loading/unloading working areas ([0023-0027, 0035-0040; 0056] – logistics planning system that includes a routing module to determine which warehouses are allocated to which trucks and how the vehicles should move to pick up and delivery the different products and the routes that the vehicles should follow based on the load times).
As per claim 4, Masche-Pakkala et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the goods of a same type are stored in the plurality of the buildings in a distributed manner, the one or more hardware processors determine the building to which the stock is allocated and a quantity of the allocated stock on a basis of a priority determined for each of the plurality of buildings ([0027-0030] – considers amount at each location and cost optimization based on stock at warehouses).
As per claim 5, Masche- Pakkala et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors determine the order on a basis of an ascending order of the loading/unloading time, a descending order of the loading/unloading time, or a priority determined for each of the plurality of buildings ([0036 and 0048] – determines how the vehicles should move to pick up and deliver different products and the routes the vehicles should follow and higher priority material that is needed from a location can be used to modify logistics plans).
As per claim 12, Masche- Pakkala et al discloses an assignment unit that assign vehicle to each target period and an assignment unit that assigns one or more of the vehicles to each of the one or more targe periods ([0074-0081] – computer processor units; and [0023-0027, 0035-0040] – logistics planning system that includes a process of determining the time required to load and unload a vehicle and a routing module to determine how the vehicles should move to pick up and delivery the different products and the routes that the vehicles should follow to meet deadlines).
As per claim 13, Masche-Pakkala et al discloses determine an order on a basis of a loading/unloading time for each of a plurality of vehicles, the order being an order of going around a plurality of buildings each including one or more loading/unloading working areas, and the loading/unloading time being calculated on a basis of an allocated stock among stocks of goods stored in the plurality of buildings ([0023-0027, 0035-0040] – logistics planning system that generates an optimal route for trucks to deliver items from inventory locations and includes a process of determining the time required to load and unload a vehicle), and
assign one or more vehicles selected from the plurality of vehicles on a basis of the order to each of one or more target periods during which loading/unloading work is performed in each of the one or more loading/unloading working areas ([0023-0027, 0035-0040; 0056] – logistics planning system that includes a routing module to determine which warehouses are allocated to which trucks and how the vehicles should move to pick up and delivery the different products and the routes that the vehicles should follow based on the load times).
As per claim 14, Masche-Pakkala et al discloses a computer program product having a non-transitory computer readable medium including programmed instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute [0075-0076]: determining an order on a basis of a loading/unloading time for each of a plurality of vehicles, the order being an order of going around a plurality of buildings each including one or more loading/unloading working areas, and the loading/unloading time being calculated on a basis of an allocated stock among stocks of goods stored in the plurality of buildings ([0023-0027, 0035-0040] – logistics planning system that generates an optimal route for trucks to deliver items from inventory locations and includes a process of determining the time required to load and unload a vehicle), and
assigning one or more vehicles selected from the plurality of vehicles on a basis of the order to each of one or more target periods during which loading/unloading work is performed in each of the one or more loading/unloading working areas ([0023-0027, 0035-0040; 0056] – logistics planning system that includes a routing module to determine which warehouses are allocated to which trucks and how the vehicles should move to pick up and delivery the different products and the routes that the vehicles should follow based on the load times).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masche-Pakkala et al, US 2022/0164765, in view of Reczek et al, US 2023/0120374.
As per claim 2, Masche-Pakkala et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors allocate to each of the plurality of vehicles a stock of goods stored in the plurality of the buildings ([0035] – determines an optimized process to pack each product into each vehicle),
calculate the loading/unloading time at the plurality of buildings on a basis of the allocated stock and predetermined efficiency of the loading/unloading work ([0027 and 0035] – load time prediction model calculates amount of time needed to load a particular product into a particular type of truck),
determine the order for each of the plurality of the vehicles on the basis of the loading/unloading time, the order being the order of going around the plurality of buildings for the loading/unloading work of the stock allocated to the vehicle ([0035-0036] – routing module combined with bin packing algorithm determines a route that considers time required to load and unload),
Masche-Pakkala et al does not explicitly disclose while Reczek et al discloses extract one or more candidates of the vehicle assigned to the one or more of target periods, from the plurality of vehicles on a basis of the order ([0022-0024 – carrier optimization model that chooses a carrier for a transport request),
calculate an evaluation value for assignment to the target periods for each of the one or more candidates ([0022-0023] – score and weight factors for the carrier optimization), and
assign one or more vehicles to each of the one or more target periods, the one or more vehicles being selected from the one or more candidates on a basis of the evaluation value ([0022-0024] – carrier optimization considering completion before a certain date/time or within a period of time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Masche-Pakkala et al the ability to compare and assign vehicles as taught by Reczek et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 3, Masche- Pakkala et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or more hardware processors calculate the loading/unloading time on a basis of the allocated stock and the efficiency in accordance with a storage state of the allocated stock ([0027] – loading/unloading time calculation considers amount of inventory and time needed for a particular product).
As per claim 8, the combination of Masche- Pakkala et al and Reczek et al discloses extract one or more candidates of the vehicle as in claim 2 and further Masche-Pakkala et al discloses on a basis of a docking condition determined per loading/unloading working area and the order, the docking condition including at least one of a condition of a size of the vehicles, a warehousing in/out condition indicating which one of incoming and outgoing is performed, and a condition indicating the vehicle for which the loading/unloading work is permitted ([0023 and 0027] – truck size is considered for optimal routing) .
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masche-Pakkala et al, US 2022/0164765, in view of Pevzner et al, US 2020/0134557.
As per claim 6, Masche-Pakkala et al fails to explicitly disclose, while Pevzner et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors determine the order so as to smooth a degree of congestion of each of the plurality of buildings calculated using the loading/unloading time ([0039-0040 – a freight router and cargo planner that generates and balances the flow of freight transport considering cost of idle trucks sitting in congested terminals). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Masche-Pakkala et al the ability to smooth congestion as taught by Pevzner et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 7, Masche-Pakkala et al discloses determine the order using priority for each of the plurality of buildings ([0036 and 0048] – determines how the vehicles should move to pick up and deliver different products and the routes the vehicles should follow and higher priority material that is needed from a location can be used to modify logistics plans) but fails to explicitly disclose, while Pevzner et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the one or more hardware processors determine the order so as to smooth the degree of congestion ([0039-0040 – a freight router and cargo planner that generates and balances the flow of freight transport considering cost of idle trucks sitting in congested terminals). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Masche-Pakkala et al the ability to smooth congestion as taught by Pevzner et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masche-Pakkala et al, US 2022/0164765, and Reczek et al, in view of Fawcett et al, US 2002/0161509.
As per claim 9, the combination of Masche-Pakkala et al and Reczek et al disclose calculate the evaluation value but fails to explicitly teach calculate the evaluation value on a basis of at least one of a date and time at which the vehicle enters an area in which the plurality of the buildings are located, and a date and time at which the vehicle exits the area in which the plurality of the buildings are located. Fawcett et al discloses a logistics system that considers time each carrier arrives and time the carrier exits the warehouse [0009]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system the ability to consider arrival and leave times as Fawcett et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 10, the combination of Masche-Pakkala et al and Reczek et al disclose calculate the evaluation value but fails to explicitly teach calculation on a basis of a difference between a date and time at which the vehicle exits an area in which the plurality of buildings are located, and a date and time at which the vehicle is scheduled to exit the area in which the plurality of buildings are located. Fawcett et al discloses a logistics system that considers time each carrier arrives and time the carrier exits the warehouse [0009]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system the ability to consider arrival and leave times as Fawcett et al since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masche-Pakkala et al, US 2022/0164765, in view of Mains Jr. et al, US 20210334736.
As per claim 11, Masche- Pakkala et al discloses assign vehicle to each target period ([0023-0027, 0035-0040] – logistics planning system that includes a process of determining the time required to load and unload a vehicle and a routing module to determine how the vehicles should move to pick up and delivery the different products and the routes that the vehicles should follow to meet deadlines), but fails to explicitly disclose, while Mains Jr. et al discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more hardware processors determine the one or more target periods on a basis of a time during which each of the one or more loading/unloading working areas is available ([0058-0060] – considers dock availability data to schedule carriers).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent art is included in the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625