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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-117762, filed on 07/25/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 01/02/2025 are presently examined.
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:
“a parameter calculation unit that calculates an air-conditioning control parameter” of which the parameter calculation unit is recited in claims 1, 5-6, and 11. Specification [0264] describes this unit as part of an air-conditioning control device, and therefore appears to be code or part of the software executed by the control unit.
“a communication unit that transmits the air-conditioning control parameter to a device” in claim 8. The communication unit is described in the specification [0018-0022] as a device capable of various wireless communication systems, networks, and technologies.
“a learning unit that updates the air-conditioning control model” in claim 12. FIG. 6 shows learning unit as part of cloud system 212. The learning unit is described in specification [0138] “The on-vehicle air-conditioning control unit 502 includes an air-conditioning control parameter calculation unit 521 and a learning unit 522” and therefore appears to be code or part of the software executed by the control unit.
“a stay information acquisition unit that acquires the stay information” in claim 16. FIG. 4 shows the stay information acquisition unit as part of control unit 314 or in FIG. 5 as part of smartphone 404. It is also described in [0133] “stay information acquisition unit 422 generates stay information associated with the user on the basis of the information stored in the storage unit 406, and transmits the generated stay information to the vehicle 1 via the communication unit 405” as well as [0170] “the stay information acquisition unit 353 requests the smartphone 211 to collect stay information associated with the user” and therefore appears to be code or part of the software executed by the control unit.
“an air-conditioning control unit that controls” in claims 13-15. It is described in [0129] on-vehicle air-conditioning control unit 404 is implemented by predetermined application software (hereinafter referred to as on-vehicle air-conditioning control APP) executed by a processor such as a CPU and [0249]-[0251]: FIG. 11 is a block diagram illustrating a hardware configuration example of a computer which executes the series of processes described above under a program.
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 § 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 20 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims under broadest reasonable interpretation are directed to a program only, absent contrary disclosure in the specification.
MPEP 2106.03 I recites at least “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;
Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave; and
Subject matter that the statute expressly prohibits from being patented, such as humans per se, which are excluded under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011).
“A program that causes a computer to execute: a process of … ” under broadest reasonable interpretation is interpretated as a computer program per se and as including transitory forms of signal transmission such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave.
As a non-limiting example, and depending on whether Applicant’s specification provides support, an example amendment to bring claim 20 into one of the four statutory categories could be “A non-transitory storage medium having a program stored thereon, when the program is executed by a computer, executes a process comprising: calculating an air-conditioning control parameter …”
Claims 1-12, 16-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-18 are directed to a device, (i.e. a machine). Claim 19 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1-19 are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Claim 20, as indicated above, is not within one of the four statutory categories. Because it recites similar limitations to that of claim 1, it will also be rejected for reciting an abstract idea without significantly more under the same rationale as claim 1.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 recites similar limitations as independent claims 19 and 20 and will be used as a representative claim.
Claim 1 is recited below and limitations that recite an abstract idea are emphasized in bolding below:
An air-conditioning control device comprising: a parameter calculation unit that calculates an air- conditioning control parameter associated with control of an air-conditioning system, on a basis of stay information that includes a place of stay of a user before the user moves to a space where the air-conditioning system is provided.
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The bolded limitations in the context of this claim encompasses a person mentally taking in information regarding a place of stay of a user before the user moves to a space where the air-conditioning is provided, and calculating an air-conditioning parameter associated with control of an air-conditioning system based on said stay information. Claims 1, 19, and 20 do not recite direct control of the air-conditioning system, only the calculation of a value based on information. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An air-conditioning control device comprising: a parameter calculation unit that calculates an air- conditioning control parameter associated with control of an air-conditioning system, on a basis of stay information that includes a place of stay of a user before the user moves to a space where the air-conditioning system is provided.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that these additional limitations merely use a computing device (processor, generic computer components) to perform otherwise mental judgements is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor or generic computer components to gather data and perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Dependent claims 2-12 and 16-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more.
Claim 13, however, recites direct control over the air-conditioning system itself. Examiner recommends Applicant amend the independent claims to include the limitation recited in dependent claim 13 to overcome the present 101 rejection. Claims 14-15 depend upon claim 13.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maki (JP 2019196035 A), hereinafter referred to as Maki.
Regarding claim 1, 19, and 20, Maki discloses An air-conditioning control device comprising: a parameter calculation unit that calculates an air-conditioning control parameter associated with control of an air-conditioning system ([0027] “air conditioning change calculation unit 65 that calculates an appropriate amount of change to the air conditioning settings”), on a basis of stay information that includes a place of stay of a user before the user moves to a space where the air-conditioning system is provided ([0027] “air conditioning ECU 60 functions as a position acquisition unit 61 that acquires the parking position of the vehicle 2. Furthermore, the air conditioning ECU 60 functions as a surrounding environment acquisition unit 62 that acquires surrounding environment information related to the vehicle 2's surrounding environment, such as outside temperature and solar radiation. Furthermore, the air conditioning ECU 60 functions as a personal information acquisition unit 63 that acquires information such as the activity level of the occupants after they disembark.” [see also 0045]).
Regarding claim 2, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 1, wherein the stay information further includes a time of stay of the user at the place of stay ([0053] “if the disembarking time is 1 hour and 30 minutes, the load will be the sum of the load correction values multiplied by 1.5.” [0061] “The load calculation unit 64 calculates the load amount by applying a correction so that the load amount increases as the parking time increases”).
Regarding claim 3, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 1, wherein the air-conditioning control parameter includes a setting value of the air-conditioning system ([0009] “Figure 3. This figure shows the load correction values according to the ambient temperature. This figure shows the corrected load values according to the amount of solar radiation. This figure shows the load correction values according to the type of weather. This figure shows the load correction values according to wind speed. This figure shows the corrected load values according to exercise intensity.”).
Regarding claim 4, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 3, wherein the air-conditioning control parameter further includes an execution time of a process for controlling the air-conditioning system, on a basis of the air-conditioning control parameter ([0068] “pre-air conditioning before boarding … pre-conditioning refers to air conditioning operation that starts before passengers board the vehicle, ensuring the interior is at an appropriate temperature.” Maki will air condition the cabin after the user(s) disembarked at some point in time before they re-board the vehicle. In order to get the cabin at an appropriate temperature before the users re-board, the air conditioning must be activated beforehand – hence the “pre-conditioning” – and it would be based on the environmental temperature and user’s exercise level and temperature.).
Regarding claim 5, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 1, wherein the parameter calculation unit estimates a body temperature of the user on the basis of the stay information ([0067] “The system may be equipped with thermal sensors to measure the body temperature of the crew members and correct the estimate of their activity levels … Therefore, it is easier to accurately estimate the air conditioning settings desired by the crew and adjust them appropriately”).
Regarding claim 6, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 5, wherein the parameter calculation unit calculates a setting value of the air-conditioning system on a basis of the estimated body temperature of the user ([0067] “The system may be equipped with thermal sensors to measure the body temperature of the crew members and correct the estimate of their activity levels. According to this method, even if a passenger engages in strenuous exercise after disembarking and then takes a sufficient rest before boarding, the amount of activity affecting the passenger at the time of boarding can be accurately estimated. Therefore, it is easier to accurately estimate the air conditioning settings desired by the crew and adjust them appropriately.” The air conditioning settings/load is determined based on the above sensed parameters.).
Regarding claim 7, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 5, wherein the air-conditioning control parameter includes the estimated body temperature of the user ([0067] “The system may be equipped with thermal sensors to measure the body temperature of the crew members and correct the estimate of their activity levels. According to this method, even if a passenger engages in strenuous exercise after disembarking and then takes a sufficient rest before boarding, the amount of activity affecting the passenger at the time of boarding can be accurately estimated. Therefore, it is easier to accurately estimate the air conditioning settings desired by the crew and adjust them appropriately.” The air conditioning settings/load is determined based on the above sensed parameters.).
Regarding claim 8, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 1, further comprising: a communication unit that transmits the air-conditioning control parameter to a device that controls the air-conditioning system ([0087] load calculation unit 64, air conditioning change calculation unit 65, air conditioning control unit 67, activity tracker 99 [0023] “the wireless communication unit 42 can also communicate with activity trackers 99” [0024] “outdoor activity area information stored in the memory unit 50 can be updated via communication using the wireless unit 40” [0034] “outside temperature, weather, and wind speed at the parking location may be obtained via the Internet through communication by the wireless communication unit 42.” [0058] “the air conditioning control unit 67 operates the air conditioning by increasing the amount of setting change from the air conditioning setting immediately before parking in the air conditioning unit 10, as the load amount calculated based on the location information and surrounding environment information increases.” Various inputs that provide an air-conditioning control parameter are communicated to the air conditioning control unit.).
Regarding claim 9, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to The air-conditioning control device according to wherein the device includes a moving body ([0005] “provide a vehicle air conditioning system that can estimate the air conditioning preferences of the occupants and adjust the air conditioning settings accordingly”).
Regarding claim 10, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 9, wherein the moving body includes a vehicle ([0005] “provide a vehicle air conditioning system that can estimate the air conditioning preferences of the occupants and adjust the air conditioning settings accordingly”).
Regarding claim 11, Maki fails to explicitly disclose The air-conditioning control device according to claim 1, wherein the parameter calculation unit calculates the air-conditioning control parameter by using an air-conditioning control model that calculates the air-conditioning control parameter ([0027] “the air conditioning ECU 60 functions as an air conditioning change calculation unit 65 that calculates an appropriate amount of change to the air conditioning settings according to the calculated load amount.” Model is a broad term, and calculating an output parameter based on input values comprises a relationship and is considered to be modelling the air-conditioning system.).
Regarding claim 12, Maki fails to explicitly disclose The air-conditioning control device according to claim 11, further comprising: a learning unit that updates the air-conditioning control model on the basis of setting details input to the air-conditioning system from the user in a case where the air- conditioning system is controlled on a basis of the air-conditioning control parameter ([0042] “If an occupant modifies the air conditioning settings while the settings have been changed, the system may be configured to learn the details of the occupant's change control. In other words, if the corrective action performed by the crew is to lower the airflow level, the relationship between the load and the airflow level is modified so that the amount of increase in the airflow level is reduced in relation to the change in the air conditioning settings according to the load. This allows for setting the airflow level adjustments based on subsequent loads to more closely match the occupants' preferences. Similarly, if any modifications are made to the target temperature, the relationship between load and temperature will be changed.”).
Regarding claim 13, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 1, further comprising: an air-conditioning control unit that controls the air-conditioning system on a basis of the air-conditioning control parameter ([0027] “the air conditioning ECU 60 functions as an air conditioning control unit 67 that controls the air conditioning unit 10 based on the air conditioning settings.”).
Regarding claim 14, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 13, wherein the air-conditioning control unit further controls an execution time of a process for controlling the air-conditioning system on the basis of the air-conditioning control parameter ([0068] “pre-air conditioning before boarding … pre-conditioning refers to air conditioning operation that starts before passengers board the vehicle, ensuring the interior is at an appropriate temperature.” Maki will air condition the cabin after the user(s) disembarked at some point in time before they re-board the vehicle. In order to get the cabin at an appropriate temperature before the users re-board, the air conditioning must be activated beforehand – hence the “pre-conditioning” – and it would be based on the environmental temperature and user’s exercise level and temperature.).
Regarding claim 15, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 14, wherein the air-conditioning control unit controls the execution time on a basis of a state of the user ([0068] “pre-air conditioning before boarding … pre-conditioning refers to air conditioning operation that starts before passengers board the vehicle, ensuring the interior is at an appropriate temperature … If the positive load is large, the target temperature set in advance for pre-conditioning will be changed to a lower value.” [0009] “This figure shows the corrected load values according to exercise intensity.” [0035] “Activity data includes, for example, exercise intensity and duration obtained from an activity tracker (99).” [0037] “Load refers to the thermal load felt by occupants due to activities performed after disembarking or weather conditions outside the vehicle. A large positive load suggests that the person is feeling hot as a result of activities after disembarking. In this state, it can be inferred that the system is seeking to lower the temperature inside the vehicle compared to normal conditions.” [0027] describes the target temperature and calculated degrees in temperature change according to all load parameters including user state.).
Regarding claim 16, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 1, further comprising: a stay information acquisition unit that acquires the stay information provided ([0027] “air conditioning ECU 60 functions as a position acquisition unit 61 that acquires the parking position of the vehicle 2. Furthermore, the air conditioning ECU 60 functions as a surrounding environment acquisition unit 62 that acquires surrounding environment information related to the vehicle 2's surrounding environment, such as outside temperature and solar radiation. Furthermore, the air conditioning ECU 60 functions as a personal information acquisition unit 63 that acquires information such as the activity level of the occupants after they disembark.” [see also 0045]).
Regarding claim 17, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 1, wherein the space includes an interior of a moving body ([0005] “provide a vehicle air conditioning system that can estimate the air conditioning preferences of the occupants and adjust the air conditioning settings accordingly”).
Regarding claim 18, Maki discloses The air-conditioning control device according to claim 17, wherein the moving body includes a vehicle ([0005] “provide a vehicle air conditioning system that can estimate the air conditioning preferences of the occupants and adjust the air conditioning settings accordingly”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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 on 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.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights