DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1-2, 5, 9-10, 13, and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 3, 11, and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-23 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the
references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as
the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is
reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the
language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant's definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 18 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are either directed to a system, a method, or a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified system claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“A system, comprising: a computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions; and one or more computer processors configured to execute the instructions to provide control in relation to operations of an on-demand vehicle fleet comprising at least a plurality of electric vehicles (EVs), wherein the on-demand vehicle fleet receives requests for at least some trips that are unscheduled, the instructions to: receive EV information relating to EVs in the fleet; receive trip demand information comprising demand information for unscheduled trips; receive or generate prediction information relating to a predicted amount of energy required for an EV to complete a specific trip; assess whether the EV has sufficient energy to complete the trip based on state of charge information (SOC) of the EV; provide control in relation to operations of the on-demand vehicle fleet, wherein the providing control comprises: generating control information based on the EV information and the trip demand information, wherein the control information comprises EV charging schedule information comprising an indication of one or more specific EVs to perform charging during a given time interval; generating in response to an assessment that the EV does not have sufficient energy, an indication in the control information not authorizing the EV to perform the trip, and generating, in response to an assessment that the EV has sufficient energy, an indication in the control information authorizing the EV to perform the trip; and transmitting the control information for use by computing devices associated with respective EVs of the one or more specific EVs for use in controlling of the one or more specific EVs.”
Examiner note: Independent claim 1 above includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bold) and additional elements.
The limitations of receiving EV information, receiving or generating prediction information, assessing whether the EV has sufficient energy, and generating indications in response to the assessment, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more computer processors configured to execute instructions”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind. The step of receiving or generating prediction information encompasses a person using available information to identify an amount of charge required for the impromptu trip. For example, a person is provided with information indicating that a requested trip is 90 miles, the known range of the EV is 100 miles on 100% charge, the person can mentally identify that the EV should be fully charged to make the trip. The step of assessing encompasses a person comparing a required trip SOC to a current SOC of one or more of the EVs. The step of generating control information encompasses a person identifying which EVs need to be charged and when. The step of generating in response to an assessment encompasses a person comparing a current SOC of an EV to the required trip SOC, if the current SOC is greater than the required trip SOC then determining yes this EV can be used and if the current SOC is less than the required trip SOC then determining no this EV cannot be used. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Step2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are
not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words "apply it"
(or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP
2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP
2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
In particular, the claims recite additional elements of a computer-readable storage medium with instructions and one or more processors to perform the recited steps. The one or more processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The limitations of receiving EV information, receiving trip demand information, receiving prediction information are all recited at a high level of generality and are considered insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering. The limitations of transmitting the control information for using controlling the one or more specific EVs is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic transmission of information). As an additional element, this would be considered well-understood, routine, and conventional. According to the specification (see for example paragraph [0097]), “for use in controlling the one or more specific EVs” encompasses the information being presented to a user via a display, speaker, or the like. This is considered insignificant extra-solution activity, since this is a generic means for presenting information to a person (i.e., generic output via a generic display or generic speaker). 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 idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an "inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using at least one processor to execute the instructions amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the examiner submits that the additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The limitation of transmitting the control information is considered well understood, routine, and conventional activity because the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. See 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).
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Thus claim 1 (and similarly claims 9 and 17) is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2, 4-8, 10, 12-16, 18, and 20-23 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claims 2, 10, 18, and 21 further define the control information which is part of the mental process. A person can select a charger or area to charge a vehicle based on the level of charge of a vehicle.
Claims 4, 12, and 20 further recite setting a lower SOC and indicating when the SOC of the EV is below the lower SOC. This can be performed in the human mind by selecting a lower SOC and comparing the EV SOC to the lower SOC to determine if the vehicle needs to be charged.
Claims 5, 13, and 22 further recite receiving feedback and generating future control information based on the feedback. Receiving information (feedback information) is considered insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering. A person can use that information and generate future control information. This can be performed in the human mind by, for example, suggesting a different charging station when a driver ignores a suggestion for a certain charging station.
Claims 6, 14, and 23 recite that the control information includes an area where the EV is recommended to await a future trip. A person can mentally decide and suggest where to wait.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the details of the trip demand information that is received.
Claims 8 and 16 recite performing receding horizon optimization which is claim at a high level of generality and under broadest reasonable interpretation is considered a mathematical process. This mathematical process can be performed by a person with the aid of pen and paper or even the aid of a calculator.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12, 14-18, 20-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (p2Charging: Proactive Partial Charging for Electric Taxi Systems, a copy of which was provided with the IDS received on 1/17/2025 and is being relied upon) in view of Kumar (US 2024/0027199 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yuan discloses a system, comprising: a computer-readable storage medium having executable instructions; and one or more computer processors configured to execute the instructions to provide control in relation to operations of an on-demand vehicle fleet comprising at least a plurality of electric vehicles (EVs), wherein the on-demand vehicle fleet receives requests for at least some trips that are unscheduled (see at least pages 688 and 690 – Fig. 5 shows the charging framework including taxi dispatch and charging scheduler), the instructions to: receive EV information relating to EVs in the fleet (see at least page 690 – taxi mobility and status); receive trip demand information comprising demand information for the unscheduled trips (see at least page 690 – passenger demand); and provide control in relation to operations of the on-demand vehicle fleet, wherein the providing control comprises: generating control information based on the EV information and the trip demand information, wherein the control information comprises EV charging schedule information comprising an indication of one or more specific EVs to perform charging during a given time interval; and transmitting the control information for use by computing devices associated with respective EVs of the one or more specific EVs for use in controlling of the one or more specific EVs (see at least page 690 – In p2Charging, taxi scheduler periodically updates the status of current working e-taxis, e.g., location, remaining energy and occupancy status, according to the uploaded e-taxis' status and then schedules when, where and how long to charge them to meet spatiotemporal passenger demand. E-taxis follow the charging decisions obtained from the taxi scheduler to charge their battery. The taxi scheduler uses both passenger demand and taxi supply model and charging supply/demand model to make scheduling decisions.).
Yuan does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions are further to: receive or generate prediction information relating to a predicted amount of energy required for an EV to complete a specific trip; assess whether the EV has sufficient energy to complete the trip based on SOC information of the EV; and generate in response to an assessment that the EV does not have sufficient energy, an indication in the control information not authorizing the EV to perform the trip, and generate, in response to an assessment that the EV has sufficient energy, an indication in the control information authorizing the EV to perform the trip.
Kumar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the instructions are further to: receive or generate prediction information relating to a predicted amount of energy required for an EV to complete a specific trip (see at least [0136-0140] - evaluate a travel distance required for the EV if assigned the new delivery… the travel distance may then be used to calculate an energy metric associated with estimated energy expenditure for the EV to pickup the new delivery); assess whether the EV has sufficient energy to complete the trip based on SOC information of the EV (see at least [0136-0140] – determine if the charge level of the EV is sufficient); and generate in response to an assessment that the EV does not have sufficient energy, an indication in the control information not authorizing the EV to perform the trip, and generate, in response to an assessment that the EV has sufficient energy, an indication in the control information authorizing the EV to perform the trip (see at least [0103] - The dynamic scheduling may receive feedback associated with the charge levels of the first and second EVs and determine that the first EV has insufficient charge to complete its current deliveries and the new delivery while the second EV has sufficient charge to complete its current deliveries and the new delivery. Under these circumstances the new delivery may be assigned to the second EV since the first EV has an insufficient charge level to accommodate all assigned deliveries and the new delivery.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Kumar into the invention of Yuan with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to dynamically optimize scheduling, reduce energy expenditure, and increase sustainability for a fleet of EVs (Kumar – [0026, 0133]).
Regarding claim 2, Yuan discloses wherein the control information comprises, in relation to an EV of the one or more specific EVs to perform charging during the given time interval, at least one of: an identification of a charger to use for the charging; and an identification of a geographic area in which the EV of the one or more specific EVs is to perform charging (see at least pages 690-691 - schedules when, where and how long to charge to meet spatiotemporal passenger demand… location of the charging stations).
Regarding claim 4, Yuan does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions are further to set a lower state of charge (SOC) threshold based on the trip demand information, and wherein the generating control information comprises generating an indication of an EV to perform charging on the basis that a SOC of the EV is below the lower state of charge (SOC) threshold.
Kumar, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the instructions are further to set a lower state of charge (SOC) threshold based on the trip demand information, and wherein the generating control information comprises generating an indication of an EV to perform charging on the basis that a SOC of the EV is below the lower state of charge (SOC) threshold (see at least [0136-0140] - The dynamic scheduling may then determine whether current charge level of the EV is sufficient to accommodate the energy metric and complete its existing deliveries. If the energy metric is too large (i.e., the EV does not have sufficient charge level to complete its existing deliveries and the new delivery), the dynamic scheduling may determine whether a charging station is proximate the location of the EV, the new delivery, or both and may determine whether to assign the new delivery to the EV based on availability of a charging station or lack thereof.).
The motivation to combine Yuan and Kumar is the same as in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Yuan discloses wherein the control information comprises an identification of a geographic area in which an EV is recommended to await a future trip (see at least pages 688 and 694-695 - we propose a charging scheduling framework for e-taxis to meet dynamic passenger demand in spatial-temporal dimensions as much as possible while minimizing idle time to travel to charging stations and waiting time at charging stations… select the e-taxi and charging station pair with the minimum idle driving time and waiting time).
Regarding claim 7, Yuan discloses wherein the trip demand information includes trip demand prediction information relating to predicted trip demand (see at least page 688 - Our solution utilizes predicted passenger demand and estimated waiting time at charging stations to find the global optimal charging decisions.).
Regarding claim 8, Yuan discloses wherein the generating control information comprises performing a receding horizon optimization for an optimization horizon having a plurality of time intervals, wherein the given time interval of the indication is associated with one of the plurality of time intervals (see at least pages 689, 691-692, and 694 - To address this problem, we design a receding horizon based scheduling algorithm that utilizes predicted passenger demand and waiting time at charging stations to find the global optimal charging schedules for all e-taxis.).
Regarding claims 9-10, 12, 14-18, 20-21, and 23, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 1-2, 4, and 6-8, and it has been determined that claims 9-10, 12, 14-18, 20-21, and 23 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claims 1-2, 4, and 6-8; therefore, claims 9-10, 12, 14-18, 20-21, and 23 are also rejected over the same rationale as claims 1-2, 4, and 6-8.
Claims 5, 13, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan in view of Kumar and Montealegre (US 2005/0102098 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yuan does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions are further to: receive feedback information associated with one or more EVs in the fleet in response to prior control information transmitted in association with the one or more EVs in the fleet, the feedback information comprising an indication of a level of compliance with the prior control information, and wherein the generating control information for a future time period is performed based on the feedback information.
Montealegre, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following limitations: wherein the instructions are further to: receive feedback information associated with one or more EVs in the fleet in response to prior control information transmitted in association with the one or more EVs in the fleet, the feedback information comprising an indication of a level of compliance with the prior control information, and wherein the generating control information for a future time period is performed based on the feedback information (see at least [0050] - After the driver of the vehicle ignores the route calculated by the route calculation module 204 a predetermined number of times, the AI module 210 sets the calculated route to that particular destination to the preferred route used by the driver.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Montealegre into the invention of Yuan with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation of doing so is to prevent frustrating the driver by taking into account driver habits and preferences, and to learn new roads or correcting mistakes in the stored map (Montealegre - [0010-0011]). Montealegre demonstrates that the concept of identifying driver compliance with a suggestion and modifying a future suggestion is considered to be obvious and advantageous. Applying Montealegre’s teachings to Yuan’s invention is applying a known technique to a known system which is ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 13 and 22, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 5, and it has been determined that claims 13 and 22 do not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in claim 5; therefore, claims 13 and 22 are also rejected over the same rationale as claim 5.
Response to Arguments
In light of the amendments to the claims, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn. However, a new claim objection is presented above, necessitated by the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 filed 6/4/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-15 filed 6/4/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kumar fails to teach or suggest at least the newly amended limitation of the independent claims. (1) Applicant argues that Kumar selects or reassigns EVs, and does not authorize or prohibit a trip. Kumar’s determination is not an authorization decision that directly controls whether the trip is permitted. Kumar does not generate control information not authorizing all other EVs which are the non-assigned EVs, to perform the trip. There would be no reason to generate control information not authorizing all other EVs, which are the non-assigned EVs, to perform the trip. (2) Applicant argues that Kumar’s assignment relies an additional considerations such as charging-station availability, confirming that the determination of sufficiency in Kumar is not an authorization decision that directly controls whether the trip is permitted.
In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., prohibit a trip, an authorization decision that directly controls whether the trip is permitted, not authorizing all other EVs which are the non-assigned EVs to perform the trip) are not specifically recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim does not recite “prohibiting”, the claim recites “generating… an indication in the control information not authorizing”. First it is noted that the claim recites “an indication” which is very broad and may be interpreted as any data or information that correlates to the EV not being authorized or conveys that the EV is not authorized. Second, although Applicant points to “prohibiting” as generating an indication not authorizing, this is only one specific embodiment or interpretation of several presented in the specification. Paragraph [0091] of the Applicant’s specification reads “If the EV is assessed to not have sufficient energy, then the system may, for example, not authorize or prohibit the EV from accepting or performing the trip, or may warn the EV that it does not have sufficient energy to complete the trip, or assign the EV to another potential trip that would require less energy.” According to the specification and Applicant’s arguments, prohibiting the EV is one specific embodiment or interpretation of “not authorizing”, but there are other embodiments and interpretations of the argued limitation. Thus, when read in light of the specification, generating an indication in the control information not authorizing the EV to perform the trip encompasses various indications, such as indicating to the EV that it needs to charge or assigning it the EV to another trip. Therefore the examiner maintains that Kumar reads on these limitations in at least paragraphs [0103, 0136-0140]. If Applicant intends for the claim to be restricted to the interpretation of explicitly prohibiting a trip of all non-authorized EVs, an authorization decision that directly controls whether the trip is permitted, or not authorizing all other EVs which are the non-assigned EVs to perform the trip, Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims to recite these specific features. However, the current claims do not recite these features.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that Kumar does not read on the claim limitation because Kumar’s assignment relies an additional considerations such as charging-station availability, these arguments are not considered to be persuasive. Nothing in the claim precludes taking into account other considerations. The claim does not require always authorizing the trip to be performed when an EV has sufficient energy and never authorizing the trip when an EV does not have sufficient energy. This is much more specific than what is currently claimed. Other considerations may be made, for example when multiple EVs have sufficient charge when no EVs have sufficient charge, when there are time constraints, when certain EVs need maintenance, etc.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 15-24 filed 6/4/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (3) Applicant argues that the claims do not recite concepts that can be performed in the human mind because there is no recited observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion. (4) Applicant argues that “receive EV information… receive trip demand information… receive or generate prediction information…” are clearly and plainly data acquisition operations and optionally prediction generation operations. (5) Applicant argues that “provide control… transmitting the control information… for use in controlling of the one or more specific EVs” are transmitting control information and cannot be performed in the human mind. (6) Applicant argues that the additional elements reflect an improvement in the field of computer-based control of EVs. (7) Applicant argues that the features of claim 1 have not been shown to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity with the required forms of support.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims do not recite concepts that can be performed in the human mind. The limitations of assessing and generating are considered to be evaluations, judgements, or opinions.
The examiner agrees that “receiving” is considered data gathering. This is an additional element which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
The limitation of “provide control” is evaluated based on how it is further defined in the claim. The claim recites that providing control comprises (a) generating control information, (b) generating an indication in the control information, and (c) transmitting the control information. The generating steps are considered evaluations or judgements to form an opinion or determination. A person can use their knowledge to form an opinion or make a determination. The step of transmitting is evaluated as an additional element. The examiner does not evaluate the transmitting step as a step that can be performed in the human mind.
The claims are not directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate rather than an abstract idea implemented on a computer. While the claim limitations certainly purport to optimize the process of scheduling a fleet of EVs, the optimization comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the claimed system or method itself.
Support has been further clarified above. The courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner. See 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).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLIN MCCLEARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/CAITLIN R MCCLEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights