DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-8 have been examined in this application filed on or after March 16, 2013, and are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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. This communication is the First Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 24 October 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japanese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. An attempt by the Office to electronically receive, under the priority document exchange program, on 24 March 2025 has failed.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
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: information providing device in claims 1, 3-4 and 6, interpreted in view of Applicant disclosure as a physical server or cloud server.
MPEP § 2181, I. A. provides a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 4: Applicant claims
search for a charging station at which both a first moving object among a plurality of the moving objects and a second moving object among the plurality of moving objects are chargeable together, in a case where the destination of the first moving object matches the destination of the second moving object, the remaining battery level of the first moving object is equal to or less than the charging recommendation threshold for the first moving object, the remaining battery level of the second moving object is equal to or less than the charging recommendation threshold for the second moving object, and a distance between the current location of the first moving object and the current location of the second moving object is equal to or less than a predetermined distance;
These limitation is verbose and indefinite, failing to conform with US practice. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Any dependent claims that are dependent of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to:
1. An information providing system comprising:
terminal devices each of which is used by a user; (the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a terminal device includes well-known and well-understood general purpose computers)
an information providing device configured to communicate with the terminal devices; (the BRI includes a well-known and well-understood generic server system)
and one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, (processors and memory are well-known and well-understood computer structures.)
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the information providing device to:
set a group including a plurality of the users; (considered an abstract mental process performable by any generic general purpose computer processor or by one of ordinary skill, by hand.)
acquire information regarding movement of a moving object used by at least one of the users belonging to the group; (the BRI of this step includes mere data recall, a well-known and well-understood computer process.) and
provide the acquired information regarding the movement of the moving object, to the terminal devices used by the users belonging to the group. (the BRI of the providing includes well-known and well-understood computer-to-computer data communication processes.)
The Supreme Court has “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: [l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Inti, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In issues involving subject matter eligibility, our inquiry focuses on whether the claims satisfy the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 216—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). This framework considers, in the first step, whether the claim at issue is “directed to” one of those ineligible concepts. Id. If not, the claim satisfies § 101. Id. If the claim is “directed to” one of those ineligible concepts, we proceed to the second step, where we “consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79). The Supreme Court characterizes the second step as “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72—73) (alteration in original). “[Merely requiring] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 221.
On January 7, 2019, the PTO issued revised guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (hereinafter “2019 Guidance”). The 2019 Guidance includes steps 2A and 2B. Under Step 2A, Prong One, of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). If a claim recites a judicial exception, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two, in which we determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)—(c), (e)-(h)). Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate that exception into a practical application, do we proceed to Step 2B of the guidance. At Step 2B, we determine if the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or simply appends well understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See 2019 Guidance.
Applying Step 1 of the Alice Analysis, the claims are understood to be directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, and therefore we proceed to step 2A.
Applying Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice analysis, claim 1 is determined to be directed to an abstract idea (mental processes). Claim 1 is directed to a generic server computer that sets a group of a plurality of users of a plurality of generic computers in communication with said server, acquires information regarding a moving object, and provides the acquired information to the generic computers. Claim 1 does not claim any steps that are not well-known and well-understood computer process, and/or steps that cannot be performed mentally by one of ordinary skill in the art, but are merely performed on a generic computer, and therefore falls within the “mental processes” grouping. See 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Because we conclude that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applying Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice analysis, we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not “directed to” the judicial exception.
Apart from the well-known and well-understood computer process and steps that can be performed mentally by one of ordinary skill in the art, the only additional elements recited in claim 1 is terminal devices each of which is used by a user and an information providing device configured to communicate with the terminal devices, interpreted as generic computers performing these limitations. Claim 1 does not recite any limitation that even generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the language itself of claim 1 does not reflect an improvement in any particular technical field or technology. There is also no evidence that the claimed system recites an improvement to the functioning of the “computer system” itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Claim 1 also does not appear to use a judicial exception in conjunction with any particular machine. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Accordingly, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception, and we proceed to Step 2B.
Applying Step 2B of the Alice analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations are no more than a field of use or merely involve insignificant extrasolution activity. Therefore, viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Independent claim 6 is the information providing device of the system of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Independent claim 7 is the method performed by the system of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, as detailed above.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 8 have been evaluated in a similar manner, and do not appear to overcome these deficiencies. Therefore dependent claims 2-5 and 8 are rejected in the same or a similar manner as claims 1, 6 and 7, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramot et al. (US 20200104965 A1) herein “Ramot”, in view of Shoham et al. (US 20170365030 A1) herein “Shoham”.
In regards to Claim 1, Ramot 965 discloses the following:
1. An information providing system comprising:
terminal devices each of which is used by a user; (see at least Fig. 1 items 120, 130 and [0056] “one or more mobile communications devices 120A-120F (collectively referred to as mobile communications devices 120)” and “users 130A-130C”)
an information providing device configured to communicate with the terminal devices; (see at least Fig. 1 and [0056] “ridesharing management server 150” and [0059] “Network 140 may facilitate communications between user devices 120 and ridesharing management server 150”)
and one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory, (see at least Fig. 2, items 202, 204 and [0069] “Mobile communications device 200 includes a memory interface 202, one or more processors 204”, see also Fig. 3, items 150, 310, 320)
wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions (see at least [0078] “set of instructions”) to cause the information providing device to:
set a group including a plurality of the users; (see at least [0008] “receiving ride requests from a plurality of users, wherein each ride request includes a starting point and a desired destination within the geographic area; assigning an electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle to pick-up the plurality of users such that at least some of the users share their ride with at least one other passenger”, [0181] “software instruction for assigning an electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle to pick-up the plurality of users such that at least some of the users share their ride with at least one other passenger.”, see also Fig. 14B, step 1456 and [0226] “ridesharing management server 150 may assign a plurality of passengers to a specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle.”)
acquire information regarding movement of a moving object used by at least one of the users belonging to the group; (see at least [0089] “communications interface 360 may be configured to receive ride requests (e.g., from user devices 120A-120C) headed to differing destinations, and receive indications of the current locations of the ridesharing vehicles (e.g., from driver devices 120D and 120E or driving-control device 120F). In one example, communications interface 360 may be configured to continuously or periodically receive current vehicle location data for the plurality of ridesharing vehicles”, see also [0265], [0284], [0289] “current vehicle location data”) and
Ramot suggests the following:
provide the acquired information regarding the movement of the moving object, to the terminal devices used by the users belonging to the group. (see at least [0011] “wherein each ride request includes pick-up and drop-off location information” and [0052] “After sending a confirmation with the estimated pick-up time” and “The pick-up location may be a different location from the starting point included in the first ride request. The system may also guide the first user to the pick-up location.”, and [0053] “system may calculate a second estimated pick-up time, provide a second confirmation to the second rider, and guide the second rider to a second pick-up location”)
Ramot discloses that, upon accepting of a ride request (i.e. addition to the group, as claimed), the system may provide pick-up locations and pick-up times to a plurality of users. While one of ordinary skill may understand this to be suggestive of providing information regarding future movement of the vehicle to the user terminal devices, as claimed, it is admitted that Ramot does not explicitly disclose providing movement of the vehicle.
Therefore, for the sake of compact prosecution, this limitation of more explicitly taught by Shoham. (see at least Fig. 7, item 760, [0110] “FIG. 7 is a diagram of an example GUI displayed on a user device” and [0116] “Map section 760 may include a map indicating locations involved in the ride, such as the current location of the user and the vehicle”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Shoham with the invention of Ramot, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing systems and methods that provide efficient ridesharing management, enhanced flexibility and user experience, and optimal vehicle utilization. (Shoham, [0004])
In regards to Claim 2, Ramot discloses the following:
2. The information providing system according to claim 1, wherein
the moving object is an electric vehicle driven by electric power supplied from a battery, (see at least [0005] “electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle” and “current battery-charge data”) and
the information regarding the movement of the moving object includes at least one of a remaining battery level, a current location, a destination, an expected destination arrival time, a planned travel route, or presence or absence of an occupant. (see at least [0284] “vehicle battery charge data”, “current vehicle location data”, “details regarding a vehicle route”, “a number of passengers in each vehicle” and [0279] “estimated arrival time”)
See also Shoham (see at least Fig. 7, items 720, 760, [0110] “FIG. 7 is a diagram of an example GUI displayed on a user device” and [0116] “Map section 760 may include a map indicating locations involved in the ride, such as the current location of the user and the vehicle”) See claim 1 for motivation to combine the teachings of Shoham with the invention of Ramot.
In regards to Claim 3, Ramot discloses the following:
3. The information providing system according to claim 2, wherein
the one or more processors cause the information providing device to:
calculate a margin time based on a difference between the expected destination arrival time of a first moving object among a plurality of the moving objects and the expected destination arrival time of a second moving object among the plurality of moving objects, in a case where the destination of the first moving object matches the destination of the second moving object; and provide information indicating the margin time to at least either the terminal device used by the user who uses the first moving object or the terminal device used by the user who uses the second moving object. (see at least [0279] “wherein the multiple offers differ by… estimated arrival time”)
In regards to Claim 4, as best understood, Ramot discloses the following:
4. The information providing system according to claim 2, wherein
a charging recommendation threshold for recommending each of the users to charge the battery is set in advance, (see at least [0129] “directing an electric vehicle to a closest charging station when a battery-charge of the vehicle is below a threshold”, [0133] “The power sensor may also monitor the current battery charge level and transmit data when the charge level is less than a predetermined threshold level”, [0148] “additional passengers may be assigned on a threshold basis. . For example, when a current charge of the specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle is above a threshold, the specific vehicle may be assigned at least one additional passenger to the specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle and directed along a first route for transporting the at least one additional passenger before reaching the selected charging station.”) and
the one or more processors cause the information providing device to:
search for a charging station at which both a first moving object among a plurality of the moving objects and a second moving object among the plurality of moving objects are chargeable together, in a case where the destination of the first moving object matches the destination of the second moving object, the remaining battery level of the first moving object is equal to or less than the charging recommendation threshold for the first moving object, the remaining battery level of the second moving object is equal to or less than the charging recommendation threshold for the second moving object, and a distance between the current location of the first moving object and the current location of the second moving object is equal to or less than a predetermined distance; (see at least [0148] “additional passengers may be assigned on a threshold basis. . For example, when a current charge of the specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle is above a threshold, the specific vehicle may be assigned at least one additional passenger to the specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle and directed along a first route for transporting the at least one additional passenger before reaching the selected charging station.”)
and provide information regarding the charging station that has been searched, to the terminal device used by the user who uses the first moving object and the terminal device used by the user who uses the second moving object. (see at least [0011] “access a database of battery charging station information, including a plurality of battery charging station locations, and cause to be transmitted over a wireless network to the specific electrically powered vehicle, at least one second driving route that avoids pick up of additional ride-sharing passengers until the vehicle is empty of passengers, and thereafter directs the specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle to a charging station where the specific electrically-powered ridesharing vehicle is to be taken out of service for battery recharging.”)
In regards to Claim 5, Ramot discloses the following:
5. The information providing system according to claim 1, wherein
the terminal devices are mobile terminals carried by the users. (see at least Fig. 1 and [0056] “mobile communications devices 120”)
In regards to Claim 6: Claim 6 is the information providing device of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, above.
In regards to claim 7: Claim 7 is the method performed by the system of claim 1, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 1, above.
In regards to claim 8: Claim 8 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, (i.e. stored on the memory of claim 1), and is therefore rejected the same or similar to claim 1, above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
January 2, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669