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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 13, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated May 14, 2026. In the RCE submitted on July 13, 2025, claims amending claims 1-2, 10, and 12-18. Therefore, claims 1-10 and 12-20 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 9-14 of the RCE, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive or are moot in view of the amended claims.
On Pages 11-12 the RCE, in discussing Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant argues “he amended claims are not directed to a judicial exception. They do not recite managing relationships, commercial interactions, legal obligations, or human behavior rules. Instead, they recite a specific, rule-based data processing algorithm implemented entirely by a computer.”
Examiner agrees that the claims do not recite the above grouping of abstract ideas. However, the amended claims now recite a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). That the claims are “implemented entirely by a computer” does not take the claim out of the grouping of a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) (“A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process).
On Page 12 of the RCE, Applicant further argues “The claims have been amended to align with the types of inventions held patent eligible in Enfish, McRO, and USPTO Example 40. In Enfish, a self-referential table improved computer functionality by providing a new data structure. In McRO, rule-based processing generated structured, machine-readable outputs that improved computer processing. USPTO Example 40 likewise recognizes that rule-generated structured data formats that reduce processing complexity constitute improvements to computer functionality. The amended claims recite the same type of improvement: rule-based extraction of address components, classification of components as identifiers or non-identifiers, application of delimiter control rules, and construction of a structured and unambiguous address representation suitable for machine processing. These operations improve the computer's ability to process address data and are not directed to organizing human activity. As MPEP 2106.05(a) explains, claims directed to specific improvements in computer functionality (including improvements implemented through particular data structures or specific rules for processing data) are not abstract at Step 2A.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes, “rule-based extraction of address components, classification of components as identifiers or non-identifiers, application of delimiter control rules, and construction of a structured and unambiguous address representation” are limitations that reflect the abstract idea. That the address representation is “suitable for machine processing” and the computer is able to process address data, merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Examiner further notes that in Enfish it was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. Here, nothing in the claims or specification recites a “a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts”. Rather, as described in Paras. [0006]-[0007], the problem is that a delivery person classifies delivery products according to shipping addresses in each process from ‘delivery release’ to ‘delivery completion’ when the products are finally delivered to recipients. In this classification process, the delivery persons identify the shipping addresses of the delivery products by checking the waybills, but there was a problem that it was difficult to identify the shipping addresses of the delivery products through the waybills because there was a lot of information written on the waybills. Para. [0014] explains that the disclosure generates a simplified shipping address from a shipping address and generates output data that allows a delivery person to easily confirm the generated simplified shipping address. Thus, nothing in the claims or specification discloses memory in combination with the specific data structure, such that claims recite a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.
Examiner further notes, in McRO, the court held that claims to automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation, a process producing an intangible result (a sequence of synchronized, animated characters), were eligible because it improved an existing technological process. Here no such similar limitations are recited, such an improvement to an existing technological process occurs, such that the claims do not recite an abstract idea.
Lastly, Examiner notes eligible claim 1 of Example 40 recites the combination of additional elements of collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, and collecting additional Netflow protocol data relating to the network traffic when the collected network delay, packet loss, or jitter is greater than the predefined threshold. The method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. No such combination of additional elements is recited in the claims, such that there is an improved network monitoring. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 12-13 of the RCE, Applicant further argues that the “claims recite specific component extraction rules, specific identifier classification rules, specific delimiter control rules, and specific construction of a structured address representation. These are not ‘apply it’ instructions; they are concrete, technical operations. The specification explains that the system constructs simplified address forms by combining extracted components ‘in the order of the initial letter of the road name, the serial number, and the building number’ (par. 0107) and by applying delimiter control rules such as ‘when numbers, which are different types of identifiers, are arranged in a row, a delimiter different from the delimiter used in {circle around (1)} is added between the identifier’ (par.0085). These rules produce a structured, machine-usable representation that the computer can compare directly against stored address data. The practical application is the generation of a deterministic, rule-driven address structure, and the technical improvement is the elimination of ambiguous text interpretation in favor of predictable, field-based comparison, which the machine can evaluate in constant time, reducing misclassification, eliminating branch-heavy guess logic, and enabling faster, more reliable address matching operations across large datasets.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the “component extraction rules, specific identifier classification rules, specific delimiter control rules, and specific construction of a structured address representation” recite the abstract idea. That is, the “construct[ing] simplified address forms by combining extracted components ‘in the order of the initial letter of the road name, the serial number, and the building number’ (par. 0107) and by applying delimiter control rules such as ‘when numbers, which are different types of identifiers, are arranged in a row, a delimiter different from the delimiter used in {circle around (1)} is added between the identifier’” and “generation of a deterministic, rule-driven address structure” reflects the abstract idea of a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Examiner further notes “elimination of ambiguous text interpretation” (as explained in Para. [0007] of the specification, is from the delivery persons identify the shipping addresses of the delivery products by checking the waybills) by using a “machine” amount to apply it. Applicant argues that the “machine can evaluate in constant time, reducing misclassification, eliminating branch-heavy guess logic, and enabling faster, more reliable address matching operations across large datasets.” However, where, accelerating a process of analyzing data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not an improvement in the computer functionality (See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Thus, Applicant’s argumetns are not found persuasive.
On Page 13 of the RCE, Applicant argues “Under Step 2B, the amended claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The specification teaches non-routine extraction rules: continuous numeric characters "determined as one character" (par. 0072) and alphabetic/alphanumeric sequences separated into components. It teaches non-conventional identifier semantics: identifiers including "the 'combination of road name and building number', 'combination of administrative Dong name or administrative Ri name and a land-lot number', and 'combination of building name and building specific information"' (par. 0073) and non-identifiers including "'ro, gil, technotown, apartment, knowledge industry center"' (par 0075). It teaches non-generic delimiter control logic: "identifiers extracted from each of the road name, serial number, and branch road name are treated as a single set and thus delimiters are not added" and "a delimiter different from the delimiter used in {circle around (1)} is added between the identifiers" (par. 0082-0085). These rules resolve data boundary ambiguity and enable deterministic machine comparison rather than heuristic text interpretation. The construction of the structured address representation is itself an inventive concept: a rule-generated, machine-usable structure that is shorter, unambiguous, and optimized for automated comparison. The computer no longer performs fuzzy or context-dependent interpretation of raw address strings; it operates on a deterministic, rule-generated data structure. These limitations constitute an inventive concept under Step 2B.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes “non-routine extraction rules”, “non-conventional identifier semantics”, “non-generic delimiter control logic”, and “operates on a deterministic, rule-generated data structure” all reflect the abstract idea. That the claims resolve data boundary ambiguity and enable deterministic comparison rather than heuristic text interpretation, using a “machine” merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 13-14 of the RCE, Applicant further argues “the independent claims now recite that the data processing unit is configured to train a generation model using training data derived from previously generated minimum unit or simplified shipping addresses. This limitation was added in response to the Examiner's suggestion during the interview and is supported by the originally filed specification, which teaches that "the server... may construct training data and train a generation model to enhance a generation model that generates the simplified shipping address" (par. 0044). The training model limitation is consistent with the disclosure and reflects an implementation detail that may be used to refine the structured address generation process. The technical improvement and practical application described in the Step 2A and Step 2B analyses arise from the specific rule-based extraction, identifier classification, delimiter control logic, and construction of a structured and unambiguous address representation. The inventive concept is found in the deterministic, rule-driven data processing operations recited in the claims. The eligibility analysis does not depend on machine learning functionality.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above. No “technical improvement” is recited as “specific rule-based extraction, identifier classification, delimiter control logic, and construction of a structured and unambiguous address” and “deterministic, rule-driven data processing operations” represents the abstract idea. Examiner further notes the high-level recitation of “training a generation model using training data” merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
On Page 14 of the RCE, Applicant lastly notes “certain passages in the specification describe human-centered motivations for the invention. These statements reflect background context and do not limit the claimed invention. The specification's discussion of human-benefiting objectives does not restrict the scope of the claims nor convert a technical invention into a method of organizing human activity. See In re Hiniker Co.; In re Van Geuns. The amended claims recite only machine-executed, rule-based data processing operations.”
Examiner notes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explicitly states “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification.” Therefore, as stated above, in light of the specification, Examiner notes that eth claim limitations recite an abstract idea of a mental process.
Applicant’s Remarks on Page 14 of the RCE, regarding the previous claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been fully considered and found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
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 1-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-10, and 12-14 recite a server (i.e., a machine), claims 15-17 recite a terminal (i.e., a machine), and claims 18-20 recite method (i.e., a process). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1 recite the functions of generating a structured shipping address representation for machine representation comprising: extracting address components from a shipping address of shipping data by treating continuous numeric characters as a single component and separating alphabetic and alphanumeric sequences into respective components, thereby generating a set of components representing minimum units of the shipping address, wherein the components include at least one character included in an identifier of the shipping address; classifying each of the components as an identifier or a non-identifier based on rule-based criteria and apply delimiter-control rules to the classified components, using training data derived from previously generated minimum unit or simplified shipping addresses, provided that the delimiter is not added between identifiers respectively extracted from a road name and a serial number, or from a road name, a serial number, and a branch street name; and wherein, when numbers that are different types of identifiers are arranged consecutively, and adding a different delimiter from the delimiter used between non-numeric identifiers to resolve a data boundary ambiguity between the consecutive numeric identifiers; and constructing, based on the classified components and the delimiter-control rules, a structured and an unambiguous address representation that is shorter than the original shipping address and facilitates comparison with stored address data.
Claim 15 recites functions of generating a structured shipping address representation for machine representation comprising: extracting address components from a shipping address of shipping data by treating continuous numeric characters as a single component and separating alphabetic and alphanumeric sequences into respective components, wherein the components include at least one character included in an identifier of the shipping address; classifying each of the components as an identifier or a non-identifier based on rule-based criteria and apply delimiter-control rules to the classified components, using training data derived from previously generated minimum unit or simplified shipping addresses, provided that the delimiter is not added between identifiers respectively extracted from a road name and a serial number, or from a road name, a serial number, and a branch street name; wherein, when numbers that are different types of identifiers are arranged consecutively, and adding a different delimiter from the delimiter used between non-numeric identifiers to resolve a data boundary ambiguity between the consecutive numeric identifiers; and constructing, based on the classified components and the delimiter-control rules, a structured and an unambiguous address representation that is shorter than the original shipping address and facilitates comparison with stored address data.
Claim 18 recites functions of generating a structured shipping address representation for machine representation comprising: extracting address components from a shipping address of shipping data by treating continuous numeric characters as a single component and separating alphabetic and alphanumeric sequences into respective components; classifying each of the components as an identifier or a non-identifier based on rule-based criteria; wherein the components include at least one character included in an identifier of the shipping address; using training data derived from previously generated minimum unit or simplified shipping addresses, applying delimiter-control rules to the classified components to generate the structured address representation, the delimited-control rules specifying omitting a delimiter between identifiers respectively extracted from a road name and a serial number, or from a road name, a serial number, and a branch street name, to minimize the length of the structured address representation; wherein, when numbers that are different types of identifiers are arranged consecutively, and adding a different delimiter from the delimiter used between non-numeric identifiers to resolve a data boundary ambiguity between the consecutive numeric identifiers; and constructing, based on the classified components and the delimiter-control rules, a structured and an unambiguous address representation that is shorter than the original shipping address, and using the structured address representation to facilitate comparison with stored address data.
The claims as a whole recite a mental process. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification, recite the abstract idea of a mental process (e.g., including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 15 and 18 as a whole amount to: “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims recite the additional elements of: (i) a server comprising: a data processing unit (claim 1), (ii) a terminal comprising: a data processing unit (claim 15), (iii) program code stored in a computer-readable recording medium (claim 18), and (iv) that the using of training data, is by training a generation model (claims 1, 15, and 18).
The additional elements listed above, are recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, they each amount to no more than merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 15, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in claims 1, 15 and 18 amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements discussed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 15, and 18 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, and 17 further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 15 respectively, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-6, 8-10, and 17 are also ineligible.
Claim 7 recites when there is no building name in the shipping address, matching the shipping address to a building name storage to acquire the building name corresponding to the shipping address - which narrows the previously recited abstract idea. The additional element unencompassed by the abstract idea includes a building name database. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 12 recites generating output data comprising the structured address representation for address processing or storage operations – which further narrows the previously recited abstract idea. The additional element unencompassed by the abstract idea includes that the data itself is machine-readable and is for automated processing. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 13 further recite details of the output data, which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 12, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is also ineligible.
Claim 14 recites generating the output data in a format for ingestion by downstream address-processing modules – which further narrows the previously recited abstract idea. The additional element unencompassed by the abstract idea includes that the data itself is machine-readable and is for automated ingestion. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 16 recites generating modified data by allowing a user to modify at least one of the displayed simplified shipping address and a generation model of the simplified shipping address - which narrows the previously recited abstract idea. The additional element unencompassed by the abstract idea includes a data processing unit (that performs the generating). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 19 recites transmitting the output data and printing the output data - which narrows the previously recited abstract idea. The additional element unencompassed by the abstract idea includes a printing device and printing the output data through the printing device.The additional element listed above, is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, claim 19 does not recite any additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong, the additional element amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element discussed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20 recites transmitting the output data to a delivery person and displaying the output data through the delivery person - which narrows the previously recited abstract idea. The additional element unencompassed by the abstract idea includes a delivery person terminal.
The additional element listed above, is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, claim 20 does not recite any additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong, the additional element amounts to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element discussed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is ineligible.
Allowable over the Prior Art
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are allowable over the prior art because the prior art fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the independent claims in combination. The closet prior art includes:
WO 2020141777 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”). Kim discloses that the destination address abbreviating unit 120 extracts feature points from the destination address and sets the abbreviated address of the package based on the feature points. The abbreviated address is a brief summary of the destination address so that the courier can easily check the destination address from the waybill attached to the package.
KR 20050047776A to Koh et al. (hereinafter “Koh”). Koh discloses extracting an address corresponding to the address code and checking whether the corresponding address is a predetermined duplicate address with reference to the duplicate address information.
KR 20010063574A to Hae (hereinafter “Hae”). Hae discloses (X) ID name (X) can be divided into separate items, that is, separately separated using the DATA delimiters, and that Symbolic Numeric Character Combination (TXT) 20 is a symbol or word which is a combination of one or more special symbols, numbers, alphabets, and Korean foreign language characters except for special symbols already used as data delimiters (1) and (2).
U.S. Patent No. 12,651,290 to Lefebvre et al. (hereinafter “Lefebvrer”). Lefebvre discloses an address validation system that which performs an informed search that considers more than mere exact matches.
Kim, Koh, Hae, Lefebvre and the other previously cited references fail to teach or suggest, “extracting address components from a shipping address of shipping data by treating continuous numeric characters as a single component and separating alphabetic and alphanumeric sequences into respective components …classifying each of the components as an identifier or a non-identifier based on rule-based criteria and apply delimiter-control rules to the classified components… provided that the delimiter is not added between identifiers respectively extracted from a road name and a serial number, or from a road name, a serial number, and a branch street name… wherein, when numbers that are different types of identifiers are arranged consecutively…. adding a different delimiter from the delimiter used between non-numeric identifiers to resolve a data boundary ambiguity between the consecutive numeric identifier… and…constructing, based on the classified components and the delimiter-control rules, a structured and an unambiguous address representation that is shorter than the original shipping address and facilitates comparison with stored address data” as recited in claim 1 (and similarly in claims 15 and 18) in combination with the other limitations in the independent claim.
Prior Art
The following is prior art not cited but considered relevant:
“Old and New System” by Living in Korea, dated June, 2020 (hereinafter “Living in Korea”). Living in Korea discloses two separate address systems existing in Korea. The older system, sometimes translated as the land-lot number address resembles that used in North Korea and Japan. It is ordered from largest to smallest units and based on dividing by city and neighborhood. Sometimes called the road name address, the new system resembles addresses in North America and Europe as it is based on street names.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on (571) 272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights