DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/979,599 was filed on December 13, 2024 and claims the priority benefit of Taiwan application serial no. 113115348, filed on April 25, 2024.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 were amended in the reply filed January 8, 2026. Claims 2 and 8 were cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 14, 2026 filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation:
Applicant's amendments overcome the invocation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and it is withdrawn.
Objections:
Applicant's amendments overcome the objection made to claim 1-6 and it is withdrawn.
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, that the “additional step of controlling a movement of an assigned vehicle based on an updated driving route and a moving sequence determined by an instruction” cannot be performed in the human mind (Remarks p. 7-8). Examiner Respectfully disagrees and clarifies that the step of “generating a control signal to control a movement of the assigned vehicle” is analyzed as an additional element under Step 2A – Prong 2, whereas the question of whether a claim recites an abstract idea is addressed in Step 2A – Prong 1. The presence of additional elements in a claim does not negate the recitation of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)). As such, the claims do recite an abstract idea, both as certain methods of organizing human activity and a mental process, as described in more detail in the 101 rejection below. Examiner notes that “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental process” are two distinct categories of abstract idea, so a claim can recite “certain methods of organizing human activity” regardless of whether or not it recites a “mental process” (and vice versa) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention provides practical application by “control[ing] the assigned vehicle based on the optimal driving route” and providing “a technical effect that is able to provide efficient and low-carbon options for the logistics industry in case of multi-point transportation” (Remarks p. 8). Examiner Respectfully disagrees. The claims recite “generating a control signal to control a movement of the assigned vehicle based on the updated driving route and the moving sequence via a transmission module” (emphasis added). Generating a control signal to control a vehicle is not the same as applying the control signal to actually move/drive the vehicle. Furthermore, controlling the movement of the assigned vehicle is described at a very high level of detail in Applicant’s specification (see paragraph [0033]) and the specification describes the invention as being applicable to a wide range of vehicle types, most of which are not necessarily “unmanned” (see paragraph [0021]). As such, the claims do not meaningfully limit the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
With respect to Applicant’s argument regarding the “technical effect that is able to provide efficient and low-carbon options for the logistics industry in case of multi-point transportation”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner interprets a “technical effect” to refer to an improvement to other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). Providing efficient and low-carbon options is an improvement to the abstract idea of optimizing and assigning routes to vehicles. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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, 3-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1 and 7 recite, calculating a driving route from a first destination to a second destination based on at least one of a vehicle type, a minimum driving distance, and a minimum driving time,
update the driving route based on a third destination added by a destination adding instruction, and change a moving sequence of the first destination, the second destination, and the third destination according to a setting of the destination adding instruction;
and calculating a total carbon emission of each candidate vehicle from a location thereof to an end of the updated driving route based on the updated driving route, the moving sequence, carbon emission coefficients of the plurality of candidate vehicles, and the locations thereof,
selecting one of the candidate vehicles as an assigned vehicle for driving the driving route based on the total carbon emission of each of the candidate vehicles.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, optimizing and assigning routes to vehicles is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities. Examiner particularly notes paragraphs [0032-0033], which describe receiving an order from a customer and assigning a vehicle to a driving route “to carry customers or goods”.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to optimize a route, update a route based on a third destination, calculate a total carbon emission, and assign a route to a vehicle can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 7 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1 and 7 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a processor (claim 1) a carbon emission management system (claims 1 and 7) and a transmission module (claims 1 and 7). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, claims 1 and 7 recite the additional elements of a control signal to control a movement of the assigned vehicle. This additional element is described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., autonomous driving).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1 and 7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 4, 6, 10, and 11 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 7. The additional elements in claims 3, 5, and 9 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 3, 5, and 9, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 3, 5, and 9 also recite the additional elements of a logistics management system (claims 3 and 9) and a memory (claim 5). Each of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 3, 5, and 9, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, 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 of a logistics management system and a memory, 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, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3, 5, and 9 are also ineligible.
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, 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0059112 to Ito (Ito) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0238457 to Mason et al. (Mason) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0286021 to Luckay (Luckay).
As to claim 1, Ito teaches, a processor configured to function as (“A program product for at least one processor for creating a vehicle dispatch plan that represents how a plurality of vehicles are scheduled to travel according to a second aspect of the present disclosure includes a non-transitory processor-readable medium …” [0032-0040]):
a carbon emission calculation module for calculating a total carbon emission of each candidate vehicle from a location thereof to an end of the (“In FIG. 1, the waypoints used for the example vehicle dispatch service are respectively illustrated as reference characters P0, P1, P2, P3, and P4. That is, each of the waypoints P0 to P4 represents a stopping place where each of the vehicles MV stops to pick up or discharge one or more passengers …” and “… Alternatively, a value of the evaluation index for each vehicle MV for each candidate route can represent one of … 2. A non-dimensional value of the quantity of carbon dioxide emissions from the corresponding vehicle MV, such as the product of the dimensional quantity of carbon dioxide emissions from the corresponding vehicle MV and a predetermined coefficient …” and “If the quantity of carbon dioxide emissions from each vehicle MV for each candidate route is used as the evaluation index for the corresponding vehicle MV for the corresponding candidate route, multiplying the integrated fuel energy P.sub.fuel of each vehicle MV for each candidate route by a predetermined first coefficient depending on the performance of the corresponding vehicle MV enables the quantity of carbon dioxide emissions from the corresponding vehicle MV for the corresponding candidate route to be calculated” [0049-0057 and 0094-0098 and 0198]);
selecting one of the candidate vehicles as an assigned vehicle for driving the driving route based on the total carbon emission of each of the candidate vehicles (“The determiner is configured to determine one of the vehicle-dispatch plan candidates as the vehicle dispatch plan, the determined one of the vehicle-dispatch plan candidates having the lowest value of the candidate evaluation index in all the vehicle-dispatch plan candidates” and “The determiner 13 serves to determine one of the vehicle-dispatch plan candidates created by the candidate creator 11 for the service provider as a final vehicle dispatch plan for the service provider …” [0031 and 0101-0103]).
While Ito teaches a driving route, Ito does not teach an updated driving route. However, Mason teaches, an updated driving route (“The map portion 1005 can display a street map with visual aids or directions that update in real time as the driver travels, thereby showing the driver's progress. The map portion 1005 can display one or more routes, which may include one or more intermediate stops” [0113]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the updated driving route of Mason for the driving route of Ito. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Mason that doing so would optimize energy use of a vehicle [0004].
Ito does not teach, a route optimization calculation module calculating a driving route from a first destination to a second destination based on at least one of a vehicle type, a minimum driving distance, and a minimum driving time. However, Mason teaches, a route optimization calculation module calculating a driving route from a first destination to a second destination based on at least one of a vehicle type, a minimum driving distance, and a minimum driving time (“The type of vehicle used can also factor into route selection …” and “… In some embodiments, consideration of energy use can be overlaid on top of routes selected for shortest distance and/or shortest estimated transit time to provide a route that meets time deadlines and that reduces energy use at the same time …” [0028 and 0045-0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, calculating a driving route from a first destination to a second destination based on at least one of a vehicle type, a minimum driving distance, and a minimum driving time, as taught by Mason with the carbon emission management system of Ito. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Mason that doing so would optimize energy use of a vehicle [0004].
While Ito [0049-0057] and Mason [0034, 0056] teach a third destination, Ito in view of Mason does not teach, wherein the route optimization calculation module is configured to update the driving route based on a third destination added by a destination adding instruction, and change a moving sequence of the first destination, the second destination, and the third destination according to a setting of the destination adding instruction; and generating a control signal to control a movement of the assigned vehicle based on the updated driving route and the moving sequence via a transmission module. However, Luckay teaches, wherein the route optimization calculation module is configured to update the driving route based on a third destination added by a destination adding instruction, and change a moving sequence of the first destination, the second destination, and the third destination according to a setting of the destination adding instruction (“… Furthermore, the vehicle route control component 230 may update existing routes for the vehicles 110a-b based on a selection of the vehicles 110a-b to fulfill a user request for transportation of an item …” and “… In block 920, a notification to the vehicle is generated. The notification indicates to the vehicle (and its operator) that the item pickup location has been added to an itinerary (or route) of the identified delivery vehicle …” and “… In some embodiments, updating the route of the selected vehicle may include inserting waypoints or additional destinations into the existing route …” [0053-0056 and 0107-0109 and 0143]);
and generating a control signal to control a movement of the assigned vehicle based on the updated driving route and the moving sequence via a transmission module (“… In some aspects, the vehicle 110a or 110b may execute the request autonomously. For example, in embodiments utilizing autonomous delivery vehicles, assigning the request to the vehicle may control the vehicle to perform the request, such as delivering an inventory item to an address associated with the request, or picking up a package from the address, without human intervention” and “… The vehicle navigation component 810 may control navigation of the vehicle 110 along a route. Route information may be retrieved from the route database 812. In some aspects, the vehicle navigation component 810 may receive route updates via the radio link 820, from, for example, the vehicle route control component 230, illustrated with respect to FIG. 2 …” [0082 and 0099-0102]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the route optimization calculation module is configured to update the driving route based on a third destination added by a destination adding instruction, and change a moving sequence of the first destination, the second destination, and the third destination according to a setting of the destination adding instruction; and generating a control signal to control a movement of the assigned vehicle based on the updated driving route and the moving sequence via a transmission module, as taught by Luckay with the carbon emission management system of Ito in view of Mason. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Luckay that doing so would provide customizable delivery services [0003].
Regarding claim 7, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a method instead of a system. Because Ito teaches a method as well as a system (see at least Ito [0322-0324]), claim 7 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Ito, mason, and Luckay to render the claim obvious. Similar dependent claims below will be treated together for the sake of brevity.
As to claims 6 and 11, Ito in view of Mason in view of Luckay teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7 as discussed above. Ito does not teach, wherein the carbon emission calculation module further selects the assigned vehicle based on available driving ranges of the candidate vehicles. However, Mason teaches, wherein the carbon emission calculation module further selects the assigned vehicle based on available driving ranges of the candidate vehicles (“… The routing module 110 can automatically select routes that take into account factors that affect energy usage, such as terrain or elevation, vehicle characteristics, driver characteristics, road conditions, traffic, speed limits, stop time, turn information, traffic information, and weather information, and the like” and “… The vehicle characteristics can include, but are not limited to, vehicle energy type based on energy consumption (e.g., gasoline-powered, electric, hybrid, or alternative fuel), vehicle class (e.g., passenger vehicle, commercial truck or trailer, bus), vehicle dimensions, vehicle weight (e.g., unloaded or loaded, estimated or actual), vehicle capacity, vehicle energy functions (e.g., energy regeneration capabilities, limitations on range), maintenance history, and the like” and “… In addition, the electric vehicles may have limited range without recharging the battery. Accordingly, there may be a tradeoff between energy use, capacity, and range limitations that is factored into the selection of the routes” [0026 and 0035 and 0103-0104]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the carbon emission calculation module further selects the assigned vehicle based on available driving ranges of the candidate vehicles, as taught by Mason with the carbon emission management system of Ito. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Mason that doing so would optimize energy use of a vehicle [0004].
Claims 3, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0059112 to Ito (Ito) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0238457 to Mason et al. (Mason) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0286021 to Luckay (Luckay), as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0167883 to Yamashita et al. (Yamashita).
As to claims 3 and 9, Ito in view of Mason in view of Luckay teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7 as discussed above. Ito further teaches, wherein the carbon emission management system is a logistics management system (“A system for creating a vehicle dispatch plan that represents how a plurality of vehicles are scheduled to travel according to a first aspect of the present disclosure includes a candidate creator, a calculator, and a determiner” [0024] Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “how a plurality of vehicles are scheduled to travel” is logistics management),
calculating the driving route based on an order instruction (“In FIG. 1, the waypoints used for the example vehicle dispatch service are respectively illustrated as reference characters P0, P1, P2, P3, and P4. That is, each of the waypoints P0 to P4 represents a stopping place where each of the vehicles MV stops to pick up or discharge one or more passengers …” [0049-0057] Examiner notes that, per paragraphs [0032] and [0040] of Applicant’s specification, a “pickup location” is included in an order instruction).
Ito in view of Mason in view of Luckay does not teach, and the route optimization calculation module further adjusts standby locations of the candidate vehicles based on historical order information. However, Yamashita teaches, and adjusting standby locations of the candidate vehicles based on historical order information (“The server 3 is connected to the communication network 4, for example, through the gateway (not shown). For each of a plurality of districts, the server 3 predicts the number of demanded vehicles in the district in each time period based on a use history of the mobility service in the past. Then, the server 3 decides the standby location of each vehicle from among the standby locations of the districts having the number of insufficient vehicles to the predicted number of demanded vehicles greater than zero as the movement destination such that the total of the movement distance or the estimated needed time of each vehicle …” [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, and adjusting standby locations of the candidate vehicles based on historical order information, as taught by Yamashita with the carbon emission management system of Ito in view of Mason in view of Luckay. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Yamashita that doing so would reduce a waiting time until a vehicle is actually allocated after a user requests vehicle allocation [0016].
As to claim 5, Ito in view of Mason in view of Luckay and in further view of Yamashita teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Ito further teaches, a memory configured to function as: a storage unit storing the historical order information, map information, historical driving route information, and vehicle carbon emission coefficient information (“… Additionally, the evaluation index database creator 12a is configured to store the evaluation index database DB in the storage 14” and “The map information server EN stores map information about many routes, i.e., roads, which includes the candidate routes located between the waypoint P0, i.e., the place of departure, and the waypoint P4 as its final destination …” and “… In step S03, the processor 100a can predict the traffic jam information about each candidate route at the scheduled time or the present time in accordance with previous histories of the traffic jam information” [0098 and 0123-0127 and 0140-0141]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0059112 to Ito (Ito) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0238457 to Mason et al. (Mason) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0286021 to Luckay (Luckay) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0167883 to Yamashita et al. (Yamashita), as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0074749 to Bennett (Bennett).
As to claim 4, Ito in view of Mason in view of Luckay and in further view of Yamashita teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Ito in view of Mason in view of Luckay and in further view of Yamashita does not teach, wherein the destination adding instruction is a consolidation instruction. However, Bennett teaches, wherein the destination adding instruction is a consolidation instruction (“… Examples include consolidate goods for multiple deliveries, or deliver at a different time” [0172]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the destination adding instruction is a consolidation instruction, as taught by Bennett with the carbon emission management system of Ito in view of Mason in view of Luckay and in further view of Yamashita. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Bennett that doing so would reduce congestion and/or improve air quality [0001].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0059112 to Ito (Ito) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0238457 to Mason et al. (Mason) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0286021 to Luckay (Luckay), as applied to claim 7 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0074749 to Bennett (Bennett).
As to claim 10, Ito in view of Mason in view of Luckay teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above. Ito in view of Mason in view of Luckay does not teach, wherein the destination adding instruction is a consolidation instruction. However, Bennett teaches, wherein the destination adding instruction is a consolidation instruction (“… Examples include consolidate goods for multiple deliveries, or deliver at a different time” [0172]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the destination adding instruction is a consolidation instruction, as taught by Bennett with the carbon emission management system of Ito in view of Mason in view of Luckay. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Bennett that doing so would reduce congestion and/or improve air quality [0001].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 at (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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights