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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (Claims 2-12 and 20-21) in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/01/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: feature applications in claims 2-12, and 20-21.
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. The limitations “feature applications” are interpreted to be part of the server or cloud 210 that includes one or more processors 211 and non-transitory computer-readable storage/memory 212 as recited in Paragraph 0023 and Fig.2.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-10 and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 8, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,281,900 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2-4, 6, and 10 contain features that are recited in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,281,900 B2. Claim 5 contains features that are recited in claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,281,900 B2. Claims 7-9 contain features that are recited in claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,281,900 B2. Claims 20-21 contain features that are recited in claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,281,900 B2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. With respect to claim 12, the applicant claims “a user’s driving behavior”. However, the specification is silent about said limitation. The specification discloses driving features but doesn’t explicitly disclose “a user’s driving behavior”.
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.
Claims 2-12, and 20-21 are 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 2, the applicant claims “identifying trips from the sensor data into trip data”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation, i.e. how to identify trips into trip data. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “identifying trips and trip data for each trip from the sensor data”.
With respect to claim 2, the applicant claims “using feature applications”. It is not clear to the examiner what a feature application is. What equation or algorithm or function is used to define said application. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “feature applications that associate feature with corresponding trip using a trip identifier”. The same rational applies to claim 20.
With respect to claim 2, the applicant claims “consuming applications”. It is not clear to the examiner what “a consuming application” is. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “consuming applications that process feature values from the tables”. The same rational applies to claim 20.
With respect to claim 2, the applicant claims “user attributes”. It is not clear to the examiner which user is the applicant referring to. A generic user, a user of the device, a remote user etc. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as a user associated with the device. The same rational applies to claim 20.
With respect to claim 3, the applicant claims “metadata for each trip”. Metadata could cover an infinite number of examples that a trip can be identified or labeled by. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as metadata covering at least one of trip identifier, a calendar date, a time of day and a duration of the trip, as recited in claim 4.
With respect to claim 11, the applicant claims “custom features”, and “custom applications”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with the term “custom”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as a user custom.
With respect to claim 12, the applicant claims ““a user’s driving behavior”. The applicant didn’t define said behavior in the specification. Accordingly, It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation, i.e. what is included or excluded from said profile or behavior. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 3-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 2 and 20, and for failing to cure deficiencies listed 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 2-12, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving sensor data, identifying trips and trip data, normalizing the trip data, processing normalized trip data to identify features, maintaining the features in one or more tables, and providing the one or more tables.
The limitations recited above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting feature applications, i.e. a server, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the computer components, identifying trips normalizing trip data, processing the data to identify features and maintaining and providing said features, in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally computing and classifying data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite feature applications, i.e. a server to perform the steps. Said limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional steps of receiving sensor data and providing tables to consuming applications, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data) and amounts to mere post solution transferring, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using feature applications, i.e. a server to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving sensor data” and “providing tables” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3-12 and 21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim3 recites identifying and indexing metadata and falls under the mental process. Claim 4 describes the metadata. Claims 5-6 and 21 describe normalizing and processing the normalized data and that fall under the mental process. Claims 7-9, and 12 define the features and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 10 and 11 recite a maintaining step and customization step and fall under the mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 3-12 and 21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 2 and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-6, 10-11, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al US 2018/0075163 A1 (hence Park).
In re claims 2 and 20, Park discloses an event processing system for processing events in an event stream (Abstract) and teaches the following:
receiving sensor data from a device (Fig.1, and Paragraph 0090 “an event processing application may include a set of rules (e.g., expressed in the form of continuous queries) that are used to process input streams of data coming from an event source. The event source may include a variety of data sources such as a monitoring device, a financial services company, or a motor vehicle”);
identifying trips from the sensor data into trip data (Paragraph 0092 “each configuration block represents an event bean with associated metadata describing the application, and Paragraphs 0094-0095 “The target event stream processing engines 118 may perform the real-time processing of data streams by executing one or more operations (e.g., CQL queries) defined in the target event processing applications 120 against the data streams (e.g., live feeds) that are received continuously”);
normalizing the trip data for each trip (Paragraph 0098 “converting the event data into a normalized form that can be queried by an application processor”);
processing normalized trip data using feature applications to identify features associated with the trips (Fig.23, Paragraph 0304 “Typical applications in DSMS are designed as a “topology” in the shape of a Directly Acyclic Graph (DAG) of operations or transformations. The topology acts as a data transformation pipeline”, and Fig.24, and Paragraph 0307 “an example architecture 2400 in which an input pipeline of data transformations can be input into a pipeline analyzer 2402 and classified by a stage classification module 2404”)
maintaining the features in one or more tables (Paragraph 0100 “an assembly file may be provided for an event processing application describing the various components of the event processing application” and Paragraph 0104 “Each order in the order event stream may comprise attributes such as an order identifier, an order status, and an order amount related to an item”);
and providing the one or more tables to consuming applications for updating user attributes (Fig.8, and Paragraph 0147 “transmitting the first generic representation of the application to the first target event processing system”)
In re claim 3, Park teaches the following:
identifying metadata for each trip (Paragraph 0092 “each configuration block represents an event bean with associated metadata describing the application”);
indexing the metadata to a corresponding trip (Paragraphs 0108-019 “generating the ‘common application runtime model’ for the application comprises representing the application as a set of one or more configuration blocks, wherein each configuration block represents a Spring® event bean with associated metadata”)
In re claim 4, Park teaches the following:
wherein the metadata includes a trip identifier, a calendar date, a time of day, and a duration of the corresponding trip (Paragraphs 0108-0109)
In re claim 5, Park teaches the following:
wherein normalizing further includes staging the trip data in a queue data structure (Paragraph 0307)
In re claim 6, Park teaches the following:
wherein processing the normalized trip data further includes processing the normalized trip data in parallel by multiple feature applications (Fig.24, and Paragraphs 0301-0308)
In re claim 10, Park teaches the following:
maintaining event-level tables for events detected during the trips and feature-level tables for features associated with the trips (Fig.1 and Paragraph 0090, and Paragraphs 0100 and 0104)
In re claim 11, Park teaches the following:
receiving custom features from custom applications that directly process the trip data (Paragraph 0083 “the information identifying the event processing application may include configuration information, query information, and other types of information related to the application”)
In re claim 21, Park teaches the following:
process multiple portions of the normalized trip data in parallel using different feature applications (Fig.24, and Paragraphs 0301-0308), wherein each feature application identifies different features associated with the trips (Paragraph 0090 “an event processing application may include a set of rules (e.g., expressed in the form of continuous queries) that are used to process input streams of data coming from an event source.”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view Lawrence et al US 2022/0111865 A1 (hence Lawrence).
In re claims 7-9 and 12, Park discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the features include hard braking events detected during the trips, distracted driving detected during the trips, vehicle speed events detected during the trips and wherein the user attributes include driving characteristic values associated with a user's driving behavior
Nevertheless, Lawrence discloses driving scoring systems and methods for vehicles, including systems and methods configured to determine driver scores based on optimum path deviations (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the features include hard braking events detected during the trips, distracted driving detected during the trips, vehicle speed events detected during the trips and wherein the user attributes include driving characteristic values associated with a user's driving behavior (Paragraph 0099)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Park reference to include hard braking, distracted driving and speeds as events, as taught by Lawrence, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to consider dynamic movements of the vehicle and the associated data leading up to an event/alert and/or following an event/alert (Lawrence, Paragraph 0024).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baskaran et al US 11,715,051 B1 discloses one or more tools for facilitating searching and analyzing large sets of data to locate data of interest.
Millington et al US 2023/0128788 A1 discloses improved database partitioning and worker distribution for more efficient batch processing of vehicle event data.
Dwivedi et al US 2022/0043807 A1 discloses systems and methods are disclosed for efficiently storing information identifying journey instances within unstructured event data of a data intake and processing system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached on 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights