DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in application 19/130,729.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the vehicle owner”, “the location”, “the time”, which all contain insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is requested.
Claims 2-19 are also rejected as being dependent from claim 1, under the same rationale and reasoning as identified above.
Claims 10-11 and 14 also recite “the case”, which contains insufficient antecedent basis. Correction for proper antecedent basis is also requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In this instance, Claim 20 can be infringed by mere possession of the system (an analysis unit and a RFID reading device) without performing the steps of the method. Note the recitation of the method steps is part of a functional language recitation describing the capability of the performing of the method, not a recitation of actual execution resulting in active method steps. Since no active steps are recited, claims 1-19 drawn to the method, would not be infringed by the mere possession of the system that would infringe claim 20. As a result, claim 20 is in improper dependent form.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 1-19 are directed toward a process (method). Claim 20 is directed toward an apparatus (system). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 20 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of data collection, aggregation, comparison, and mathematical/statistical evaluation.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 20, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A method for identifying a vehicle, wherein a plurality of RFID transponders, but at least one RFID transponder, on which data about the vehicle and/or the vehicle owner are stored,
1. are read by at least one RFID reader,
2. the set of data (data set) that has been read from all the read transponders of the same vehicle are stored, together with the location and the time at which the data were read, in a central or local data memory,
3. the data set that has been read is analyzed by an analysis device,
4. wherein the data set that has been read is evaluated with a quality factor by the analysis device,
5. a data set is also created from RFID transponders of a vehicle that are read at a later time and this data set is compared with the previously recorded data sets and their quality factors, and
6. a plausibility factor indicating the plausibility of two data sets that have been recorded at different times belonging to the same vehicle is generated by way of the analysis device matching the data sets and/or the quality factors.
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to the abstract idea of Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)); and Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)).
Dependent claims 2-19 provide further details to the abstract idea of claims 1 and 20 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claims 1 and 20.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “system”, an "RFID reader”, a "data memory”, and an "analysis device" (processor). However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 2-19 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 1-20 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “system”, an "RFID reader”, a "data memory”, and an "analysis device" (processor). However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). Reading RFID tags, storing records in a database, assigning a numerical quality score, and comparing later reads to earlier reads are standard, routine, and conventional computer/ RFID functions. The claim does not improve how RFID readers operate, nor does it present a specialized technological solution to a technical problem; it merely applies generic tracking logic to vehicles. The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-19 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 20 respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 20; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vishnevsky et al. (VISHNEVSKY et al., "Development of a hybrid vehicle identification system based on video recognition and RFID," 2022 International Conference on Information, control, and Communication Technologies (ICCT), IEEE, 3 Oct 2022, pp. 1-7. See Applicant IDS, 7/16/2025).
As per independent Claim 1, Vishnevsky discloses a method (system) for identifying a vehicle, wherein a plurality of RFID transponders, but at least one RFID transponder, on which data about the vehicle and/or the vehicle owner are stored, and/or an RFID transponder that identifies a component of the same vehicle and at least one further RFID transponder that is attached to the same vehicle (See at least Pgs. 2-4, Section III, "reading RFID tags on the front and rear license plates of the vehicle"),
1. are read by at least one RFID reader (See at least Fig. 1),
2. the set of data (data set) that has been read from all the read transponders of the same vehicle are stored, together with the location (See at least Section III, "Linking the control zones of each RFID antenna and the control zone of the optical ALPR system") and the time at which the data were read (See at least Section III, "exact timestamps"), in a central or local data memory (See at least Section III, "Logging recorded vehicles, including the results of optical recognition (if available), RFID data, photos of the recorded vehicle with the exact timestamps"),
3. the data set that has been read is analyzed by an analysis device (See at least Fig. 2, "Match LPNopt and LPNtag"),
4. wherein the data set that has been read is evaluated with a quality factor by the analysis device (See at least Fig. 2, "N - number of chars in which LPNopt and LPNtag differ" or even Section III "Average power of the signal received by the reader"),
5. a data set is also created from RFID transponders of a vehicle that are read at a later time and this data set is compared with the previously recorded data sets and their quality factors (See at least The algorithm shown in figure 2 is executed for every transit; Fig. 2, "N - number of chars in which LPNopt and LPNtag differ"), and
6. a plausibility factor indicating the plausibility of two data sets that have been recorded at different times belonging to the same vehicle is generated by way of the analysis device matching the data sets and/or the quality factors (See at least case distinctions taught in Fig. 2: "N = 0 Build target with label “License plate number”, “N ≤ 2 Yes: Build target with label "License plate number”, use LPNtag as a correct license plate number", "N ≤ 2 No: Build target with label "License plate number", use LPNopt as a correct license plate number").
As per Claim 2, Vishnevsky discloses wherein, when the plurality of RFID transponders of a vehicle are read at a later time, the quality factor of a data set belonging to a vehicle is updated (See at least Section III, "lanes need to be monitored"; monitoring is interpreted by the Examiner to be “constant” measurement).
As per Claim 3, Vishnevsky discloses, wherein at least one camera is used to determine additional visible data of the vehicle (visual information), and these data are also stored in the data set and analyzed (See at least Section III, "Logging recorded vehicles, including the results of optical recognition (if available), RFID data, photos of the recorded vehicle with the exact timestamps").
As per Claim 5, Vishnevsky discloses, wherein data sets that do not reach a value to be stipulated for a quality factor, because too few transponders have been detected or other data or information are/is missing, are not used for further identification of the vehicle (See at least Fig.3 and Section III, Handling absent registration or absent measurement data).
As per Claim 6, Vishnevsky discloses, wherein the calculated plausibility factor from which two data sets that have been recorded consecutively can be assigned to the same vehicle is stipulated (See at least Fig.3 and Section III).
As per Claim 7, Vishnevsky discloses, wherein a signal is generated when a stipulated plausibility factor that must be reached for two data sets that have been recorded consecutively to be attributed to the same vehicle is undershot (See at least Fig.3 and Section III).
As per Claim 8 (7), Vishnevsky discloses, wherein the signal is a message to an official institution (See at least Fig.3 and Section III).
As per Claim 9, Vishnevsky discloses, wherein the analysis unit searches the data sets for known RFID transponders already detected at an earlier time and assigned to a vehicle and, a) in the absence of an already detected RFID transponder in the data set, the analysis unit determines what has been indicated by the RFID transponder, b) when an RFID transponder that has not yet been stored in the data set is first detected, the analysis unit also determines what has been indicated by the RFID transponder (See at least Fig.3 and Section III).
As per Claim 10 (9), Vishnevsky discloses, wherein a) in the absence of an RFID transponder, the analysis unit decides whether this RFID transponder can be omitted for the assignment of the data set to a particular vehicle and/or b) the missing RFID transponder can be added to the data set by pattern recognition, and/or c) in the case of a newly detected RFID transponder, pattern recognition determines whether the RFID transponder matches the data set and, if applicable, this is added to the data set (See at least Fig.3 and Section III, Matching rules are disclosed in the paragraphs from Section III that are cited above).
As per Claim 11 (9), Vishnevsky discloses, wherein, in the absence or in the case of an addition of an RFID transponder or an adaptation of a data set, the quality factor of the data set is modified (See at least Fig.3 and Section III).
As per Claim 12, Vishnevsky discloses, wherein the analysis unit additionally searches the data sets for known visual information already acquired at an earlier time and assigned to a vehicle and a) in the absence of visual and information already acquired in the data set, the analysis unit determines what has been indicated by the information, b) when visual information that has not yet been stored in the data set is first acquired, the analysis unit also determines what has been indicated by the information (See at least Fig.3 and Section III).
As per Claim 13 (12), Vishnevsky discloses, wherein, the analysis unit decides whether the newly acquired information indicates an unauthorized replacement of vehicle components (Under BRI only one conditional “or” element required of prior art) (See at least Section III, “Integrating RFID into the existing photo and video ALPR systems on roads makes it possible to increase the reliability of identification of license plates with embedded RFID tags through the simultaneous optical recognition and tag reading. In addition, information from the RFID tag will help in identification with incomplete optical recognition, as well as to identify fake license plates.”).
As per Claim 14 (12), Vishnevsky discloses, wherein in the absence or in the case of an addition of visual information or an adaptation of a data set, the quality factor of the data set is modified (See at least Fig.3 and Section III).
As per Claim 15, Vishnevsky discloses, wherein the location and the time of acquiring the data set is also taken into account in the determination of the plausibility factor (See at least Fig.3 and Section III).
As per Claim 16, Vishnevsky discloses, wherein when RFID transponders of the same type are read at the same time and at the same location, it is determined whether these data sets can be assigned to different vehicles (See at least Fig.3 and Section III).
As per Claim 17, Vishnevsky discloses, wherein when the information stored on an RFID transponder is not complete or not completely readable, it is completed by pattern recognition, based on the data sets stored on the data memory (See at least Fig.3 and Pg.3, Section III).
As per Claim 18, Vishnevsky discloses, wherein the RFID transponders and/or the characteristics of a vehicle are detected by a plurality of RFID readers and/or other data acquisition instruments, wherein all RFID readers and/or other data acquisition instruments are electronically linked to one another (See at least Fig.3 and Section III).
As per Claim 19, Vishnevsky discloses, wherein data sets that are assigned to a vehicle are compared with a database in which suspicious vehicles are listed (See at least Fig.3 and Pg.3, Section III).
As per independent Claim 20, Vishnevsky also discloses a system for carrying out a method for identifying a vehicle as claimed in claim 1 having an analysis unit and at least one RFID reading device for reading RFID transponders (See at least Figs.1-3 and Section III, See citations above). As for the limitations of the functions of the system or what the system does, i.e. the method steps of claim 1, these carry no patentable weight in an apparatus claim. System claims should cover what a device is or structures or structural elements, not what a device does. See Hewlett-Packard Co. vs. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F 2.d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vishnevsky in view of Kleven et al. (US 10,013,813 B2).
As per Claim 4, Vishnevsky fails to expressly discloses, wherein at least one additional sensor is used to determine the noise (acoustic information) of the tires, the shock absorbers, the exhaust and/or the drive chain or similar and these data are also stored in the data set and analyzed.
However, the analogous art of Kleven (Vehicle Identification systems/methods) discloses wherein an additional sensor is used to determine the noise (acoustic information) of the tires, the shock absorbers, the exhaust and/or the drive chain or similar and these data are also stored in the data set and analyzed (See at least Fig.3, C3L10-24, “A main principle of the present invention is to use sound signals and sound impulses which are collected or generated by sensors associated with the road surface when the deck of a vehicle passes over the sensors, the sensors registering the sound signals with different frequencies and amplitudes, which by means separation, makes it possible to register the total weight, i.e. the weight of the vehicle itself and its payload, the vehicle velocity, the deck conditions and possible whether studs are present in the deck or not. The signals and/or the impulses which are generated when the decks pass over the sensors, will have different frequencies and amplitudes dependent of the deck condition, i.e. deck pattern, hardness and presence and density of studs in the deck, all monitored by the use of ultrasonic sound.”; C3L45-49, “Another object of the invention is to register a sound picture by passing in a manner making it more or less possible to disregard other types of noise related to road traffic and a vehicle, in order to establish the velocity, weight, type of deck and/or the deck conditions.”; C4 L10-15, “A still further object is to provide a method and a system which is more precise in identifying vehicles generally and whether the vehicle specifically is provided with one or more studded decks, so that erroneous collection of fees or fines is avoided or at substantially reduced.”; C4L39-43, “In respect to the detection, also information is preferably collected, making it possible to identify the owner of the vehicle by means of video filming, radio frequency identification and/or photographing the number plate of the vehicle and making comparison with the owner register.”
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included wherein at least one additional sensor is used to determine the noise (acoustic information) of the tires, the shock absorbers, the exhaust and/or the drive chain or similar and these data are also stored in the data set and analyzed, as disclosed by Kleven in the system disclosed by Vishnevsky, for the advantage of providing a method (system) for identifying a vehicle, with the ability to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the method/ system by incorporating a variety of sensors for the collecting/ comparing of a variety of identification variables (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments.
Eid (US 2015/0221140 A1) - Eid describes technology that requires installation of identification tags, such as RFID tags, on vehicles, which actively or passively emit identification signals conveying vehicle identifiers (See at least Para 0032, “Furthermore, some embodiments of the present technology allow spotting attempts to duplicate identification tags. This `Chinese wall` option provides for interaction between a database of stolen vehicles and a database of vehicle information based upon analysis of vehicle location data and corresponding vehicle identifiers. More specifically, in an example embodiment, an individual may request information concerning a particular vehicle within a distance range using his electronic device. For these ends, the electronic device acquires a vehicle identifier associated with the vehicle of interest and sends a request to a remote server. This request includes the vehicle identifier and a current location of the electronic device. Another server, which maintains vehicle data, such as location obtained directly from the vehicle in question, compares location data obtained from two independent sources and makes a determination as to whether the identification tag pertaining to the vehicle in question is duplicated. This analysis may also compare a time and date when location information was obtained and, optionally, other related information.”)
R. A. Kerekes et al., "Vehicle Classification and Identification Using Multi-Modal Sensing and Signal Learning," 2017 IEEE 85th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring), Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2017, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.1109/VTCSpring.2017.8108568. – See at least Pg. 2, Acoustic Sensing and RFID Sensing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
September 3, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights