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 AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 05/15/2026. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-5 have been canceled. Claims 6-11 have been newly added. Therefore, claims 1 and 6-11 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the title of the invention, Examiner acknowledges an amended title has been received. Examiner withdraws the specification objection. Examiner acknowledges receipt of amendments to the drawings, filed on 05/15/2026. Applicant has amended claim 1 to overcome the claim objection. Therefore, Examiner withdraws the claim objection. With respect to the 112(f) claim interpretation, Examiner acknowledges amended claim 1 “control unit” is replaced with “processor”.
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 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1 and 6-11 are directed to a device (i.e. a machine). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites: An information processing device, comprising: acquire secondary battery information that relates to a battery is needed by a first user who performs secondary usage of the battery, the secondary battery information indicating a time limit for collecting the battery and a planned-use location for the battery, store the acquired secondary battery information,acquire vehicle informationby each of a plurality of vehicles owned by a plurality of second users at predetermined time intervals, the vehicle information including at least a position of each of the plurality of vehicles, store and update the vehicle information, calculate a remaining period from a current time to the time limit based on the secondary battery information, determine a target distance based on an allowable transportation cost for collecting the battery designated by the first user, determine a target region that is within the target distance from the planned-use location based on the secondary battery information, identify first vehicles located within the target region from among the plurality of vehicles based on the target region and the updated vehicle information, transmit a notification to the plurality of second users corresponding to the identified first vehicles, the notification including an instruction to output, inputting an answer to a battery provision request, determine whether the answer is received within a predetermined period after the transmission of the notification, recalculate the remaining period until the time limit in response to determining that the answer is not received within the predetermined period, update the target region based on the recalculated remaining period such that the target region becomes broader as the recalculated remaining period becomes shorter, identify second vehicles located within the updated target region from among the plurality of vehicles based on the updated target region and the updated vehicle information, and transmit the notification to the plurality of second users corresponding to the identified second vehicles.
The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under the abstract groupings of: Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As the claims discuss a system for managing battery usage and secondary use of batteries among users, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion (claim 1 recites for example, “acquire secondary battery information that relates to a battery is needed by a first user who performs secondary usage of the battery”; “acquire vehicle informationby each of a plurality of vehicles owned by a plurality of second users at predetermined time intervals”; “calculate a remaining period from a current time to the time limit based on the secondary battery information”; “determine a target distance based on an allowable transportation cost for collecting the battery designated by the first user”; “determine a target region that is within the target distance from the planned-use location based on the secondary battery information”; “identify first vehicles located within the target region from among the plurality of vehicles based on the target region and the updated vehicle information”; “transmit a notification to the plurality of second users corresponding to the identified first vehicles”; “determine whether the answer is received within a predetermined period”; “recalculate the remaining period until the time limit in response to determining that the answer is not received within the predetermined period”; “update the target region based on the recalculated remaining period such that the target region becomes broader as the recalculated remaining period becomes shorter”; “identify second vehicles located within the updated target region from among the plurality of vehicles based on the updated target region and the updated vehicle information”.) Concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of acquiring, identifying, determining, calculating and recalculating, transmitting and analyzing data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLCPatentLitig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Further, dependent claims add additional limitations, for example: (claim 6) determine whether the current time has exceeded the time limit in response to determining that the answer is not received within the predetermined period, and transmit a notification to notify that it is unable to collect a sufficient number of batteries; (claim 7) includes an image indicating the battery provision request; (claim 8)
wherein the vehicle information further includes vehicle identification information identifying the corresponding vehicle and user identification information identifying the corresponding second user; (claim 9) processing related to a contract for battery provision with the second users; (claim 10)
update the target region by calculating the target distance such that the target distance becomes longer as the recalculated remaining period becomes shorter (claim 11) stores formula for calculation of the target distance; and calculate the target distance using the formula, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claim 1) memory; database(s); communication module; processor; sensor; terminals; user interface. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The “acquire secondary battery information that relates to a battery is needed by a first user who performs secondary usage of the battery”; “acquire vehicle informationidentify first vehicles located within the target region from among the plurality of vehicles based on the target region and the updated vehicle information”; “transmit a notification to the plurality of second users corresponding to the identified first vehicles”; “identify second vehicles located within the updated target region from among the plurality of vehicles based on the updated target region and the updated vehicle information”, limitations describe data gathering. The Office has long considered data gathering to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate the exception into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. With respect to the computer components, these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See at least Applicants specification, para 0054, recites: “The present disclosure can also be realized by supplying a computer program that implements
the functions described in the above embodiments to a computer, and one or more processors included in the computer read and execute the program. Such a computer program may be provided to a computer by a non-transitory computer readable storage medium connectable to a system bus of the computer, or
may be provided to the computer via a network”. With respect to the control unit, Applicant’s specification, para 0018, recites “The control unit may calculate, for example, SOH (State of Health) and transmit SOH to the servers 30. Note that the control unit may acquire SOH by using known methods.” The specification spells out different generic equipment that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computers. The use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts.
With respect to “acquire secondary battery information that relates to a battery is needed by a first user who performs secondary usage of the battery”; “acquire vehicle informationlooking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KATO et al. (US 2022/0404428 A1), hereinafter “Kato”, over Kurimoto (US 2022/0297667 A1), hereinafter “Kurimoto”.
Regarding Claim 1, Kato teaches An information processing device, comprising: a memory including a first database and a second database; a communication module; and a processor configured to(Kato, Abstract; See at least Kato, para 0024, describing the computing environment including memory, processor, storage device, database unit for communicating);
acquire secondary battery information that relates to a battery is needed by a first user who performs secondary usage of the battery, the secondary battery information indicating a time limit for collecting the battery and a planned-use location for the battery, (Kato, Abstract, teaches A management system for managing a battery mounted on a vehicle includes: an acquisition unit that acquires grade information indicating a product grade set by a user as a purpose of reusing the battery; See at least Kato, para 0045, teaches a predetermined time for selling battery B; Location and destination is taught throughout Kato, see at least para 0025, teaches reuse destination (Examiner notes planned-use location) of the battery);
store the acquired secondary battery information in the second database, (storage unit));
acquire vehicle informationby from a sensor mounted on each of a plurality of vehicles owned by a plurality of second users at predetermined time intervals, the vehicle information including at least a position of each of the plurality of vehicles, (Kato, Abstract, teaches A management system for managing a battery mounted on a vehicle includes: an acquisition unit that acquires grade information indicating a product grade set by a user as a purpose of reusing the battery; See at least Kato, para 0045, teaches a predetermined time for selling battery B; Sensors are taught throughout Kato, see at least Kato, para 0088, teaching sensors);
store and update the vehicle information in the first database, measured by the sensor in a memory (storage unit); Updating data is taught throughout, see at least Kata, para 0040);
calculate a remaining period from a current time to the time limit based on the secondary battery information, (See at least Kato, para 0104, teaching the CPU estimates and presents the estimated remaining life (FIG. 12) of the selected battery based on a model for predicting the life);
determine a target distance based on an allowable transportation cost for collecting the battery designated by the first user, (Kato, para 0033, presents each product rank and the predicted transaction price; para 0045, the predetermined time for reusing the battery B is set as the scheduled sale timing set by the user, but the present invention is not limited thereto, and the predetermined time can be arbitrarily set);
determine a target region that is within the target distance from the planned-use location based on the secondary battery information, (Location and destination is taught throughout Kato, see at least para 0025, teaches reuse destination (Examiner notes planned-use location) of the battery);
identify first vehicles located within the target region from among the plurality of vehicles based on the target region and the updated vehicle information, (Kato, see at least para 0049, an acquisition unit configured to acquire rank information indicating a product rank set by a user as a reuse destination);
... corresponding to the identified first vehicles via the communication module, the notification command including an instruction to output, on a display of each of the terminals, a user interface for inputting an answer to a battery provision request, (Kato, Abstract, teaches a notification unit configured to notify the user; See at least Kato, para 0010, FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of an input screen of a scheduled timing);
determine whether the answer is received from each of the terminals within a predetermined period after the transmission of the notification command, (Kato, para 0129, teaches when battery life is shorter than estimated life; Kato, para 0032, presents the predicted transaction price for each product grade at the given time period to the user; Kato, para 0034, on the screen illustrated in FIG. 4 , displays of the respective product ranks are selection buttons, and the user can select); recalculate the remaining period until the time limit in response to determining that the answer is not received from each of the terminals within the predetermined period, (See at least Kato, para 0104, teaching the CPU estimates and presents the estimated remaining life (FIG. 12) of the selected battery based on a model for predicting the life; Kato, para 0100, the CPU generates a model (second prediction model) that predicts the battery life);
update the target region based on the recalculated remaining period such that the target region becomes broader as the recalculated remaining period becomes shorter, (Kato, para 0129, teaches when battery life is shorter than estimated life; Kato, para 0025, teaches the processing unit can manage information indicating the location and the deterioration state (Examiner notes includes time) of each of the plurality of batteries);
identify second vehicles located within the updated target region from among the plurality of vehicles based on the updated target region and the updated vehicle information, and (Kato, see at least para 0049, an acquisition unit configured to acquire rank information indicating a product rank set by a user as a reuse destination);
... corresponding to the identified second vehicles via the communication module (See at least Kato, para 0024, discussing communication unit). While Kato teaches transmitting information, Kato does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor Kurimoto teaches transmit a notification command to terminals of the plurality of second users ...transmit the notification command to terminals of the plurality of second users (Kurimoto, Abstract, teaches battery information received by a communication device, to a user of a vehicle that transmits the battery information; See at least Kurimoto, para 0114, teaches the server may transmit information on the area where the premium price is given to the provided battery information to each vehicle, or may notify the terminal device of the user of each vehicle. The information of the area may be displayed on the map of the navigation device in each vehicle, or the information of the area may be displayed on the map application or the like in each terminal device. This increases the possibility that the user of the vehicle travels in an area to which the premium price is assigned, for a high price. As a result, battery information having a high need for information collection can be collected effectively.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kato with transmit a notification command to terminals of the plurality of second users ...transmit the notification command to terminals of the plurality of second users as taught by Kurimoto with the motivation for battery information having a high need for information collection to be collected effectively (Kurimoto, para 0114). The Kato invention now incorporating the Kurimoto invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Kato, now incorporating Kurimoto, teaches The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine whether the current time has exceeded the time limit in response to determining that the answer is not received from each of the terminals within the predetermined period, and transmit a notification to a terminal of the first user to notify that it is unable to collect a sufficient number of batteries See at least Kato, para 0036 and para 0025, determination unit 11 b determines a restriction item of the function of the vehicle V for reducing the deterioration of the battery B. The notification unit 11 c notifies the user (charge control device 20) of various types of information items such as restriction item information indicating the restriction item of the function of vehicle V determined as the restricted target by determination unit 11 b. The management unit 11 d manages information such as information indicating the location and deterioration state (Examiner notes includes time) of the battery; Examiner notes different rules and combinations of a battery deterioration state is certainly within the ability of those having ordinary skill in the art.) Examiner note: The information in the notification is merely a label or non-functional descriptive matter and adds little, if anything, to the claimed acts or steps and thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the specific type of information) which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps of the method does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability.
Regarding Claim 7, Kato, now incorporating Kurimoto, teaches The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the user interface includes an image indicating the battery provision request (See at least Kato, para 0027, teaches receives an instruction from the user in addition to a function of displaying information (image)).
Regarding Claim 8, Kato, now incorporating Kurimoto, teaches The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle information further includes vehicle identification information identifying the corresponding vehicle and user identification information identifying the corresponding second user (Kato, para 0025, teaches the management unit manages information transmitted from the plurality of charge control devices, such as information indicating the location of the battery).
Regarding Claim 9, Kato, now incorporating Kurimoto, teaches The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute processing related to a contract for battery provision with the second users (Kato, para 0025, teaches the management unit manages information transmitted from the plurality of charge control devices, such as information indicating the location of the battery; Kurimoto, para 0074, information in a region in which collection results are smaller than those in other regions is set as information having high information collection needs; Kurimoto, para 0099, the battery information is information of a region where the natural environment is severe; Kurimoto, para 0114, teaches the server may transmit information on the area where the premium price is given to the provided battery information to each vehicle, or may notify the terminal device of the user of each vehicle).
Regarding Claim 10, Kato, now incorporating Kurimoto, teaches The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to update the target region by calculating the target distance such that the target distance becomes longer as the recalculated remaining period becomes shorter (See at least Kato, para 0104, teaching the CPU estimates and presents the estimated remaining life (FIG. 12) of the selected battery based on a model for predicting the life; Kato, para 0100, the CPU generates a model (second prediction model) that predicts the battery life; Further, see Kato, Figures 5 and 12).
Regarding Claim 11, Kato, now incorporating Kurimoto, teaches The information processing device according to claim 10, wherein: the memory stores formula for calculation of the target distance; and the processor is configured to calculate the target distance using the formula stored in the memory (See at least Kato, para 0104, teaching the CPU estimates and presents the estimated remaining life (FIG. 12) of the selected battery based on a model for predicting the life; Kato, para 0100, the CPU generates a model (second prediction model) that predicts the battery life; Further, see Kato, Figures 5 and 12; See at least Kato, para 0036 and para 0025, The management unit manages information such as information indicating the location of the battery).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding 35 U.5.C. § 101 rejections: Examiner has updated the 101 rejection in light of the most recent claim amendments and maintains the 101 rejection. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive. With respect to the abstract idea, the claimed invention falls within at least the abstract groupings of both certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes as explained in the above 101 analysis.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks on an alleged improvement in a battery collection system and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the computing elements (memory; database(s); communication module; processor; sensor; terminals; user interface) are additional elements to perform the steps and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Examiner has reviewed Applicants claims and specification and has found only generic computing elements used in their ordinary capacity. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea; the computer elements merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. In addition, the claims do not affect an improvement in any
other technology or technical field. The specification spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer(s). Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection with respect to these and all depending claims unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections. With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive. Examiner has updated the rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments with the Kato and Kurimoto references.
With respect to Applicant’s remarks on newly amended limitations, see above updated 103 rejection. With respect to Applicant’s remarks (page 13): “However, Kato does not address a configuration in which a planned-use location of a battery is used as a reference to set a target distance based on an allowable transportation cost designated by a user, and to determine a notification target region within the target distance. Moreover, Kato does not address recalculating a remaining period until a time limit for collecting batteries when an answer from a user terminal is not received...”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial matter “planned-use” location is not in Applicant’s specification. Further, with respect to recalculating a remaining period of battery life is taught by Kato. See at least Kato, para 0104, teaching the CPU estimates and presents the estimated remaining life (FIG. 12) of the selected battery based on a model for predicting the life; Kato, para 0100, the CPU generates a model (second prediction model) that predicts the battery life; Further, see Kato, Figures 5 and 12.
Further, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Further, with respect to Applicant’s remarks (page 14) on costs, Examiner respectfully notes Kato and Kurimoto both discuss prices throughout. Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner has updated and maintains the 103 rejections for all claims.
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 REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (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 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.
/R.R.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights