CTNF 19/172,302 CTNF 86528 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is in response to the application filed 7 April 2025. Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of selecting a person to solve a problem based on collected information about the problem, the moving object, and candidate persons' attributes - a process that falls within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" and "mental processes" groupings of abstract ideas. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely recite generic computer components used to gather, process, and output data, and apply the abstract idea using generic computing technology. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components performing well-understood, routine, conventional functions of receiving, storing, and transmitting data. Step 1 Claims 1-8 are directed to a machine (an "information processing apparatus" comprising various "units"). Claims 9-16 are directed to a process (a "method for controlling an information processing apparatus"). Claim 17 is directed to a manufacture (a "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium"). Therefore, the claims fall within the statutory categories of invention. Step 2A Prong One The claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the following limitations (using claim 1 as representative): "acquiring information about a moving object under management" (moving object information acquisition unit) "if a problem occurs to disturb a task execution by the moving object, acquiring information about details of the problem" (problem information acquisition unit) "acquiring attribute information about at least one candidate of a problem-solving person" (personal information acquisition unit) "selecting a problem-solving person from the at least one candidate based on the information about the moving object..., the information about details of the problem..., and the attribute information about the at least one person..." (person selection unit) Abstract Idea Grouping Analysis Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: These limitations fall within the "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" sub-grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims recite collecting information about a task disruption (a "problem"), gathering attribute information about candidate persons (e.g., skills, current location, current task), and selecting a person to be assigned to address the problem based on that information. This is fundamentally a task-assignment/dispatching scheme - an activity that managers, dispatchers, or supervisors have long performed when assigning personnel to address workplace issues based on the worker's skills, availability, location, and current workload. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Mental Process: These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, also cover performance in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), with or without the aid of pen and paper. The step of "acquiring information about a moving object" and "acquiring information about details of the problem" encompasses a person observing or being informed of a piece of equipment's status and a problem that has arisen (e.g., a supervisor learning that a delivery cart is blocked by an obstacle). The step of "acquiring attribute information about at least one candidate of a problem-solving person" encompasses a person recalling or looking up information about available personnel (e.g., their skills and locations), as exemplified by the "person list" of Table 1 of the specification. The step of "selecting a problem-solving person... based on" the moving object information, problem information, and attribute information encompasses the mental evaluation and judgment a dispatcher performs when deciding which available worker, based on their skill set, proximity, and current task priority, should be sent to address a given problem. The specification's own equation for the "suitability score" (Equation 1, par. [0060]-[0062] - a weighted sum of task priority, presence of required skill, and distance - is itself a mathematical formulation of the type of evaluative judgment a person could perform mentally or with pen and paper (e.g., by jotting down candidates, their skills, and distances, and picking the best match). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components such as "a moving object information acquisition unit," "a problem information acquisition unit," "a personal information acquisition unit," and "a person selection unit" (which the specification describes as implemented by a generic CPU, ROM, RAM, and external storage device, see par. [0021]-[0025] does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Step 2A Prong Two Identification of Additional Elements The claims recite the following additional elements beyond the identified abstract idea: "an information processing apparatus" (claims 1-8) the various "units" (moving object information acquisition unit, problem information acquisition unit, personal information acquisition unit, person selection unit) as structural implementations of the abstract steps "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer-executable program" (claim 17) "a computer" configured to perform the recited method (claim 17) Analysis of Additional Elements Improvement to Technology or Technical Field (MPEP 2106.05(a)): The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. The specification describes the invention as directed to solving the underlying logistical/organizational problem of identifying an appropriate person to resolve a disruption to a moving object's task execution par. [0004]-[0005], not to improving the functioning of computers, processors, sensors, or networks themselves. The "acquiring," "acquiring," "acquiring," and "selecting" steps are described at a high level of generality and are performed using generic computing components (CPU 101, ROM 102, RAM 103, external storage device 104, see par. [0021]-[0025] to automate a task-assignment/dispatching determination that could otherwise be performed by a human supervisor reviewing personnel rosters and problem reports. While the specification mentions that information may be acquired via GPS, laser sensors, imaging devices, or machine-learning models for detecting problems par. [0044]-[0046], and [0066], these underlying data-acquisition technologies (sensors, GPS, cameras) are not recited in the claims themselves and, even where referenced in dependent claims, are used merely as generic data sources feeding into the abstract selection process - not as an improvement to the sensors, cameras, or networks themselves. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Particular Machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)): The claims do not recite use of a particular machine that imposes meaningful limits on the claim. The recited "moving object information acquisition unit," "problem information acquisition unit," "personal information acquisition unit," "person selection unit," "processor" (implicit in the apparatus), and "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" are generic computing components, described in the specification as implementable by a standard CPU, ROM, RAM, and external storage device par. [0021]-[0025], that do not impose meaningful limits on the claim scope. The "moving object" itself is not a structural element of the claimed apparatus, system, or medium - it is merely the subject about which information is acquired, and the specification confirms the information processing apparatus may be a separate apparatus that wirelessly communicates with the moving object par. [0033]. Mere Instructions to Apply the Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)): The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claims recite generic computing components (an "information processing apparatus," "units," "a computer," "non-transitory computer-readable media") performing generic computing functions (acquiring/receiving data, processing/evaluating data according to the recited criteria, and outputting a selection result). This is tantamount to adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception identified above. See Alice Corp. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)): The additional elements of "acquiring information about a moving object," "acquiring information about details of the problem," and "acquiring attribute information about at least one candidate" constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. These "acquiring" steps are mere data-gathering steps that are necessary to feed the abstract selection process but do not themselves transform the nature of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea; they merely link the abstract task-assignment/selection process to a generic computing environment and to generic data-gathering steps. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components performing generic data acquisition, processing, and selection/output functions. The same analysis applies in Step 2B - mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity Analysis The additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field. Specifically: "Acquiring/receiving information about a moving object, a problem, and personal attributes from databases or devices" - The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data, including over a network or from a database, as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. The specification itself confirms this conventionality, describing the moving object information acquisition unit as extracting information "from a database" and the target moving object transmitting the information in response to a request par. [0041], and describing personal attribute information as managed in a generic "person list" (Table 1) and "task list" (Table 2) database par. [0049]-[0053]. "Storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g., ROM 102, RAM 103, external storage device 104)" - The courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Techs. The specification describes these as generic, off-the-shelf storage components par. [0022]-[0023]. "A processor/CPU performing the recited acquiring and selecting functions" - The specification describes the CPU 101 generically as "a central processing unit that controls the overall operations of the information processing apparatus" par. [0022], without any disclosure of a specialized or non-standard processor architecture, confirming that the processor is a generic, off-the-shelf component performing conventional data-processing functions. Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible. Dependent Claims Analysis The dependent claims do not add limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept: Claims 2-5, 10-13: These claims further define the criteria used by the person selection unit/step to select the problem-solving person - i.e., selection based on "problem-solving capability" (claims 2, 10), "distance between a current position... and an occurrence position of the problem" or "a distance between a moving path... and the occurrence position of the problem" (claims 3, 11), "an importance of a task being executed" (claims 4, 12), or "at least two of" the foregoing factors (claims 5, 13). These limitations merely further define and narrow the criteria applied within the abstract mental evaluation/judgment of selecting a person - a dispatcher could equally weigh a candidate's skill, proximity, and current workload importance when deciding who to send to solve a problem. These are simply additional considerations factored into the same abstract selection process and do not add any technological element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or provides significantly more. Claims 6, 14: These claims add "a notification unit configured to transmit a notification corresponding to the information about details of the problem... to the person selected" / "transmitting a notification... to the selected person." Transmitting a notification (e.g., by e-mail, as described at par. [0086]-[0089] to a selected person is the type of post-selection outputting/communicating step that a human dispatcher would perform by picking up a phone, sending a message, or otherwise informing the selected person - i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data outputting/transmission, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g); MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (citing Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, regarding transmission of data/communications over a network). Claims 7, 15: These claims add "a correction unit configured to correct information about a task to be executed by the person selected" / "correcting information about a task to be executed by the selected person." Correcting (e.g., re-prioritizing) a task assignment for the selected person, as described at par. [0101]-[0107], is itself part of the abstract task-management/dispatching activity - analogous to a supervisor adjusting a worker's task list or priorities after assigning them to handle a new problem. This is a further mental/organizational step that does not add any additional element integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or providing significantly more. Claims 8, 16: These claims add "a reward determination unit configured to determine... a reward to be given to the person" / "determining... a reward to be given to the person" in case the selected person solves the problem. Determining a reward for an employee who completes an assigned task is itself a fundamental aspect of managing personal behavior/interactions between people (e.g., a supervisor deciding to give a bonus or commendation to a worker who solves a problem) and falls squarely within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. This limitation does not add any additional element beyond the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-fti 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 may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1-7, 9-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostafew et al. (U.S. Patent 11,215,987 B2) (hereafter Ostafew) in view of Nakashima et al. (EP 2781882 B1) (hereafter Nakashima) . Referring to Claim 1 , Ostafew teaches a method for generating a rating scale to be used in an evaluation form, said method comprising: Referring to Claim 1 , Ostafew teaches an apparatus, said apparatus comprising: a personal information acquisition unit configured to acquire attribute information about at least one candidate of a problem-solving person (see; col. 13, lines (45-67) of Ostafew teaches a mobile cell phone acquiring data regarding the vehicle, col. 27, line (42) – col. 28, line (2) and col. 28, lines (20-35) a tele-operator is evaluate the situation and aid them). a person selection unit configured to select a problem-solving person from the at least one candidate based on the information about the moving object acquired by the moving object information acquisition unit, the information about details of the problem acquired by the problem information acquisition unit, and the attribute information about the at least one person acquired by the personal information acquisition unit (see; col. 13, lines (45-67) of Ostafew teaches a mobile cell phone acquiring data regarding the vehicle, col. 27, line (42) – col. 28, line (2) and col. 28, lines (20-35) a tele-operator is evaluate the situation and aid them, col. 48, lines (28-50) in order to solve the issue/problem solution related to the movement of the vehicle). Ostafew does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however, Nakashima teaches a moving object information acquisition unit configured to acquire information about a moving object under management (see; par. [0013] of Nakashima teaches acquiring information regarding travel guidance of available for navigation), and a problem information acquisition unit configured to, if a problem occurs to disturb a task execution by the moving object, acquire information about details of the problem (see; par. [0063]-[0064] of Nakashima teaches interrupt the current path of a vehicle and guiding to a next around environmental changes). The Examiner notes that Ostafew teaches similar to the instant application teaches exception situation playback for tele-operators. Specifically, Ostafew discloses the resolving an exception situation in autonomous driving includes receiving an assistance request to resolve it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Nakashima teaches exception situation playback for tele-operators and as it is comparable in certain respects to Osatafew which an information processing system, information processing device and center server as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection. Ostafew discloses the resolving an exception situation in autonomous driving includes receiving an assistance request to resolve. However, Ostafew fails to disclose a moving object information acquisition unit configured to acquire information about a moving object under management and a problem information acquisition unit configured to, if a problem occurs to disturb a task execution by the moving object, acquire information about details of the problem. Nakashima discloses a moving object information acquisition unit configured to acquire information about a moving object under management and a problem information acquisition unit configured to, if a problem occurs to disturb a task execution by the moving object, acquire information about details of the problem. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Ostafew the a moving object information acquisition unit configured to acquire information about a moving object under management and a problem information acquisition unit configured to, if a problem occurs to disturb a task execution by the moving object, acquire information about details of the problem as taught by Nakashima since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Ostafew, and Nakashima teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to optimize the movement of objects based on acquired information and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined. Referring to Claim 2 , see discussion of claim 1 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the apparatus above, Ostafew further discloses an apparatus having the limitations of: the person selection unit selects the problem-solving person based on a problem-solving capability of a selection target person (see; col. 25, lines (26-39) of Ostafew teaches a person initiating a tele-operator request to solve an obstruction problem). Referring to Claim 3 , see discussion of claim 1 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the apparatus above, Ostafew further discloses an apparatus having the limitations of: the person selection unit selects the problem-solving person based on at least a distance between a current position of a selection target person and an occurrence position of the problem or a distance between a moving path of the selection target person and the occurrence position of the problem (see; col. 17, lines (55-62) of Ostafew teaches measuring the distance between the autonomous vehicle and whether it constitutes an obstruction situation along a moving path). Referring to Claim 4 , see discussion of claim 1 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the apparatus above, Ostafew further discloses an apparatus having the limitations of: the person selection unit selects the problem-solving person based on an importance of a task being executed by a selection target person (see; col. 5, lines (12-16) of Ostafew teaches in a dangerous and unsafe condition a tele-operator is contacted, col. 39, lines (17-35) in order to quickly resolve the obstruction issue a tele-operator who can review events is contacted, col. 32, lines (50-61) and also assigning a tele-operator to handle unacceptable behaviors of the driver). Referring to Claim 5 , see discussion of claim 1 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the apparatus above, Ostafew further discloses an apparatus having the limitations of: the person selection unit selects the problem-solving person based on at least two of a problem- solving capability of a selection target person, a distance between a current position of the selection target person and an occurrence position of the problem, or a distance between a moving path of the selection target person and the occurrence position of the problem (see; col. 3, lines (32-46) of Ostfew teaches a notification based on distance of the passenger from the autonomous vehicle, col. 17, lines (48-54) trajectory planning module can determine the path to go around obstructions). Referring to Claim 6 , see discussion of claim 1 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the apparatus above, Ostafew further discloses an apparatus having the limitations of: comprising a notification unit configured to transmit a notification corresponding to the information about details of the problem acquired by problem information acquisition unit to the person selected by the person selection unit (see; col. 45, lines (21-43) of Ostafew teaches an example of a notification that transmits a notification corresponding to details of the assistance that is needed). Referring to Claim 7 , see discussion of claim 1 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the apparatus above, Ostafew further discloses an apparatus having the limitations of: comprising a correction unit configured to correct information about a task to be executed by the person selected by the person selection unit (see; col. 35, line (50) – col. 36, line (8) of Ostafew teaches an autonomous correction that corrects not just adjusting the immediate corrections and improve future responsive corrections). Referring to Claim 9 , Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches a method for controlling an information processing apparatus. Claim 9 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1. Referring to Claim 10 , see discussion of claim 9 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the method above Claim 10 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2, Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 2. Referring to Claim 11 , see discussion of claim 9 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the method above Claim 11 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3, Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 3. Referring to Claim 12 , see discussion of claim 9 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the method above Claim 12 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4, Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 4. Referring to Claim 13 , see discussion of claim 9 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the method above Claim 13 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5, Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 5. Referring to Claim 14 , see discussion of claim 9 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the method above Claim 14 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6, Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 6. Referring to Claim 15 , see discussion of claim 9 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the method above Claim 15 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7, Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 7. Referring to Claim 17 , Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer executable program. Claim 17 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostafew et al. (U.S. Patent 11,215,987 B2) (hereafter Ostafew) in view of Nakashima et al. (EP 2781882 B1) (hereafter Nakashima) in further view of Mnih et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0140270 A1) (hereafter Mnih) . Referring to Claim 8 , see discussion of claim 1 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the apparatus above, Ostafew in view of Nakashima does not explicitly disclose an apparatus having the limitations of: Mnih teaches a reward determination unit configured to determine, in case where the person selected by the person selection unit solves the problem, a reward to be given to the person (see; par. [0270] of Mnih teaches rewarding a worker when they were selected to perform an action, par. [0018] including related to autonomous vehicle routing). The Examiner notes that Ostafew teaches similar to the instant application teaches exception situation playback for tele-operators. Specifically, Ostafew discloses the resolving an exception situation in autonomous driving includes receiving an assistance request to resolve it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Nakashima teaches exception situation playback for tele-operators and as it is comparable in certain respects to Osatafew which an information processing system, information processing device and center server as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. Additionally, Mnih teaches asynchronous deep reinforcement learning and as it is comparable in certain respects to Osatafew and Nakahsima which an information processing system, information processing device and center server as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection. Osatafew and Nakahsima discloses the resolving an exception situation in autonomous driving includes receiving an assistance request to resolve. However, Osatafew and Nakahsima fails to disclose a reward determination unit configured to determine, in case where the person selected by the person selection unit solves the problem, a reward to be given to the person. Mnih discloses a reward determination unit configured to determine, in case where the person selected by the person selection unit solves the problem, a reward to be given to the person. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management (system/method/apparatus) of Osatafew and Nakahsima a reward determination unit configured to determine, in case where the person selected by the person selection unit solves the problem, a reward to be given to the person as taught by Mnih since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Ostafew, Nakashima, and Mnih teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to optimize the movement of objects based on acquired information and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined. Referring to Claim 16 , see discussion of claim 9 above, while Ostafew in view of Nakashima teaches the method above Claim 16 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 8, Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 8. Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. KOBAYASHI (U.S. Patent Publication 2025/0290763 A1) discloses information processing device. YAMAMOTO et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0035476 A1) discloses information processing apparatus, information processing method, program, and information processing system. Jikumaru et al. (U.S. Patent 11,458,998 B2) discloses information processing apparatus, information processing method and non-transitory storage medium. MACHIDA (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0019227 A1) discloses route planning apparatus, route, planning method, and computer-readable recording medium. Sugimura et al. (U.S. Patent 11,215,468 B2) discloses information processing apparatus, vehicle, and storage medium storing program. London (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0043063 A1) discloses a system and method for the notification of vehicle services. TOKUYAMA et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0017237 A1) discloses autonomous moving object. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00. 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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625 /BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 2 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 3 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 4 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 5 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 6 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 7 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 9 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 10 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 11 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 12 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 13 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 14 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 15 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 16 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 17 Art Unit: 3625 Application/Control Number: 19/172,302 Page 18 Art Unit: 3625
Prosecution Insights