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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2025 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 § 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed “testing device” comprises no structural components and could be reasonably interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art to be implemented solely via software. The only claimed component that makes up the “testing device” is an “output”, which is non-structural. Therefore, the claimed subject matter as a whole fails to fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-12 are directed to a testing device and falls within appears to fall within the statutory category of machines (see the 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-15 above) and claim 16 is directed to a method and falls within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitation “wherein the testing device is set up to evaluate the communication on the basis of at least one state transition of at least one of the participants, wherein the evaluation includes the determination of a deviation of the evaluated communication from a default, wherein the default contains information on states and/or state transitions of the at least one participant”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, and judge at least one state transition of at least one of the participants and mentally evaluate, with or without the use of pen and paper, the communication, wherein the evaluation includes the determination of a deviation of the evaluated communication from a default, wherein the default contains information on states and/or state transitions of the at least one participant.
Claim 16: The limitation “evaluating the communication on the basis of at least one state transition of at least one of the participants, the evaluation comprising a determination of a deviation of the communication from a default, the default comprising information on states and/or state transitions of the at least one participant”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, and judge at least one state transition of at least one of the participants and mentally evaluate, with or without the use of pen and paper, the communication, the evaluation comprising a determination of a deviation of the communication from a default, the default comprising information on states and/or state transitions of the at least one participant.
Therefore, yes, claims 1 and 16 recite judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of “testing device”, “an output”, and “wherein the evaluation includes a recording of the assumption of states and/or the use of state transitions by the at least one participant”. Limitation “testing device” is merely a recitation of a generic computing component and function being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations “an output” and “wherein the evaluation includes a recording of the assumption of states and/or the use of state transitions by the at least one participant” are merely insignificant data gathering activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data)”. That is, in the instant claims, these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claim 16 recites the additional element of “outputting first data depending on the evaluation” which is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data)”. That is, in the instant claim, this limitation merely receives or transmits/provides data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After evaluating the inquiries set forth in Steps 2A Prongs 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 16 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 16: The claims do not recite additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and merely an insignificant data gathering activity which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 2, the limitation “wherein the output first data comprise a graphical representation of the states assumed by the at least one participant and/or the state transitions, and wherein the output first data comprises a graphical representation of the deviation of the evaluated communication from the default” is an additional element that is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory)”. That is, in the instant claims, these limitations merely output data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 2 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 3, the limitation “wherein the output of the first data has a graphical representation of a state machine” is an additional element that is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory)”. That is, in the instant claims, these limitations merely output data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 3 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 4, the limitation “wherein the evaluation comprises a recording of a duration during which a given state is assumed” is an additional element that is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory)”. That is, in the instant claims, these limitations merely output data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 4 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 5, the limitation “wherein the evaluation comprises a quantitative evaluation, or a statistical evaluation, of the assumption of states and/or the use of state transitions by the at least one participant” is an additional element that is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 5 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 6, the limitation “wherein the testing device receives second data, and wherein the second data comprise at least one state transition” is an additional element that is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory)”. That is, in the instant claims, these limitations merely output data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 6 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 7, the limitation “wherein the default contains information on at least one protocol and/or at least one communication standard, and/or a diagram and/or textual instructions as a default model” is an additional element that is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 7 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 8, the limitation “wherein the testing device is set up to derive a communication model from the second data for comparison with the default model” is an additional element that is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 8 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 9, the limitation “wherein the second data have at least one event assigned to at least one state transition and/or a state of the at least one participant and/or information on a technical requirement of the communication” is an additional element that is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 9 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 10, the limitation “wherein the testing device is designed as a further participant in the communication” is an additional element that is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 10 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 11, the limitation “wherein the testing device receives and sends the communication between the at least two participants” is an additional element that is merely an insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of granularity) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory)”. That is, in the instant claims, these limitations merely output data which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Claim 11 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 12, the limitation “wherein the testing device is one of the at least two participants in the communication” is an additional element that is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 12 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Therefore, claims 1-12 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 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.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schulz (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0346010, hereinafter “Schulz”).
Claim 1:
Schulz discloses a testing device to test a communication between at least two participants, the testing device comprising:
an output (§ 0072, Lines 1-2; A user interface for the charging tester system is provided by a display 234 for output of information to a user),
wherein the testing device is set up to evaluate the communication on the basis of at least one state transition of at least one of the participants (§ 0057, Lines 8-12; A primary load module 104 may therefore be advantageous to the user when it is able to simulate various states of charge, resistance levels, and other conditions that vary when EVs are charged by a charging station),
wherein the evaluation includes the determination of a deviation of the evaluated communication from a default (§ 0063, Lines 1-3; A verification module 114 is provided that compares the charging protocol specifications to the output of the charger 116),
wherein the default contains information on states and/or state transitions of the at least one participant (§ 0063, Lines 9-13; The verification module 114 compares this data to accepted performance data within internal memory to ensure that the EV charge is working within an accepted performance envelope that is required by EV charging standards),
wherein the evaluation includes a recording of the assumption of states and/or the use of state transitions by the at least one participant (§ 0063, Lines 3-5; Reports or stores a verification of whether the specifications are being properly followed in the charger 116), and
wherein the output of the testing device is configured to output first data depending on the evaluation (§ 0055, Lines 1-5; The user interface 102 of the charger testing system 100 is comprised of displays, output devices, indicators, gauges, input devices, buttons, dials, and other related components for receiving and providing data between a user and the charger testing system 100).
Claim 2:
Schulz further discloses wherein the output first data comprise a graphical representation of the states assumed by the at least one participant and/or the state transitions, and wherein the output first data comprises a graphical representation of the deviation of the evaluated communication from the default (§ 0055, Lines 1-5 and 15-17; The user interface 102 of the charger testing system 100 is comprised of displays, output devices, indicators, gauges, input devices, buttons, dials, and other related components for receiving and providing data between a user and the charger testing system 100. The user interface module may also be configured to provide lights, sounds and other alerts regarding the state of charging).
Claim 3:
Schulz further discloses wherein the output of the first data has a graphical representation of a state machine (§ 0055, Lines 15-17; The user interface module may also be configured to provide lights, sounds and other alerts regarding the state of charging).
Claim 4:
Schulz further discloses wherein the evaluation comprises a recording of a duration during which a given state is assumed (§ 0068, Lines 5-8; With a variable and/or controllable load module, it gives the capability to profile various charge scenarios for a variety of loads from mild charges to completely depleted battery systems, each with different durations of charging) (§ 0062, Lines 1-4; A logging module 112 provides the functionality of logging and recording the EV charge sequence and power levels received from the charger 116 by the testing system 100 for later debug and analysis).
Claim 5:
Schulz further discloses wherein the evaluation comprises a quantitative evaluation, or a statistical evaluation, of the assumption of states and/or the use of state transitions by the at least one participant (§ 0063, Lines 1-3; A verification module 114 is provided that compares the charging protocol specifications to the output of the charger 116).
Claim 6:
Schulz further discloses wherein the testing device receives second data, and wherein the second data comprise at least one state transition (§ 0057, Lines 8-10; A primary load module 104 may therefore be advantageous to the user when it is able to simulate various states of charge).
Claim 7:
Schulz further discloses wherein the default contains information on at least one protocol and/or at least one communication standard, and/or a diagram and/or textual instructions as a default model (§ 0063, Lines 1-3; A verification module 114 is provided that compares the charging protocol specifications to the output of the charger 116).
Claim 8:
Schulz further discloses wherein the testing device is set up to derive a communication model from the second data for comparison with the default model (§ 0060, Lines 3-6; The memory 108 may store charging protocol parameters that are compared to the load experienced by the primary load module 104 for charging protocol compliance verification).
Claim 9:
Schulz further discloses wherein the second data have at least one event assigned to at least one state transition and/or a state of the at least one participant and/or information on a technical requirement of the communication (§ 0065, Lines 30-35; “Compliance” of communications or power connections with a charging protocol means that the communication or power connections are properly sized, shaped, positioned, and otherwise designed to meet minimum requirements for connection of the EV charger testing system to an EV charger).
Claim 10:
Schulz further discloses wherein the testing device is designed as a further participant in the communication (§ 0054, Lines 7-9; The charger test system 100 is shown in communication with an electric vehicle charging station 116).
Claim 11:
Schulz further discloses wherein the testing device receives and sends the communication between the at least two participants (§ 0061, Lines 14-23; The electronic interface module 110 may also be a bidirectional communications interface where information is exchanged between the charger testing system 100 and the charger 116 such as the electronic interface module 110 sending status information to the charger and the charger 116 sending fault information or other information about the state of charging or the state of the charger 116 to the electronic interface module 110).
Claim 12:
Schulz further discloses wherein the testing device is one of the at least two participants in the communication (§ 0054, Lines 7-9; The charger test system 100 is shown in communication with an electric vehicle charging station 116).
Claim 13:
Schulz further discloses wherein the testing device simulates a charging device for the provision of electrical energy for a vehicle that is at least partially electrically driven (§ 0057, Lines 32-35; The primary load module 104 may more accurately and completely simulate and virtualize an EV when it is connected to and receiving power from a charging station 116).
Claim 14:
Schulz further discloses wherein the second participant of the at least two participants has a control unit for charge management for the vehicle or simulates a control unit for charge management for the vehicle at least in part (§ 0059, Lines 3-6; The controller 106 may be used to control the primary load module 104 in order to simulate an EV while power is being received from the charging station 116).
Claim 15:
Schulz further discloses wherein the testing device tests the communication between a vehicle at least partially electrically powered and a charging device for the provision of electrical energy for the at least partially electrically powered vehicle (§ 0057, Lines 32-35; The primary load module 104 may more accurately and completely simulate and virtualize an EV when it is connected to and receiving power from a charging station 116).
Claim 16:
Schulz discloses a method for testing a communication between at least two participants, the method comprising:
evaluating the communication on the basis of at least one state transition of at least one of the participants (§ 0057, Lines 8-12; A primary load module 104 may therefore be advantageous to the user when it is able to simulate various states of charge, resistance levels, and other conditions that vary when EVs are charged by a charging station), the evaluation comprising a determination of a deviation of the communication from a default (§ 0063, Lines 1-3; A verification module 114 is provided that compares the charging protocol specifications to the output of the charger 116), the default comprising information on states and/or state transitions of the at least one participant (§ 0063, Lines 9-13; The verification module 114 compares this data to accepted performance data within internal memory to ensure that the EV charge is working within an accepted performance envelope that is required by EV charging standards); and
outputting first data depending on the evaluation (§ 0055, Lines 1-5; The user interface 102 of the charger testing system 100 is comprised of displays, output devices, indicators, gauges, input devices, buttons, dials, and other related components for receiving and providing data between a user and the charger testing system 100).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0160280 (Rodriguez et al.) – A security system for monitoring an EV charging station.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0013301 (Gaul et al.) – Monitoring the charging process of EVs including detecting means for detecting in the vehicle at least a state of charge of the battery as well as a desired charge time and calculating means for determining the required energy for fully charging the battery.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0217928 (Kulidjian et al.) – An electric vehicle charging interface that receives and displays information regarding the status of a vehicle including indicators for testing, charging, discharging, draining, idling, error, charging complete, rate of charge, communication of the vehicle and smart socket, relative energy pricing, utility events, grid conditions, demand or access fees, power on, power off, or any other such indicator relating to charging the vehicle.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0258457 (Han et al.) – Charging status monitoring module collects information on a status of a charging operation of an EV from an electric charging unit of an electric vehicle charging station.
U.S. Patent No. 9180783 (Penilla et al.) – Charge units with color indicators to signal charge status and availability.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0253642 (Efird) – A time period over which usage of a vehicle is chargeable can be determined or monitored based on events associated with a vehicle. An event can reflect a status change for the vehicle where the vehicle transitions from a first state to a second state.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0009372 (Bhargava et al.) – Optimized charging of EV via event triggers such as an EV starts charging, an EV’s GPS data indicates that it has entered a pre-set GPS zone, an EV’s state deviates too far from expectations, among other triggers.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0270109 (De Cesaris) – Testing a charging station including transmitting an electric quantity flowing, measuring operating states of elements of the charging station in response to the electric quantity, and diagnosing the charging station based on operating state measurements.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0286407 (Athanasas et al.) - An interoperability test between electric vehicles and charging stations can be completely or partially replaced by emulations in various graduations, and realistically simulated by actions and reactions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM T TRAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM 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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/NAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights