DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Application and claims filed 04/10/2025.
Claims 1-11 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements filed by applicant on 04/10/2025.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention
Claim 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance outlined in the MPEP 2106, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1, 10, 11:
estimating a first charged amount of electricity of the one or more first vehicles charged from a first charger provided in the first facility based on the first parking time information obtained;
outputting [generating] information indicating whether the first charged amount of electricity has been generated using renewable energy based on the first charged amount estimated and the first amount of self-consumption obtained.
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106. Specifically, these limitations fall within a combination of groupings of Mathematical Concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations), Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; 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).
Respectfully, these features are directed towards generic and very high level steps pertaining to a business idea of conveying information regarding a source of energy supplied during EV charging.
Regarding the “estimating” step of claim 1, as drafted, this may be considered a mental process, i.e. an estimation or evaluation as performed in the mind; evaluations, and judgments are mental processes per Cyberfource and 2019 PEG. Furthermore, regarding this step of “estimation” as recited per claims 1, 10, and 11, the step may be considered a type of mathematical concept; i.e. such estimation implies use of known mathematical relationships between time of charging and total electricity used to charge an Electric vehicle, such as via multiplying an estimated rate of electric charging by a time duration to obtain an estimate of a first charged amount; such mathematical calculations and formulas are abstract ideas per Flook, Benson, and MPEP 2106. Finally, the step of “estimating” is nothing more than a business decision, e.g. to help customers understand their energy usage, or for assessing a fee or credit, as part of legal obligations or government regulations, etc… and thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity; business processes are abstract ideas per Alice, Bilski, and MPEP 2106 (e.g., managing legal obligations, managing interactions between parties).
Furthermore, regarding the “outputting” step, this step may be interpreted to mean a generation or calculation of information, e.g. a value, to be output from a function, where such value is intended to convey some generic “indication” then the step is nothing more than an abstract mathematical concept recited at a high level of generality; again, such mathematical calculations and formulas are abstract ideas per Flook, Benson, and MPEP 2106. Also, the “outputting” step may be interpreted to mean “display” of business information, e.g. output to a display device business information. In this view, the “outputting” itself is insignificant extra-solution activity and the decision to provide the business information is nothing more than a business decision to convey information intended to “indicate” something the business deems important – e.g. whether the first charged amount of electricity has been generated using renewable energy, e.g. because business’ recognize some people are conscientious and want to know the source of the energy, goods, and services which they use and/or for assessing a fee or credit, as part of legal obligations or government regulations, etc… and thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity; business processes are abstract ideas per Alice, Bilski, and MPEP 2106 (e.g., managing legal obligations, managing interactions between parties)
Furthermore, there is no technical problem being solved here and there is no technical solution claimed nor provided for solving a technical problem. The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components (e.g. per claims 10 and 11, such as device, processor, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable recording) facilitating the abstract idea(s) does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated groupings. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case conveying information regarding source of energy supplied during EV charging; e.g. renewable energy used or non-renewable energy used) or, serve as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are, exemplified per claim 1, as follows: “A control method for controlling a device, the control method comprising: obtaining first parking time information including a first parking duration of one or more first vehicles in a first facility, the one or more first vehicles each running on electricity in a battery of the first vehicle …” and per claims 10 and 11: “A device comprising: a processor; and a memory,…”; and “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute the control method according to claim 1.”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “obtaining” information regardless of the content of information. Nor is applicant’s invention a particular processor, memory, or non-transitory CRM, etc… The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts within a generic computing environment or, link them to a field of use (e.g. EV charging) or, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data-gathering, transmittal, storage, display) as pertains to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components and “link” them to a field of use, or as insignificant extra-solution activity. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claim 2 recites the following: “wherein the first amount of self-consumption is calculated by subtracting, from a first amount of electricity generated by a first electric generator, a first amount of electricity sold by the first facility provided with the first electric generator, the first electric generator being associated with the first charger and using renewable energy to generate electricity.” However, this feature is merely invoking well-known mathematical concepts, such as applying an energy balance to calculate energy consumed and such energy balance is readily derived from the laws of thermodynamics taught in every engineering curriculum across accredited universities in the U.S. The applicant has not invented these concepts and they are readily applied to account for energy transport into and out of a system as well as energy consumed within a system including systems such as EV charging stations. Therefore, this feature is nothing more than part of the already identified abstract idea but not significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tsafack et al. (U.S. 2021/0240858 A1; hereinafter, "Tsafack").
Claims 1, 10, 11:
Pertaining to claims 1, 10, 11 exemplified in the limitations of method claim 1, Tsafack as shown teaches the following:
A control method for controlling a device, the control method comprising:
obtaining first parking time information including a first parking duration of one or more first vehicles in a first facility, the one or more first vehicles each running on electricity in a battery of the first vehicle (Tsafack, see at least Figs. 2-3 and [0066]-[0068], regarding electric vehicle charging points, teaching, e.g. obtaining transactionFromTimestamps and transactionToTimestamps regarding duration of electric vehicle charging; the electric vehicle being charged has a battery.
PNG
media_image1.png
694
1022
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
564
956
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
540
1090
media_image3.png
Greyscale
);
estimating a first charged amount of the one or more first vehicles charged from a first charger1 provided in the first facility based on the first parking time information obtained (Tsafack, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0129]-[0130] regarding e.g.: “currentConsumption” and/or “totalConsumption” [amount of electricity of the one or more first vehicles charged] for a particular transaction and/or time period of multiple transactions. For example, per [0129]: “…In step 604, the controller then determines the current consumption (total energy consumed), based on the metering records since the last payment time stamp. The controller then calculates a bill amount, by applying an applicable energy tariff (charge rate) to the calculated consumption…”; applicant’s “charged amount” is understood to refer to an amount of electricity used to charge an electric vehicle’s battery);
obtaining a first amount of self-consumption of renewable energy that has been consumed in the first facility (Tsafack, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0176]-[0179], teaches his energy supply may be from renewable energy sources, e.g.: “…local energy generation (e.g. through solar generators) [renewable energy], etc… the smart meter for the consumer and associated metering platform may also be able to record energy flowing to the grid from the energy customer (e.g. from a particular house/building), in addition to energy consumed from the energy grid. This may then be used in settlement (e.g. offsetting supply against consumption, crediting the customer etc.)…”; and per [0055]-[0057], Tsafack teaches: “…The charging point 110 is connected to an energy supply 102 (e.g. national electricity grid or local generator [e.g. renewable energy per Tsafak as noted supra]) via a smart meter 106 and a network-connected electrical supply switch 108… The consumed electricity [self-consumption] is measured [obtained] by a smart meter 106, which reports the usage to a metering platform 112,...”; In view of these teachings, the Examiner understands Tsafack teaches a smart meter 106 measures [obtains] consumed electricity [self-consumption] and this smart meter distinguishes when energy is being consumed from a local generator vs. the grid, and the smart meter measures the direction of energy flow and amount of energy consumed which may be from local energy generation (e.g. through solar generators) [renewable energy]. Therefore, although the limitation in question may not be explicitly stated in a single embodiment by Tsafack, the Examiner nonetheless finds that the teachings of Tsafack suggest his system/method is capable of and can measure [obtain] consumed electricity [self-consumption] of a charging point which is from local energy generation (e.g. through solar generators) [renewable energy] and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have measured [obtained] a first amount of consumed electricity [a first amount of self-consumption] from local sources known to be solar [of renewable energy that has been consumed in the first facility] because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.); and
outputting information indicating whether the first charged amount of electricity has been generated using renewable energy based on the first charged amount estimated and the first amount of self-consumption obtained (Tsafack, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least [0057]-[0058], e.g.: “…The consumed electricity [e.g. as noted supra the electricity is generated using renewable energy] is measured by a smart meter 106, which reports [outputting] the usage [information indicating whether the first charged amount was generated using renewable energy] to a metering platform 112, where consumption data is aggregated and stored. The metering platform provides consumption data (e.g. in the form of aggregate consumption of particular charging points over a given time period) to the control node 114 on request (e.g. when processing charging transactions) or proactively (e.g. at periodic intervals)…”)
Claim 2:
Tsafack teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Tsafack teaches the following:
The control method according to claim 1, wherein the first amount of self-consumption is calculated by subtracting, from a first amount of electricity generated by a first electric generator, a first amount of electricity sold by the first facility provided with the first electric generator, the first electric generator being associated with the first charger and using renewable energy to generate electricity (Tsafack, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least [0179]: “…Note that in the case of local energy generation (e.g. through solar generators) there is also the possibility that the consumer (e.g. a household) may supply energy back [first amount sold…] into the distribution grid (e.g. if producing more energy from local assets than is being consumed at a given time). To this end, the smart meter for the consumer and associated metering platform may also be able to record energy flowing to the grid from the energy customer (e.g. from a particular house/building), in addition to energy consumed from the energy grid. This may then be used in settlement (e.g. offsetting supply against consumption [subtracting, from an amount generated, an amount sold], crediting the customer etc.)…”).
Claim 3:
Tsafack teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Tsafack teaches the following:
The control method according to claim 1, wherein in the outputting, when the first charged amount is less than or equal to the first amount of self-consumption, information indicating that the first charged amount of electricity has been generated using renewable energy is outputted (Tsafack, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0179], teaching: “…in settlement (e.g. offsetting supply against consumption [subtracting, from an amount generated such as second amount generated, an amount sold, such as second amount sold], crediting the customer etc.)…”; the settlement such as a credit is information indicating that the first charged amount of electricity has been generated using renewable energy; because this occurs when the first charged amount, i.e. used to charge an EV, is less than or equal to the first amount used by the charging point and which is generated by local supply, e.g. solar [renewable source], such that an excess of energy is measured by the smart meter to flow from the charging point, e.g. sold, to the grid. For example, if the total is not generated using any renewable then there is no credit and if the total is generated using renewable then there is some form of credit.).
Claim 4:
Tsafack teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Tsafack teaches the following:
The control method according to claim 1, wherein the first parking duration is a total parking duration of the one or more first vehicles in the first facility during a first period of time, the first charged amount is a total charged amount of the one or more first vehicles charged during the first period of time, and the first amount of self-consumption is a total amount of self-consumption in the first facility during the first period of time (Tsafack, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least Figs. 3 in view of [0057]: “…The consumed electricity is measured by a smart meter 106, which reports the usage to a metering platform 112,…The metering platform provides consumption data (e.g. in the form of aggregate consumption of particular charging points over a given time period) to the control node 114 on request (e.g. when processing charging transactions) or proactively (e.g. at periodic intervals)…”; i.e. all of the amounts which are measured or otherwise determined, including transactionFromTimestamp and transactionToTimestamp form a total duration of charging for a first vehicle, the totalConsumption is a total charged during this time duration, the smart meter measures the total amount from local generators such as solar which is a total amount of self-consumption.).
Claim 5:
Tsafack teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Tsafack teaches the following:
The control method according to claim 1, further comprising: obtaining second parking time information including a second parking duration of one or more second vehicles in a second facility, the one or more second vehicles each running on electricity in a battery of the second vehicle; estimating a second charged amount of the one or more second vehicles charged from a second charger provided in the second facility based on the second parking time information obtained; and obtaining a second amount of self-consumption of renewable energy that has been consumed in the second facility, wherein in the outputting, information indicating whether total electricity obtained by adding the first charged amount of electricity and the second charged amount of electricity has been generated using renewable energy is outputted based on the first charged amount estimated and the second charged amount estimated as well as the first amount of self-consumption obtained and the second amount of self-consumption obtained (Tsafack, see citations noted supra, including also at least Figs. 4, 5, 9 and [0014]-[0018], [0074], etc… regarding blockchain storage of aggregated metering data for a customer, e.g. for purposes of implementing smart contracts, etc…, e.g. [0074]: “..At (2), the Start/Stop charge request from the user results in a change to the state of the Charging Point in the Ethereum smart contract as well as entering separate records in BigchainDB both for Start and Stop events…”;
PNG
media_image4.png
732
842
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Herein, Tsafack teaches storage of aggregated charging information, regarding a particular customer’s electric vehicle charging at different charging points, in a blockchain. Therefore, there is motivation to output to Tsafack’s blockchain, the information which he teaches he calculates and obtains and stores in a blockchain which, in aggregate, indicates whether total electricity obtained, e.g. by a single customer over different time periods and perhaps different charging points, has been generated by renewables such as solar, by adding the first charged amount of electricity, e.g. at a first charging point and during a first time period, and the second charged amount of electricity during a second time period, at whatever charging point the customer used during such second time period. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the feature in question, based on a first charged amount estimated by Tsafack’s smart meter and a second charged amount estimated by Tsafack’s smart meter which would include a first amount of self-consumption obtained from a local generator of renewable energy such as solar and a second amount of self-consumption obtained from a local generator of renewable energy such as solar because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Claim 6:
Tsafack teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Tsafack teaches the following:
The control method according to claim 6, wherein the second amount of self-consumption is calculated by subtracting, from a second amount of electricity generated by a second electric generator, a second amount of electricity sold by the second facility provided with the second electric generator, the second electric generator being associated with the second charger and using renewable energy to generate electricity (Tsafack, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least [0179]: “…Note that in the case of local energy generation (e.g. through solar generators) there is also the possibility that the consumer (e.g. a household) may supply energy back [e.g. a second amount sold…] into the distribution grid (e.g. if producing more energy from local assets than is being consumed at a given time). To this end, the smart meter for the consumer and associated metering platform may also be able to record energy flowing to the grid from the energy customer (e.g. from a particular house/building), in addition to energy consumed from the energy grid. This may then be used in settlement (e.g. offsetting supply against consumption [subtracting, from an amount generated such as second amount generated, an amount sold, such as second amount sold], crediting the customer etc.)…”) .
Claim 7:
Tsafack teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Tsafack teaches the following:
The control method according to claim 5,wherein in the outputting, when a first sum that is a sum of the first charged amount and the second charged amount is less than or equal to a second sum that is a sum of the first amount of self-consumption and the second amount of self-consumption, information indicating that total electricity obtained by adding the first charged amount of electricity and the second charged amount of electricity has been generated using renewable energy is outputted (Tsafack, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0179], teaching: “…in settlement (e.g. offsetting supply against consumption [subtracting, from an amount generated such as second amount generated, an amount sold, such as second amount sold], crediting the customer etc.)…”; the settlement such as a credit is information indicating that a total electricity obtained by adding the first charged amount of electricity and the second charged amount of electricity has been generated using renewable energy is outputted; i.e. if the total is not generated using any renewable then there is no credit and if the total is generated using renewable then there is some form of credit.)
Claim 8:
Tsafack teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Tsafack teaches the following:
The control method according to claim 1, further comprising: purchasing, when the first charged amount is greater than the first amount of self-consumption, an environmental credit indicating that an amount of electricity has been generated using renewable energy, the amount being based on a difference obtained by subtracting the first charged amount from the first amount of self-consumption (Tsafack, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0179], teaching: “…in settlement (e.g. offsetting supply against consumption [subtracting, from an amount generated such as second amount generated, an amount sold, such as second amount sold], crediting the customer etc.)…”; the settlement such as a credit is information indicating that a total electricity obtained by adding the first charged amount of electricity and the second charged amount of electricity has been generated using renewable energy is outputted; i.e. if the total is not generated using any renewable then there is no credit and if the total is generated using renewable then there is some form of credit.).
Claim 9:
Tsafack teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Tsafack teaches the following:
The control method according to claim 1, further comprising: storing the information in a distributed ledger included in the device (Tsafack, see citations noted supra, including at least [0052] teaching: blockchain is understood to be a type of “distributed ledger” and in view of [0083], teaching, e.g.: “…In the EV charging application described above, in addition to the control data that is read by the charging site to determine when to activate/deactivate supply of energy via the charging station, the public blockchain 204 also stores integrity validation data, in the form of validation hashes, pertaining to transactions or data records stored in the private database 206. The validation can be used to verify integrity of data in the private database. For example, it allows a user to verify that their energy consumption data has not been altered after the initial creation of the transaction. However, this mechanism is applicable to many different contexts aside from the EV charging application, and will therefore be described in the following section in more general terms…” again per [0052]: blockchain is understood to be a type of “distributed ledger”: “Due to the inherent security and the distributed nature, a blockchain can provide an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way…”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 Specification [pg. 5:3-4]: “…For example, the charger may simply be an electric outlet.”
Prosecution Insights