DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 19-33 have been examined in this application. Claims 1-18 were cancelled and new claims 19-33 were added in a preliminary amendment filed on 7/9/2025.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this communication, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 19-31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12367714 (US12367714B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 19: All of the limitations of instant claim 19 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘714 patent.
Claim 20: The limitations of instant claim 20 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 2 of the ‘714 patent (note that claim 2 includes the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘714 patent).
Claim 21: The limitations of instant claim 21 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘714 patent.
Claim 22: The limitations of instant claim 22 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 3 of the ‘714 patent.
Claim 23: The limitations of instant claim 23 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘714 patent.
Claim 24: The limitations of instant claim 24 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘714 patent.
Claim 25: The limitations of instant claim 25 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘714 patent (see limitations showing an operator of the vehicle, i.e. the vehicle is being operated).
Claim 26: The limitations of instant claim 26 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 4 of the ‘714 patent.
Claim 27: The limitations of instant claim 27 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘714 patent.
Claim 28: The limitations of instant claim 28 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 6 of the ‘714 patent.
Claim 29: The limitations of instant claim 29 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 6 of the ‘714 patent.
Claim 30: The limitations of instant claim 30 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 6 of the ‘714 patent.
Claim 31: The limitations of instant claim 31 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 13 of the ‘714 patent.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12367714 (US12367714B2) in view of US 20160203464 A1 to Fustes.
Claim 32: The limitations of instant claim 32 are taught by the limitations of claim 13 of the ‘714 patent, except for a non-transitory memory storing one or more computer programs; and a processor executing the one or more programs.
However, Fustes teaches a non-transitory memory storing one or more computer programs; and a processor executing the one or more programs (Fustes: ¶ 0097-0100 showing memory storing one or more instructions executable by one or more processors; and showing various types of non-transitory/physical memory devices). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include implementation on a non-transitory memory storing instructions executable by a processor as taught by Fustes in the system of claim 13 of the ‘714 patent, 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.
Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12367714 (US12367714B2) in view of US 20160203464 A1 to Fustes.
Claim 33: As per above, the limitations of instant claim 32 are taught by claim 13 of the ‘714 in view of Fustes. Claim 13 of the ‘714 patent further teaches retrieving information from vehicle data storage to detect the vehicle. Claim 13 of the ‘714 patent/Fustes do not explicitly teach, however, claim 6 of the ‘714 patent further teaches where the processor executes the one or more programs to collect toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the proximity corridor area by accessing one or more in-vehicle sensors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include collecting toll related data and as taught by claim 6 of the ‘714 patent in the system of the ’714 patent/Fustes, 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.
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 19-23 and 25-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 19-23 and 25-30 recite “A method…” (i.e. a process); claim 31 recites “A vehicle enrollment management system, comprising: a vehicle comprising a vehicle processor…” (i.e. a machine); and claims 32-33 recite “A vehicle enrollment management system…comprising: a non-transitory memory…a processor…” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 19 recites limitations for dynamically enrolling a vehicle with a tolling authority, comprising:
sending…a request for enrollment to a tolling authority in response to detection that the vehicle has entered into a proximity corridor area;
receiving and displaying…a vehicle enrollment and registration message inviting an operator of the vehicle to enroll the vehicle with the tolling authority;
receiving…an enrollment response by the operator to automatically enroll the vehicle with the tolling authority;
generating…a vehicle registration message in response to the enrollment response; and
sending…the vehicle registration message to automatically register the vehicle with the tolling authority
Independent claim 31 recites limitations for vehicle enrollment management, comprising:
communicate with a vehicle enrollment authority…that is operable to dynamically enroll a vehicle with a vehicle charging authority service (VCAS),
…sends the request for enrollment to the vehicle enrollment authority…in response to detecting that the vehicle has entered into a proximity corridor area;
…receives and displays a vehicle enrollment and registration message inviting an operator of the vehicle to enroll the vehicle with the VCAS;
…display the vehicle enrollment and registration message at a vehicle;
…receives an enrollment response by the operator to automatically enroll the vehicle with the VCAS;
…generates a vehicle registration message in response to the enrollment response; and
…sends the vehicle registration message to automatically register the vehicle with the VCAS
Independent claim 32 recites similar limitations for dynamically enrolling a vehicle with a tolling authority, comprising:
send a request for enrollment to a tolling authority in response to detecting that the vehicle has entered into a proximity corridor area;
receive a vehicle enrollment and registration message inviting an operator of the vehicle to enroll the vehicle with the tolling authority;
display the vehicle enrollment and registration message…
receive an enrollment response by the operator to automatically enroll the vehicle with the tolling authority;
generate a vehicle registration message in response to the enrollment response; and
send the vehicle registration message to automatically register the vehicle with the tolling authority
The limitations of independent claims 19, 31, and 32 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. sending a request to enroll a vehicle with a toll authority in response to detecting that the vehicle has entered into a proximity corridor area, receiving a registration message inviting a vehicle operator to enroll the vehicle with the toll authority, receive a response by the operator to enroll the vehicle, and generating and sending a vehicle registration message to register the vehicle with the tolling authority) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations above amount to a commercial interaction and managing interactions between people (i.e. sending a request to enroll a vehicle with a toll authority in response to detecting that the vehicle has entered into a proximity corridor area, receiving a registration message inviting a vehicle operator to enroll the vehicle with the toll authority, receive a response by the operator to enroll the vehicle, and generating and sending a vehicle registration message to register the vehicle with the tolling authority – describing the limitations above), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong Two:
Claims 19, 31, and 32 recite the following additional elements:
“a vehicle processor” (e.g. by a vehicle processor) of claim 19
“dynamically” (to any extent this indicates computer automation) of claims 19, 31, and 32
“A vehicle enrollment management system, comprising: a vehicle comprising a vehicle processor connected over an in-vehicle network to retrieve in-vehicle data from a vehicle data storage and one or more in-vehicle sensors, where the vehicle is wirelessly coupled to communicate with a vehicle enrollment authority computer” and “the vehicle processor” of claim 31
“A vehicle enrollment system…comprising: a non-transitory memory storing one or more computer programs; and a processor executing the one or more programs to:” of claim 32
“on a vehicle display” of claim 32
sending, receiving, and displaying information using the vehicle processor (claims 19 and 31) and the processor (claim 32)
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 19, 31, and 32 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. sending a request to enroll a vehicle with a toll authority in response to detecting that the vehicle has entered into a proximity corridor area, receiving a registration message inviting a vehicle operator to enroll the vehicle with the toll authority, receive a response by the operator to enroll the vehicle, and generating and sending a vehicle registration message to register the vehicle with the tolling authority) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “a vehicle processor” of claim 19; “A vehicle enrollment management system, comprising: a vehicle comprising a vehicle processor connected over an in-vehicle network to retrieve in-vehicle data from a vehicle data storage and one or more in-vehicle sensors, where the vehicle is wirelessly coupled to communicate with a vehicle enrollment authority computer” and “the vehicle processor” of claim 31; and “A vehicle enrollment system…comprising: a non-transitory memory storing one or more computer programs; and a processor executing the one or more programs to…” and “a vehicle display” of claim 32). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The use of the vehicle processor (claims 19 and 31), the vehicle enrollment authority computer (claim 31), the processor (claim 32), and a vehicle display (claim 32) to receive and send messages electronically and display data electronically describes the use of computers at a high level of generality, and the use of computers in their ordinary capacity, to apply the abstract idea. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components.
That the vehicle enrollment is performed “dynamically” also merely describes automation of an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 19, 31, and 32 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. sending a request to enroll a vehicle with a toll authority in response to detecting that the vehicle has entered into a proximity corridor area, receiving a registration message inviting a vehicle operator to enroll the vehicle with the toll authority, receive a response by the operator to enroll the vehicle, and generating and sending a vehicle registration message to register the vehicle with the tolling authority) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “a vehicle processor” of claim 19; “A vehicle enrollment management system, comprising: a vehicle comprising a vehicle processor connected over an in-vehicle network to retrieve in-vehicle data from a vehicle data storage and one or more in-vehicle sensors, where the vehicle is wirelessly coupled to communicate with a vehicle enrollment authority computer” and “the vehicle processor” of claim 31; and “A vehicle enrollment system…comprising: a non-transitory memory storing one or more computer programs; and a processor executing the one or more programs to…” and “a vehicle display” of claim 32). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
The use of the vehicle processor (claims 19 and 31), the vehicle enrollment authority computer (claim 31), the processor (claim 32), and a vehicle display (claim 32) to receive and send messages electronically and display data electronically describes the use of computers at a high level of generality, and the use of computers in their ordinary capacity, to apply the abstract idea. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not add significantly more, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components.
That the vehicle enrollment is performed “dynamically” also merely describes automation of an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not add anything that amounts to significantly more. Therefore, claims 19, 31, and 32 do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 20-23, 25-30 and 33:
Dependent claims 20-23, 25-30 and 33 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 19 and 32 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the request for enrollment, the vehicle enrollment and registration message, and the vehicle registration message are sent over a wireless connection between the vehicle to the tolling authority” – which at best only describes the use of computers in their ordinary capacity (e.g. to receive and transmit data) to apply the abstract idea.
Claim 21 further describes the abstract idea above (“detecting…that the vehicle has entered onto a proximity corridor area associated with a toll road managed by the tolling authority”) being performed using generic computers (“by the vehicle processor”).
Claim 22 further describes the abstract idea above (“where detecting that the vehicle has entered onto the proximity corridor area comprises collecting vehicle location data…and comparing the vehicle location data to a virtual geofence map defining the proximity corridor area”) being carried out using a GNSS sensor recited at a high level of generality and being used in its ordinary capacity to provide vehicle location data (“from an in-vehicle global navigation satellite system (GNSS) sensor”).
Claim 23 recites “where the vehicle enrollment and registration message is displayed on a vehicle display and comprises a single-click enrollment option for enrolling the vehicle with the tolling authority” which describes the use of a vehicle display in its ordinary capacity to display information, and further describes the enrollment and registration message. The “single-click enrollment option” is not described at any level of detail to describe its functionality or otherwise indicate that it provides an improvement to how information is displayed on a vehicle display.
Claim 25 further describes the abstract idea above (“detecting…that the vehicle has entered a tolling corridor associated with the tolling authority while the vehicle is being operated”) being applied using a generic computer (“by the vehicle processor”).
Claim 26 recites “where sending the request for enrollment comprises transmitting a vehicle toll service enrollment request message comprising a unique identifier for the vehicle that is retrieved from vehicle data stored on the vehicle,” which only further describes the data in the request and describes generic computer functions/the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to transmit data.
Claim 27 merely further describes the abstract idea above (“where the vehicle registration message comprises a digital wallet identifier for automated billing associated with tolls incurred by the vehicle within the proximity corridor area”).
Claims 28-30 recite “where sending the request for enrollment comprises transmitting a first message to a remote toll managed services server (TMSS) associated with the tolling authority with location data indicating the vehicle has entered onto a toll area associated with the TMSS” (claim 28), “where sending the vehicle registration message comprises transmitting a second message to the TMSS with toll-related data for the vehicle collected by the vehicle processor while operating the vehicle in the toll area by executing a tolling application program on the vehicle processor” (claim 29), and “receiving a third message from the TMSS with a toll charge, and display the toll charge at a display in the vehicle” (claim 30). These limitations only further describes the abstract idea (sending first, second, and third messages) being applied using generic computers (“to a remote toll managed services server” and “the vehicle processor”) in their ordinary capacity to receive and transmit data electronically.
Claim 33 further describes the abstract idea above (“collect toll-related data for the vehicle while operating in the proximity corridor area”) being performed using generic computers operating in their ordinary capacity (“by accessing one or more in-vehicle sensors and an in- vehicle data storage device” – e.g. retrieving information from memory, and collecting data from vehicle sensors recited at a high level of generality).
Therefore, claims 19-23 and 25-33 are ineligible under § 101.
Note: Claim 24 is not rejected under § 101 because the claim limitations, considered together with claim 19 and 23, provide an improved vehicle user interface by addressing a problem specific to using vehicle-based interfaces while the vehicle is being driven, and describe how the query is displayed as a single click option in detail such that it can be viewed and responded to by the vehicle operator without causing a distraction to the driver (see ¶ 0027 “This stage of query and response within the vehicle 200 is intended to be brief because the vehicle is in motion and the driver's attention should not be distracted from driving” and ¶ 0042 showing “This stage of query and response within the vehicle 311 is intended to be brief because the vehicle 311 is in motion and the driver's attention should be focused on driving the vehicle 311”). Therefore, the limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 19-33 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art for the following reasons:
No combination of the prior art would render obvious the exact combination of limitations of claim 19 (and similar claims 31 and 32) wherein a vehicle processor sends a request for enrollment to a remote toll server associated with a tolling authority in response to detection that the vehicle has entered into a proximity corridor area, and then receiving and displaying, by the vehicle processor, vehicle enrollment and registration messages inviting the operator to enroll the vehicle with the tolling authority. Additionally, regarding claim 23, no combination of the prior art appears to include the display of the received single click enrollment option message following detection of the vehicle entering the vehicle charging corridor.
US 20160203464 A1 to Fustes teaches a toll collection system which, upon detection of a vehicle within a tolling corridor (also a “vehicle charging” corridor in that the vehicle is being charged for access), determining whether or not a vehicle identifier or tag is associated with a valid tolling account (e.g. a toll text account), and if not, then a message is transmitted to a user device in the vehicle that informs the user that they can register for electronic toll payments (Fustes: ¶ 0082-0085). Fustes does not appear to mention a enrollment request being transmitted from the vehicle in response to detection of the vehicle, or subsequently receiving a displayed option to automatically enroll the vehicle with the tolling/vehicle charging authority as per claims 1/11/18.
US 20170113619 A1 to Boehm et al. (Boehm) teaches receiving a communication from a vehicle device and determining whether a vehicle approaching a toll area has communicated information indicative of enrollment, and if the information communicated does not indicate enrollment, not authorizing access to the toll area (Boehm: ¶ 0030, ¶ 0027-0030 generally).
WO 2018118920 A1 to Slusar et al. (Slusar) is the closest foreign prior art reference and teaches an autonomous vehicle control system which may send registration requests to toll authority when the vehicle containing the autonomous vehicle control system enters a toll roll (Slusar: at least ¶ 0039-0040). However, Slusar appears to refer to the “registration request” as registering the use of the toll road by the vehicle, rather than enrolling the vehicle with an account with a tolling authority/vehicle charging authority as per the claimed invention.
CN 108198257 A to Liu et al. (Liu – see attached English translation of description) teaches detecting when a vehicle enters a toll lane, and establishing a connection with a mobile terminal to obtain user registration and vehicle information and sending the user registration and vehicle information to the server in order to charge a user for the toll lane (Liu: ¶ 0014, ¶ 0039-0040).
US 20170337598 A1 to Robinson et al. (Robinson) teaches enrolling a rental vehicle with a tolling authority, wherein “Third party vehicles enroll for the toll services by establishing a communication between the third party system and the toll rental entity system. Once the communication is established, the toll rental entity 104 receives fleets/vehicles that will be used for toll services from the third party entity 102” (¶ 0018). However, the registration is completed prior to usage of the toll plaza/toll services, and thus would not read on a vehicle processor sending the enrollment request in response to detecting that the vehicle has entered into a “proximity corridor area.”
However, even combining the references above, no combination of the prior art teaches the limitations of claims 19, 31 and 32 wherein a vehicle processor sends a request for enrollment to a remote toll server associated with a tolling authority in response to detection that the vehicle has entered into a proximity corridor area, and then receiving and displaying, by the vehicle processor, vehicle enrollment and registration messages inviting the operator to enroll the vehicle with the tolling authority. The examiner is not aware of any prior art which explicitly exchanges messages between a vehicle and tolling/vehicle charging authority to dynamically enroll the vehicle upon detection of the vehicle in a tolling corridor, e.g. while the vehicle is being operated rather than signing up prior to or after driving. Additionally, regarding claim 18, no combination of the prior art appears to include the display of the received single click enrollment option message following detection of the vehicle entering the vehicle charging corridor.
Claims 20-30 and 33 depend from claims 19 and 32. Therefore, claims 19-33 are novel and nonobvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights