DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed November 25, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21. Claims 1-21 are pending in the current application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant for all of their thoughts regarding the examiner’s response to the Applicant’s remarks filed June 25, 2025.
Claims 1-21 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the claim language and hereby withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection regarding the limitations “instantaneously” and “immediately” from the previous Office action.
Claims 1-21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite as claim 1 recites the limitation "scattered internal and external website advertising space of accounts associated with Internet users and entities on said service computer system." It is unclear as to the metes and bounds of “scattered internal and external website advertising space of accounts associated with Internet users and entities on said service computer system," and as such the term is considered indefinite. Here, the claim is indefinite because the limitation “scattered internal and external website advertising space of accounts associated with Internet users and entities on said service computer system,” there is no definition of exactly what a “scattered internal and external website advertising space” is referring to. Applicant refers to a definition of “scattered” as a state of being spread out in a non-uniform or irregular way. However, there is nothing in the disclosure to specifically define what a “scattered” advertising space is. Therefore, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. Applicant argues that the dependent claims are erroneously rejected as they do not contain any of the terms. However, as stated before, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive and as such the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is hereby maintained.
I.1 Definitions: Examiner has explicitly followed the USPTO procedures for determining patent eligibility under the USPTO’s Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Applicant argues that the claimed invention incorporates a judicial exception into a practical application. Again, the "improvements" analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. That is, the claimed invention may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by demonstrating that it improves the relevant existing technology although it may not be an improvement over well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Applicant emphasizes that the Examiner has allowed patents that include the term “advertising,” and therefore is discriminatory against the Applicant for not granting a patent in this application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the patents listed by Applicant may be in the same invention field as the currently amended claims but they are not the same invention nor do they share any patent eligible claim limitations. The inclusion of the term “advertising” in the disclosure of the patent does not transform patent ineligible claims into allowable subject matter. Patent claims may encompass an abstract idea and still be considered patent eligible. As such, Applicant’s argument remains unpersuasive.
Applicant again argues that an Online E-Commerce and Networking System with an Instant Payment and Settlement Digital Reward Application for Internet of Values does not fall under commercial or legal interactions as there are no explicit or implicit contracts, legal obligations, marketing, and business relations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Applicant’s own description of the invention, online advertising, transformation of online advertisements, and improvement of online advertising are examples of marketing and business relations. Applicant explicitly states that the invention uses online advertising and then states that the present invention is not directed to the abstract idea of advertising. These statements are contradictory. Again, commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) are certain methods of organizing human activity and as such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Applicant again argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application as advertising is integrated into sponsored advertising and instant payment and settlement of digital currency/reward. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sponsored advertising (marketing) and instant payment and settlement of digital currency/reward (contracts; legal obligations; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) are still examples of commercial or legal interactions. Under Applicant’s definition of “marketing,” sponsored advertising would be described as “marketing” as the quoted Oxford definition specifically states the word advertising. Under Applicant’s use of the definition of “payment system,” a process that facilitates the transfer of funds is an example of commercial or legal interactions. Applicant’s argument remains unpersuasive.
I.2 “Human Activity”: Under MPEP 2106.04(a), advertising amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas. Examiner has, in previous Office actions, specifically explained how each limitation of the independent claims described or set-forth, under broadest reasonable interpretation, commercial or legal interactions. Applicant’s argument remains unpersuasive.
I.3 Digital Currency Patents: The examiner again appreciates the Applicant’s description of the listed patents as well as Applicant’s understanding of each patent. Again, Applicant’s arguments do not provide an analysis of how the claim language of their invention is similar in fact pattern of the listed patents. Terms such as “transforming,” “executing,” “receiving,” “monitoring,” etc. do not render a claim patent eligible. Furthermore, the listed patents are not precedential court decisions and therefore do not bear weight on examiner’s analysis of the claims. The listed court cases (LevelUp v. Relevant; TTI v. CQG) also do not share any patent eligible claim limitations or are even in the same field of invention and as such do not bear weight on examiner’s analysis of the claims. Nor does the examiner’s rejection of the current claims bear any weight to patent claims that have already been allowed. Applicant’s arguments remains unpersuasive.
I.4 Machine Algorithm: Examiner has not rejected the claims as being an abstract idea as characterized under mathematical concepts. Applicant’s argument remains unpersuasive.
I.5 Mental Processes: As Applicant has explained, the idea of settlement of currency and money has existed prior to 1900 and was accomplished with the use of pen and paper. Such payment methods with use of pen and paper may have taken weeks and months to settle, but the idea of settlement of currency and money was created prior to 1900. Determinations and transactions that are made by a generic computer processor does make the solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. Again, examiner’s rejection of the current claims does not bear any weight to patent claims that have already been allowed.
Applicant again argues that the current claims are patent eligible as they recite improvements to software and computer software improvement inventions running on generic hardware are patent eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Generic computer structure with unique software does not render claims patent eligible nor do the USPTO Interim Examination Guidance support that generic computer structure with unique software would constitute claims to be patent eligible. Applicant refers to the IEG guidance examples of Malicious Code, E-Commerce Outsourcing System, and Global Positioning System to show the claims were allowed where all used generic computer structures and do not contain improvement to the functioning of the computer hardware. First, the claims as discussed in the Malicious Code example were considered patent eligible as the claims were not directed to any judicial exceptions. Second, the claims as discussed in the E-Commerce example were considered patent eligible as the claims recited additional limitations amount to more than simply stating “apply the abstract idea on the Internet.” Third, the claims as discussed in the GPS example were considered patent eligible as the additional features, especially when viewed in combination, amounted to significantly more than the judicial exception. None of these examples show that the claims were allowable simply because they recited limitations that describe generic computer structure with unique software. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive.
The instant claims merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment - that being a computer environment. Claims 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., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). According to paragraph [00100] of Applicant’s specification, the claimed invention is implemented by a general purpose computer such as a processor, microprocessors, micro-controllers, digital signal processors, and the like, that are standalone, adjunct or embedded. Stripped of the generic computer elements recited in the claims, the problem and solution would remain intact. Limitations that link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not qualify as "significantly more," and do not transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
I.6 Independent Claim Limitations: Per the guidance, the Examiner has specifically identified the specific claim limitations (see the quoted claim limitations that together comprise the abstract idea) and explained why those claim limitations set forth a judicial exception. The claims were considered in their entirety, and these hardware/computer elements were determined to be non-abstract (i.e., not part of the abstract idea). The presence of these elements does not automatically mean that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The courts have consistently identified abstract ideas in claims that similarly recite hardware/computer elements. As detailed before and in the previous Office action, the Examiner's characterization is in line with the guidance, and has provided explicit guidance to the Applicant, i.e., has identified exactly which claim elements/limitations are part of the identified abstract idea, and which claim elements/limitations are considered to be “additional elements.” Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive and as such, the 101 rejection is proper and maintained herein.
I.7 Practical Application: As recited in previous Office actions, the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues that the examiner’s identified abstract ideas are turned into practical applications in the claim language. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Determinations made by a generic computer processor does not make the solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. The instant claims merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment - that being a computer environment. This same problem would exist in non-computer environments, and the same solution would be appropriate. Applicant’s claims merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, which does not render the claim as being eligible. Stripped of the generic computer elements recited in the claims, the problem and solution would remain intact. Limitations that link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not qualify as "significantly more," and do not transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Applicant’s reference to DDR does not apply here as the claim structures are not similar in any way to the present invention. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive.
I.8 Significantly More: Again, the computer components and computer systems are merely executing instructions to perform the limitations listed in the amended claims. These limitations merely describe the abstract ideas listed previously before. In addition, no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity). Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-21 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. All of Applicant’s remarks have been taken into account and no pre-existing mindsets have been applied in examining the claims as purported by the Applicant. A noted in MPEP 2106 III. Examiners should determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility by evaluating the claim in accordance with the flowchart listed in MPEP 2106. The flowchart illustrates the steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter. It is recognized that under the controlling legal precedent there may be variations in the precise contours of the analysis for subject matter eligibility that will still achieve the same end result. The analysis set forth herein promotes examination efficiency and consistency across all technologies. As noted in the previous rejection and the rejection below, the Examiner has analyzed the claims under step 1, step 2a, prong 1, step 2a, prong 2 and step 2b. The detailed analysis is provided below. The analysis used, which has controlling legal precedent, has concluded that the claims recite an abstract idea and do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor does it render the claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
As noted in the rejection below, the claims recite limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth “operations of determining accumulated scores of accounts, comparing the scores with predefined sponsorship score requirements, for the accounts to mine or acquire digital money through various online methods and to settle online transactions instantaneously,” or transferring digital rewards from one user to another based on user interaction, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in accordance to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-21 recites the phrase “in real-time,” throughout the claims. Claim 1 recites the limitation in lines 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 50, 51, 53, 64, 66, 68, 69, and 70. Claim 8 recites the limitation in lines 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 41, 42, 44, 55, 57, 59, 60, and 61. Claim 15 recites the limitation in lines 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 43, 44, 46, 57, 59, 61, 62, and 63. This limitation contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claims 1, 8, and 15, executing a step “in real-time” is understood to be a computing action relating to a system in which input data is processed within milliseconds. The original disclosure refers to the system detecting clicks (e.g., Par. [0233]) and many depictions of a user clicking on various things. While the original disclosure suggests there may be an action that occurs upon the user clicking, nowhere in the original disclosure describes an amount of time it takes for the actions to be completed. Therefore, the limitation is considered to be new matter.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 which depend from claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, inherit the deficiencies noted for claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation “scattered internal and external website advertising space of accounts associated with Internet users and entities on said service computer system.” The term “scattered internal and external website advertising space” is not a term of art nor does the specification provide a definition for the term. Furthermore, a review of the applicant’s disclosure does not use the term and therefore renders the term as indefinite. For examination purposes the term, “scattered internal and external website advertising space of accounts associated with Internet users and entities on said service computer system,” will encompass any advertising account that is associated with a website. Therefore, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention and the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are drawn to a system, claims 8-14 are drawn to a method, and claims 15-21 are drawn to a medium, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claims 8 and 15) recites/describes the following steps:
“automatically transforming online and offline activities and attributes, and scattered internal and external website advertising space of accounts associated with Internet users and entities…into accumulated scores of said accounts …;”
“upon detecting click(s) on a "sponsorship" link, button, dropdown menu sponsorship item or voice input icon, for an account associated with a user …, comparing accumulated score of said account to sponsorship minimum score requirement of said sponsor…approving, in real-time, said solicitation or request upon automatic system determination of said account associated with said user meeting said requirement, instantaneously deducting, in real-time, solicited or requested sponsorship amount from digital reward account associated with said sponsor… instantaneously depositing, in real-time, said amount into digital reward account associated with said user whereby said amount is immediately available, in real-time, for use…”
“… upon detecting click(s) on a "sponsorship/donation" link, button, dropdown menu sponsorship item, or voice input icon, for said account associated with said user…, instantaneously deducting, in real-time, said donation amount from digital reward account associated with said another account, and instantaneously depositing, in real-time, said donation amount into digital reward account associated with said user whereby said donation amount is immediately available, in real-time, for use…;” and
“…upon detecting click(s) on a "selling", "buying" or "sponsorship" link, button, dropdown menu sponsorship item, or voice input icon, for said account associated with said user … automatically comparing accumulated score of said account to sponsorship minimum score requirement of said sponsor …, approving, in real-time, said solicitation or request upon automatic system determination of said account associated with said user meeting said requirement, deducting, in real-time, solicited or requested sponsorship amount from digital reward account associated with said sponsor…, depositing, in real-time, said amount into digital reward account associated with said user whereby said amount is immediately available, in real-time, for use…,”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth “operations of determining accumulated scores of accounts, comparing the scores with predefined sponsorship score requirements, for the accounts to mine or acquire digital money through various online methods and to settle online transactions instantaneously,” or transferring digital rewards from one user to another based on user interaction, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of:
“a service computer system residing on at least one server,” “said service computer system is a next generation e-commerce and networking system,” “an instant payment and settlement digital reward application, a sponsor advertising utility,” “e-commerce and networking application programming interface (API) scripts and RAM memory,” (claim 1); “a social networking system,” “an instant payment and settlement digital reward application, a sponsor advertising utility,” “e-commerce and networking application programming interface (API) scripts,” and “a service computer system,” (claim 8); “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” “a social networking system,” “an instant payment and settlement digital reward application, a sponsor advertising utility,” “e-commerce and networking application programming interface (API) scripts,” and “a service computer system,” (claim 15); “weighted factor computation algorithms,” “centralized databases,” “centralized ledger databases,” and “centralized ledger database structure,” (claims 1, 8, and 15).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a digital platform,” “an instant payment and settlement Digital Money or Digital Currency digital reward application,” “a sponsor advertising utility,” and “real-time application interface scripts” (claims 1, 8, and 15).
The claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “instantaneously displaying, in real-time, user-interactive sponsor advertisements on scattered internal and external webpages associated with said user for preset timeframe…” and “instantaneously displaying, in real-time, user-interactive sponsor advertisements on scattered internal and external webpages associated with said user for preset timeframe…” (claims 1, 8, and 15).
The additional elements listed above is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem.
Remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional elements, is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding the Prior Art
Claims 1-21 would be allowable subject matter if revised and amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628