DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 11/21/2025.
Claims 1, 9, and 19 have been amended.
Claim 6 and 14 have been canceled.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a continuation of US Patent No. 10,410,263, filed 11/18/14, which claims priority from Provisional Patent Application No. 61/905,510, filed 11/18/13.
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 1-5, 7-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03(II). In the instant case, claims 1-5, 7-8 and 17-18 are directed to a machine, claims 9-13 and 15-16 are directed to a process, and claim 19 is directed to a manufacture. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-19 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong 1 of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong 2 of Step 2A). See MPEP 2106.04.
Taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
accessing an asset catalog comprising asset information associated with a plurality of content assets stored in a plurality of locations,
receiving an exchange request from a requestor to exchange at least one selected content asset in the asset catalog and stored with a granting user,
obtaining a fair market value for the at least one selected content asset from one or more, non-human, third-party value information sources external to the asset exchange party and the plurality of users, the one or more non-human, third party value information sources comprising at least one or a retail information source, a publicly available, a crowd-sourcing service, an auction service, or a content that provides information regarding value, demand, popularity, or rarity of assets;
identifying, without human intervention, in the asset catalog, and stored with the requesting user, one or more tradeable content assets having a total tradeable value based on a tradeable fair market value of each of the one or more tradeable content assets, as determined by the one or more non-human, third-party value information sources, substantially equivalent to the fair market value for the at least one selected content asset; and
executing an exclusive exchange of the at least one selected content asset and the at least one tradable content asset responsive to the total tradable value being substantially equivalent to the fair market value, wherein both of the at least one selected content asset and the at least one tradeable content asset are provided to the platform prior to providing the at least one selected content asset to the granting user and the at least one tradeable content asset to the requesting user, and wherein executing the exclusive exchange comprises:
performing, prior to providing the at least one selected content asset and the at least one tradable content asset, one or more integrity checks on each of the at least one selected content asset and the at least one tradable content asset to determine whether the corresponding content asset is genuine, contains errors, or is a copy, and preventing providing of the at least one selected content asset and the at least one tradable content asset until each corresponding content asset has passed the one or more integrity checks; and
causing, upon completion of the exclusive exchange, to delete, lock, or otherwise restrict usage of respective instances of the at least one selected content asset and the at least one tradable content asset stored in accordance with metadata associated with the respective content assets that restricts copying or transfer of the respective content assets.
The above limitations recite the concept of exchanging assets. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Specifically, the claims are related to sales activities and behaviors because trading assets according to asset value is a sales activity. This is further illustrated in the Specification, paragraph [0023], describing the exchange system as a marketplace. Independent claims 9 and 19 recite similar limitations as claim 1, and as such, independent claims 9 and 19 fall within the same identified grouping of abstract ideas as claim 1. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 9, and 19 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, claims 1, 9, and 19 recite additional elements, such as a system, digital assets, one or more server logic devices, a processor; one or more client logic devices in operable communication over a network with the one or more server logic devices; a digital asset exchange application operating on the one or more server logic devices, the application comprising one or more programming instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium in operable communication with the processor, wherein the programming instructions when executed, cause the processor to perform, a digital asset catalog; a granting client logic device, a plurality of client logic devices; a requesting client logic device, a publicly available website, a social-networking service, an online auction service, a content database, a tradable digital content asset, uploading both of the at least one selected digital content asset and the at least one tradable digital content asset, downloading the at least one selected digital content asset to the granting client logic device and the at least one tradeable digital content asset to the requesting client logic device, preventing downloading; a client application executing on the granting client logic device and the requesting client logic device; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more processor- executable instructions, which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1, 9, and 19 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, claims 1, 9, and 19 merely recite a commonplace business method (i.e., exchanging assets) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, claims 1, 9, and 19 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The courts have identified various examples of limitations as merely indicating a field of use/technological environment in which to apply the abstract idea, such as specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer (see FairWarning v. Iatric Sys.). Likewise, claims 1, 9, and 19 specifying that the abstract idea of exchanging assets is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the MPEP, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 19 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 9, and 19 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 9, and 19 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES).
Next, under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for at least the following reasons.
Returning to independent claims 1, 9, and 19, these claims recite additional elements, such as a system, digital assets, one or more server logic devices, a processor; one or more client logic devices in operable communication over a network with the one or more server logic devices; a digital asset exchange application operating on the one or more server logic devices, the application comprising one or more programming instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium in operable communication with the processor, wherein the programming instructions when executed, cause the processor to perform, a digital asset catalog; a granting client logic device, a plurality of client logic devices; a requesting client logic device, a publicly available website, a social-networking service, an online auction service, a content database, a tradable digital content asset, uploading both of the at least one selected digital content asset and the at least one tradable digital content asset, downloading the at least one selected digital content asset to the granting client logic device and the at least one tradeable digital content asset to the requesting client logic device, preventing downloading; a client application executing on the granting client logic device and the requesting client logic device; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more processor- executable instructions, which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform. As discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, although additional computer-related elements are recited, the claim merely invokes such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Moreover, the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 19 are manual processes, e.g., analyzing information, sending information, etc. The courts have indicated that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to Prong Two of Step 2A, claims 1, 9, and 19 merely recite the additional elements in order to further define the field of use of the abstract idea, therein attempting to generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such as the Internet or computing networks (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bilski v. Kappos (2010); MPEP 2106.05(h)). Similar to FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., claims 1, 9, and 19 specifying that the abstract idea of exchanging assets is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claim to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice Corp., the Court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘[a]dd nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’ and simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Id. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, viewed as a whole, claims 1, 9, and 19 simply convey the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1, 9, and 19 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-18, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-18 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. Dependent claims 4-5, 7-8 and 12-13 and 15-18 fail to identify additional elements and as such, are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Dependent claims 2-3 and 10-11 further recite the additional elements of a client application, a web-based application, a mobile application, and one or more data stores accessible by the one or more client logic devices and the one or more server logic devices. Similar to the discussion above under Prong Two of Step 2A, although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 2-3 and 10-11 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, these limitations generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, under Step 2A, dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-18 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Similar to the discussion above with respect to claims 1, 9, and 19, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-18, analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e., exchanging assets) being applied on a general purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Further, these limitations generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-19 are ineligible.
Subject Matter Allowable over the Prior Art
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited DeGroot et al. (US 20100332342 A1), previously cited Krupman et al. (US 20090106847 A1), previously cited Sun et al. (US 20070155508 A1), newly cited Zanini et al. (US 20090012875 A1), hereinafter Zanini, and previously cited NPL reference U, initially cited in the Office action dated 06/14/2021.
Although individually the references teach concepts such accessing a digital asset catalog, obtaining a value, identifying assets substantially equivalent in value, and executing an exclusive exchange, none of the references teach nor render obvious the specific method of accessing a digital content asset catalog, obtaining a value from one or more non-human sources, identifying assets having substantially equivalent value, and executing the trade responsive to this.
Previously cited DeGroot discloses a trading method (DeGroot: [0082]). A barterer may locate a desired good in possession of a second user and make an offer (DeGroot: [0082-0083]). The user may come to an agreement regarding the value of the trade and may trade cash or points (DeGroot: [0083]). Parties may exchange the goods bartered for (DeGroot: [0086]). DeGroot further discloses in a group entitled ‘autographed sports memorabilia,’ certain trade-recognized indicia of authenticity may be required before a good is allowed to be listed in such user group (DeGroot: [0062]). DeGroot additionally discloses a user may be required to provide authenticity (e.g., independent verification, certification, awards, etc.) of the quality or nature of the goods or services. Such authenticity may be desirable in the bartering of certain goods or services more susceptible to fraud or misrepresentation (DeGroot: [0080]). Yet DeGroot does not explicitly disclose all of the limitations pertaining to the value sources and equivalent values.
Previously cited Krupman teaches a digital item trading method (Krupman: [abstract]). Krupman further teaches soft physical media, e.g., data stored in devices and components such as hard drives, MP3 players, SD cards, and requiring software-based players, where users select any of this media and provide it to the depository/rights manager (Krupman: [0005]; [0016-0018]). Krupman additionally teaches the depository/rights manager will enable the end user to stream and/or download any of the media (or equivalents thereof) provided to the depository/rights manager. Where exchange capabilities are expanded to virtual exchanges enabling two users to instantaneously have electronic access to soft media format files. For example, two users may exchange two hard format audio CDs stored centrally by the depository/rights manager via an online interface, with immediate access to the files on the newly acquired CD (and typically with concomitant immediate disabling of access for a user to the CD exchanged by that user) (Krupman: [0062]). However, Krupman does not explicitly teach all of the limitations regarding the third party value source and the catalog.
Previously cited Sun teaches a method of exchanging virtual items (Sun: [0089]). Sun further teaches that when determining the value of a virtual item, search the virtual item table first, and the value of the virtual item is the value of the value field associated with the virtual item (Sun: [0049]). Sun further teaches modifying the user information table by subtracting the value of the virtual item from the virtual money quantity and modifying the user information table by adding the value of the virtual item to the virtual money quantity (Sun: [0098-0099]). However, Sun does not teach all of the limitations regarding digital assets and the exchange.
Newly cited Zanini teaches a transaction method (Zanini: [0007]). Zanini further teaches a system that uses virtual currency to facilitate trades between users. The virtual currency can be represented as cash, points or a fake currency used only inside the system. The virtual value assigned to each item in the virtual market should be fairly proportional to the fair market value of each item in the real used market. However, Zanini does not explicitly teach all of the limitations regarding the digital assets and the exchange.
Previously cited NPL reference: Constantiou, I., Legarth, M. F., & Olsen, K. B. (2012). What are users' intentions towards real money trading in massively multiplayer online games? Electronic Markets, 22(2), 105-115, hereinafter “NPL reference U,” initially cited in the Office action dated 06/14/2021. NPL reference U teaches user behavior of gamers in games with respect to money. Users may participate in virtual worlds and in-game economies. However, U does not teach all of the limitations regarding the exchange and the fair market value.
While these references arguably teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, these references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, claims 1, 9, and 19, taken as a whole, are indicated to be allowable over the cited prior art. The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims allowable over the prior art/additional art. Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-18 depend from claims 1 and 9, and therefore the dependent claims are also indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
The examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of the Applicant's claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by the examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/21/2025, have been fully considered.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible because “the claims are not directed to the abstract idea of trading assets based on fair market value” (Remarks page 10). The examiner disagrees. The MPEP enumerates groupings of abstract ideas, thereby synthesizing the holdings of various court decisions to facilitate examination. See MPEP 2106.04. Among the enumerated groupings is the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, which includes activity that falls within the enumerated sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions, including subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. With respect to the claims, the examiner notes a system, digital assets, one or more server logic devices, a processor; one or more client logic devices in operable communication over a network with the one or more server logic devices; a digital asset exchange application operating on the one or more server logic devices, the application comprising one or more programming instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium in operable communication with the processor, wherein the programming instructions when executed, cause the processor to perform, a digital asset catalog; a granting client logic device, a plurality of client logic devices; a requesting client logic device, a publicly available website, a social-networking service, an online auction service, a content database, a tradable digital content asset, uploading both of the at least one selected digital content asset and the at least one tradable digital content asset, downloading the at least one selected digital content asset to the granting client logic device and the at least one tradeable digital content asset to the requesting client logic device, preventing downloading; a client application executing on the granting client logic device and the requesting client logic device; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more processor- executable instructions, which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform have been analyzed as additional elements and accordingly are not analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1. The amendments further recite limitations such as determining a fair market value of an asset so the asset may be traded with other assets of equivalent value. These amendments represent certain methods of organizing human activity. Paragraph [0003] of the specification illustrates that the invention relates to the trade of assets based on fair market value. Accordingly, the recited limitations claim a process of trading assets. These limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in the MPEP, in that they recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Specifically, the limitations of claim 1 represent sales activities and behaviors because the limitations recite trading assets based on a fair market value. These are sales activities because they relate to trading assets based on a market value. Accordingly, these claims recite Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Applicant argues the claims are patent eligible because the invention “is directed to a technical solution to a technical problem in digital rights management and networked content distribution” Remarks pages 10-11. The examiner disagrees. The MPEP provides guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, the MPEP states “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” The MPEP further states that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art,” and that, “conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner…the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (see MPEP 2106.04). That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While the examiner acknowledges that improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field may constitute integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), the instant claims do not provide a technical improvement. Rather, the claims provide an improvement to the abstract idea of exchanging assets. This is illustrated in specification paragraph [0004] which discusses that the invention is directed toward non-monetary trading of assets. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the claimed limitation improves technology by preventing unauthorized duplication, the examiner notes that the prevention of copying is merely recited at a high level and without technical detail.
Although the claims include computer technology such as a system, digital assets, one or more server logic devices, a processor; one or more client logic devices in operable communication over a network with the one or more server logic devices; a digital asset exchange application operating on the one or more server logic devices, the application comprising one or more programming instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium in operable communication with the processor, wherein the programming instructions when executed, cause the processor to perform, a digital asset catalog; a granting client logic device, a plurality of client logic devices; a requesting client logic device, a publicly available website, a social-networking service, an online auction service, a content database, a tradable digital content asset, uploading both of the at least one selected digital content asset and the at least one tradable digital content asset, downloading the at least one selected digital content asset to the granting client logic device and the at least one tradeable digital content asset to the requesting client logic device, preventing downloading; a client application executing on the granting client logic device and the requesting client logic device; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more processor- executable instructions, which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. Put another way, these additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea of exchanging assets in a technological environment without effectuating any improvement or change to the functioning of the additional elements or other technology. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to technological improvements but are directed to improving the business method of exchanging assets. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in a more efficient process for exchanging assets, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the server and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing data sets related to assets while still employing the same server and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve exchange of assets, e.g. a business method, and therefore is merely applying the abstract idea using generic computing components. As such, the claims are not integrated into practical application.
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 ANNA MAE MITROS whose telephone number is (571)272-3969. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30-6.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ANNA MAE MITROS/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689