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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/26/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 08/26/2026. Claims 1, 6-10, 16-17 have been amended. Claim 14 has been canceled. Claims 1-11, 16-17 are presented for examination.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-11, 16-17 are allowable over prior art because the prior art of record fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims, in particular: “based on such processing, retrieving a mapping information for the one or more medical procedures, relational information, seasonality of medical requirements data, a stock database indicative of inventory and including a threshold data and an indicator, and a historical information for the one or more medical procedures from the memory device, wherein the historical information includes a consumption deviation data related to deviation in consumption of inventory items in the past and a requirement variation data related to deviation between the inventory forecast and the order placed in the past,” “processing the mapping information and the historical information by the processing unit, and automatically generating at least one or more combinations of an inventory forecast related to the inventory of items required by the one or more medical facilities, or a procedure forecast related to a number of medical procedures to be taking place in the one or more medical facilities, a specific medical facility forecast, a disease outbreak forecast, a safety inventory forecast, a cumulative inventory forecast related to the inventory of items required by the one or more medical facilities and a cumulative procedure forecast related to the number of procedures to be taking place in the one or more medical facilities.” Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in independent claim 1, claim 1 is hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 2-11, 16-17 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claim 1 through dependency.
However, the claims are still rejected under 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11, 16-17 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. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method).
Independent claim 1 recites…receiving a user input related to one or more medical procedures…, wherein the user input comprises identification information related to one or more medical facilities for which a forecast is to be generated; receiving and processing the user input…, and based on such processing, retrieving a mapping information for the one or more medical procedures, relational information, seasonality of medical requirements data, a stock database indicative of inventory and including a threshold data and an indicator, and a historical information for the one or more medical procedures…, wherein the historical information includes a consumption deviation data related to deviation in consumption of inventory items in the past and a requirement variation data related to deviation between the inventory forecast and the order placed in the past, and wherein the threshold data relates to one or more thresholds of quantity of an item required to be kept in the inventory, and the indicator is a level indicator that gives visual information to the user regarding stock available for a particular item in the inventory; processing the mapping information and the historical information…, and automatically generating at least one or more combinations of an inventory forecast related to the inventory of items required by the one or more medical facilities, or a procedure forecast related to a number of medical procedures to be taking place in the one or more medical facilities, a specific medical facility forecast, a disease outbreak forecast, a safety inventory forecast, a cumulative inventory forecast related to the inventory of items required by the one or more medical facilities and a cumulative procedure forecast related to the number of procedures to be taking place in the one or more medical facilities…, wherein the one or more combinations of the forecasts are generated for multiple time intervals, wherein the mapping information relates to mapping between a medical procedure of the one or more medical procedures and the inventory of items required to carry out the one or more medical procedures, and wherein the mapping information is dynamically updated based on an editing input received…by generating an updated mapping information based on the editing input…and editing a part of the mapping information that is changed based on the updated mapping information, the historical information is related to consumption of items in past for the one or more medical procedures... said historical information being of medical facilities for a dynamically configurable geographical area having a radius based on which the forecasts are fine-tuned for medical facilities that form part of said configurable geographical area; retrieving…a current stock information… based on processing the mapping information, wherein the current stock information is related to quantities of each inventory item in the inventory; processing the current stock information along with the at least one of: the inventory forecast, or the procedure forecast, or a combination thereof…and generating a list of items required to be ordered, wherein the list of items are generated…based on the historical information, the current stock information, the relational information, the seasonality of medical requirements data, the inventory, the threshold data, the indicator, and the mapping information, wherein the stock [information] is defined by quantities of each item present in the inventory; processing…the threshold data and the current stock information, and generating one or more reminders for making an order for the list of items on predefined intervals; updating…the indicator for quantities of each of the items…based on processing the threshold data and the current stock information; and communicating…the one or more combinations of the forecasts...
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to forecast and manage resources (i.e., inventory) in a medical facility (which is described in ¶ 0077 of the specification as human activity performed by “a manager…manually checking and determining based on his experience and forecasts… whether the stock is safely enough”) in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps as indicated supra. That is, other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), the claim amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., computer to implement the method; a client-server architecture by a system comprising an input unit, a display unit, and a server having a processing unit and a memory device; a stock database…stored in the memory device; a decision-tree-based ensemble Machine Learning mechanism… wherein the decision-tree-based ensemble Machine Learning mechanism is selected from any or a combination of XG Boost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) mechanism, Random Forest, SVM (Support Vector Machine), LSTM (Long Short-Term Memory), SARIMA (Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average) Gated Recurrent Units, and RNN (Recurrent Neural Network) mechanism; sending the updated mapping information to the memory device; a historical database stored in the memory device). Looking to the specifications, a computing system having an input unit, display unit, and a server having a processing unit, a memory device storing databases is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0051-0053; ¶ 0066), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Furthermore, a “decision-tree-based ensemble Machine Learning mechanism…selected from any or a combination of XG Boost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) mechanism, Random Forest, SVM (Support Vector Machine), LSTM (Long Short-Term Memory), SARIMA (Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average) Gated Recurrent Units, and RNN (Recurrent Neural Network) mechanism” is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0063), such that it is only used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning mechanism functions and only recite the outcome of the abstract idea and does not include details about how “forecast future stock requirements” is accomplished, and thus, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, and merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (i.e., machine learning) in which the judicial exception is performed. Also, “sending the updated mapping information to the memory device” only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. As previously analyzed, the use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a computing system having a display unit, and a server having a processing unit, a memory device storing databases) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, a “decision-tree-based ensemble Machine Learning mechanism…selected from any or a combination of XG Boost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) mechanism, Random Forest, SVM (Support Vector Machine), LSTM (Long Short-Term Memory), SARIMA (Seasonal Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average) Gated Recurrent Units, and RNN (Recurrent Neural Network) mechanism” is only used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning mechanism functions and only recite the outcome of the abstract idea and does not include details about how “forecast future stock requirements” is accomplished, and thus, provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, and merely indicates a field of use or technological environment (i.e., machine learning) in which the judicial exception is performed. Also, the limitations of “sending the updated mapping information to the memory device” is determined to constitute well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions; receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-11, 16-17 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 2-11, 16-17 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 08/26/2026.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 101 rejections,
“Every operation recited in claim 1 is performed by the recited processing unit upon data structures held in the recited memory device, e.g., "mapping information," "a stock database indicative of inventory and including a threshold data and an indicator," and "a historical database." The threshold data of claim 1 "relates to one or more thresholds of quantity of an item required to be kept in the inventory," and the stock database "is defined by quantities of each item present in the inventory." These are quantities of physical items held by a medical facility, not the conduct of any person. The Office Action does not identify whose personal behavior is said to be managed, nor which persons are said to interact…Claim 1 as amended is directed to none of these [authorities cited in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)]”;
“Client-server architecture… Record-level updating of the mapping information in the memory device… Updating of the level indicator in the stock database… Communication of the forecasts to the display unit… Dynamic geographical configuration… Automated reminder generation… Taken together, these limitations recite a closed sequence performed by the recited components: the forecasts generated by the decision-tree-based ensemble Machine Learning mechanism are not delivered for human consideration and then abandoned, but are processed with the current stock information retrieved from the stock database to generate the list of items required to be ordered, the threshold data and current stock information are processed to update the indicator in the stock database and to generate the reminders at predefined intervals, and the forecasts are communicated to the display unit. Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations impose meaningful limits on the practice of any alleged exception. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 as amended does not recite a general purpose computer applying an alleged exception by conventional computer functions, but rather a particular arrangement of components that can be specifically identified, namely: a client-server architecture in which a server has the processing unit and the memory device; the mapping information stored in that memory device being written by sending the updated mapping information to it and editing the part that is changed; the indicator being updated in the stock database; and a display unit, distinct from the input unit and the server, to which the forecasts are communicated. Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the deficiencies addressed are described in the as-filed specification… Applicant respectfully requests that the additional elements of claim 1 as amended be considered as an ordered combination”; and
“no factual determination of record supports a conclusion that the additional elements of claim 1 as amended are well-understood, routine, or conventional… none of these is offered with respect to the recited client-server architecture, the recited manner of updating the mapping information in the memory device, the updating of the indicator in the stock database, or the communication of the forecasts to the display unit…the arrangement recited in claim 1 as amended is likewise non-conventional.”
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and does not find them persuasive. Examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented by Applicant; however, any arguments inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
In response to Applicant’s argument that (a) regarding the 101 rejections,
“Every operation recited in claim 1 is performed by the recited processing unit upon data structures held in the recited memory device, e.g., "mapping information," "a stock database indicative of inventory and including a threshold data and an indicator," and "a historical database." The threshold data of claim 1 "relates to one or more thresholds of quantity of an item required to be kept in the inventory," and the stock database "is defined by quantities of each item present in the inventory." These are quantities of physical items held by a medical facility, not the conduct of any person. The Office Action does not identify whose personal behavior is said to be managed, nor which persons are said to interact…Claim 1 as amended is directed to none of these [authorities cited in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)]”:
It is respectfully submitted that Applicant argues “Every operation recited in claim 1 is performed by the recited processing unit upon data structures held in the recited memory device, e.g., "mapping information," "a stock database indicative of inventory and including a threshold data and an indicator," and "a historical database." The threshold data of claim 1 "relates to one or more thresholds of quantity of an item required to be kept in the inventory," and the stock database "is defined by quantities of each item present in the inventory." These are quantities of physical items held by a medical facility, not the conduct of any person.” However, the “processing unit,” “memory device,” and databases to which Applicant refer are not interpreted as part of the abstract idea, but as additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2A, Prong Two, which are described at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The “mapping information,” “threshold data,” and “quantities of physical items held by a medical facility” only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what information is used, which is part of the rules or instructions to forecast and manage resources (i.e., inventory) in a medical facility, which is the abstract idea of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Applicant argues “The Office Action does not identify whose personal behavior is said to be managed, nor which persons are said to interact.” However, per MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II), “It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within [the "certain methods of organizing human activity"] grouping. Furthermore, as stated previously above, ¶ 0077 of the specification describes “checking and determining based on his experience and forecasts… whether the stock is safely enough” as human activity performed by “a manager.”
Applicant argues “Claim 1 as amended is directed to none of these [authorities cited in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)].” However, the list of examples for the enumerated sub-groupings is exemplary, as Applicant notes, and not exhaustive; Appellant’s invention need not be included in the list, as long as the claim recites an abstract idea, which it does, as explained above.
Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
“Client-server architecture… Record-level updating of the mapping information in the memory device… Updating of the level indicator in the stock database… Communication of the forecasts to the display unit… Dynamic geographical configuration… Automated reminder generation… Taken together, these limitations recite a closed sequence performed by the recited components: the forecasts generated by the decision-tree-based ensemble Machine Learning mechanism are not delivered for human consideration and then abandoned, but are processed with the current stock information retrieved from the stock database to generate the list of items required to be ordered, the threshold data and current stock information are processed to update the indicator in the stock database and to generate the reminders at predefined intervals, and the forecasts are communicated to the display unit. Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations impose meaningful limits on the practice of any alleged exception. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 as amended does not recite a general purpose computer applying an alleged exception by conventional computer functions, but rather a particular arrangement of components that can be specifically identified, namely: a client-server architecture in which a server has the processing unit and the memory device; the mapping information stored in that memory device being written by sending the updated mapping information to it and editing the part that is changed; the indicator being updated in the stock database; and a display unit, distinct from the input unit and the server, to which the forecasts are communicated. Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the deficiencies addressed are described in the as-filed specification… Applicant respectfully requests that the additional elements of claim 1 as amended be considered as an ordered combination”:
Applicant argues “Client-server architecture… Record-level updating of the mapping information in the memory device… Updating of the level indicator in the stock database… Communication of the forecasts to the display unit… Dynamic geographical configuration… Automated reminder generation.” However, the “client-server architecture” to which Applicant refers (i.e., a computing system having an input unit, display unit, and a server having a processing unit, a memory device storing databases) is described at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Furthermore, the “Record-level updating of the mapping information … Updating of the level indicator… Communication of the forecasts… Dynamic geographical configuration… Automated reminder generation” are interpreted as rules or instructions to forecast and manage resources (i.e., inventory) in a medical facility, which is the abstract idea of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, and not additional elements to be interpreted in Step 2A, Prong Two. Also, “sending the updated mapping information to the memory device” only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Applicant argues “Taken together, these limitations recite a closed sequence performed by the recited components: the forecasts generated by the decision-tree-based ensemble Machine Learning mechanism are not delivered for human consideration and then abandoned, but are processed with the current stock information retrieved from the stock database to generate the list of items required to be ordered, the threshold data and current stock information are processed to update the indicator in the stock database and to generate the reminders at predefined intervals, and the forecasts are communicated to the display unit. Applicant respectfully submits that these limitations impose meaningful limits on the practice of any alleged exception. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 as amended does not recite a general purpose computer applying an alleged exception by conventional computer functions, but rather a particular arrangement of components that can be specifically identified, namely: a client-server architecture in which a server has the processing unit and the memory device; the mapping information stored in that memory device being written by sending the updated mapping information to it and editing the part that is changed; the indicator being updated in the stock database; and a display unit, distinct from the input unit and the server, to which the forecasts are communicated.” However, Applicant fails to specify how the “closed sequence…impose meaningful limits on the practice of any alleged exception.” As stated previously before, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Even if the “particular arrangement of components…can be specifically identified,” the computing “components” to which Applicant seem to refer are described at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the deficiencies addressed are described in the as-filed specification.” However, “cancellation of planned surgeries or medical procedures due to missing medical supplies,” “how much medical supplies they should stock for certain number of procedures,” “forecasting the stock requirement in a hospital” addresses administrative problems, and not a technical problem to any specific devices, technology, or computers for that matter, and thus, the claims do not provide a technical solution. Even if the claims provide the aforementioned alleged improvements, these alleged benefits are at best, an improvement to the abstract idea of rules or instructions followed to forecast and manage resources (i.e., inventory) in a medical facility. However, an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
As stated previously in Office Action dated 05/26/2025, the computing system did not cause the argued problem and thus it is not a technical problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. Even a technical solution to a non-technical problem does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant’s claims do not recite the invention of improvements to computer functionality, technology, or any other technological field, but the use of generic computer components to forecast and manage resources (i.e., inventory) in a medical facility, which is an abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Examiner cannot find and Appellant has not identified any problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined (i.e., a well-known, general purpose computer). While the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any technical improvement to computer technology, a physical improvement to the computer, or any other technical improvement. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Applicant argues “the additional elements of claim 1 as amended be considered as an ordered combination.” However, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Thus, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
“no factual determination of record supports a conclusion that the additional elements of claim 1 as amended are well-understood, routine, or conventional… none of these is offered with respect to the recited client-server architecture, the recited manner of updating the mapping information in the memory device, the updating of the indicator in the stock database, or the communication of the forecasts to the display unit…the arrangement recited in claim 1 as amended is likewise non-conventional”:
Applicant argues “no factual determination of record supports a conclusion that the additional elements of claim 1 as amended are well-understood, routine, or conventional.” However, Examiner did not assert the claim limitations of “the recited client-server architecture, the recited manner of updating the mapping information in the memory device, the updating of the indicator in the stock database, or the communication of the forecasts to the display unit” were well-understood, routine, conventional activity in Office Action dated 01/25/2024 or above, and thus, no evidence per Berkheimer is required. As stated previously above, only the limitations of “sending the updated mapping information to the memory device” is determined to constitute well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions; receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Applicant argues “the arrangement recited in claim 1 as amended is likewise non-conventional.” However, Applicant fails to specify how “the arrangement recited in claim 1 as amended is…non-conventional” like in BASCOM. As stated previously above, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Furthermore, as stated previously above, Applicant’s claims do not recite the invention of improvements to computer functionality, technology, or any other technological field, but the use of generic computer components to forecast and manage resources (i.e., inventory) in a medical facility, which is an abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Examiner cannot find and Appellant has not identified any problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined (i.e., a well-known, general purpose computer). While the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any technical improvement to computer technology, a physical improvement to the computer, or any other technical improvement. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, Examiner maintains the 101 rejections of claims 1-11, 16-17, which have been updated to address Applicant’s amendments and remarks and to comply with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance in the above Office Action and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence in the above Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773.The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights