DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Applicant and Claims
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-18 and 20-23 are pending.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 were amended or newly added in the Applicant’s filing on 5/20/2026.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing on 5/20/2026.
3. Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
accessing, by the computer based system, the data from the at least one of manipulated feeds or unreliable feeds, based on the reducing the in and out bottlenecks.
However, there is no earlier recitation of an “in and our bottleneck” in Claim 1.
Claims 8 and 15 have similar issues.
4. 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, 8, 10-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system comprising computer readable code, wherein the code is configured, to perform a method and a computer readable medium comprising instructions to perform a method comprising:
selecting … a currency pair;
determining … an initial exchange set based on the currency pair;
comparing … the currency pair to an exchange exclusion table to determine an excluded exchange set;
removing … using … filtering …, the excluded exchange set from the initial exchange set to generate a prefiltered exchange set comprising a plurality of exchanges associated with the currency pair;
calculating … a total prefilter trade volume of an historical trade data set based on a time window;
associating … the historical trade data set with the prefiltered exchange set;
calculating … a composition percentage of the total prefilter volume for each exchange of the prefiltered exchange set;
applying … based on the composition percentage, a first filtering function to the prefiltered exchange set to generate a first filtered exchange set;
normalizing … in real time, the first filtered exchange set based on the total prefilter trade volume to generate a first normalized exchange set;
generating … in real time, a first weighting function based on the first normalized exchange set;
receiving … in real time, a real time data set associated with the first normalized exchange set;
associating in real time, the real time data set that comprises a plurality of real time data feeds with each exchange of the first normalized exchange set;
applying … in real time, the first weighting function to the real time data set to generate an index price for the currency pair;
identifying … for an account associated with the currency pair, at least one of manipulated feeds or unreliable feeds in the real time data set;
storing … data from the at least one of manipulated feeds or unreliable feeds in … as ungrouped data elements formatted as ungrouped data elements;
formatting, …, the ungrouped data elements as …;
converting … the ungrouped data elements to a common data structure …;
…
transmitting … a full copy of the ungrouped data elements in the common data structure to each [entity];
operating, by the [entity] …, with a full copy of the ungrouped data elements in the common data structure;
transmitting … messages about a missing [portion of data] in the ungrouped data elements from each [entity] …
obtaining … data from a previous [portion of data] …
detecting, by the [entity] …, the missing [portion of data] based on the obtaining data from the previous [portion of data]
propagating … a request for the missing [portion of data] to other [entities] …
…
transmitting … repeatedly used files …;
…
designating … the data from the at least one of manipulated feeds or unreliable feeds as key fields in a plurality of related data tables;
searching … for the data based on the designating the data;
linking … the plurality of related data tables based on the type of the data from the at least one of manipulated feeds or unreliable feeds in the key fields;
sorting … the plurality of related data tables according to a known order;
accessing … and based on the sorting and a simplified lookup process, the data from the at least one of manipulated feeds or unreliable feeds;
obtaining … the data from the at least one of manipulated feeds or unreliable feeds …;
removing … using the filtering … for the account associated with the currency pair, access to at least one of the manipulated feeds or the unreliable feeds to the real time data set to create a filtered real time data set, based on the identifying at least one of the manipulated feeds or the unreliable feeds;
re-calculating … in real time, the first weighting function based on the filtered real time data set to create a second weighting function;
applying … in real time, the second weighting function to the filtered real time data set to generate a revised index price for the currency pair; [and]
displaying … the revised index price for the currency pair.
These limitations, as drafted, recite a method and/or a system configured to perform a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to generate a financial index which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, recite a method and/or a system configured to perform a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of to reduce utilization of manipulated and/or unreliable data in financial analysis which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Examiner notes that reducing utilization of manipulated and/or financial data in financial analysis, thereby improving the accurateness of said financial analysis, is mitigation of financial risk and that the mitigation of financial risk is a court-provided example of a fundamental economic practice. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A), citing Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. (2014).
Additionally, these limitations, as drafted, under their broadest interpretation, covers a series of steps that can be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions) which are mental process, a second enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that “’collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” is a mental process. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA. (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a computer-based system (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), module(s) (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), database(s) (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), block(s) (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), node(s) (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), peer(s) (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a network (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a processor (Claim(s) 8), a memory (Claim(s) 8), and computer-readable code (Claim(s) 8).
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 10-14, 16-18 and 20-23 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
No additional computer components other than those found in the respective independent claims are recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generically recited computer.
As such, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-5, 7, 8, 10-18 and 20-23 are 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.
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
operating, by the node of the computer based system, with the full copy of the ungrouped data elements in the common data structure;
What is meant by operating?
The previous method step recites that a full copy of the ungrouped data elements in the common structure is transmitting to each node. Does “operating” mean that the node has received the full copy (i.e., performed a receiving operation)? Or that the node is performing an operation (i.e., performing some computer function) with the full copy?
Claim 1 also recites a method comprising:
transmitting, by the computer based system, repeatedly used files on separate filing systems.
Is “on separate filing systems” defining the files being transmitted or the action of transmitting?
Is the computer transmitting repeatedly used files to separate filing systems? Or is the computer transmitting files that were repeatedly used on separate systems?
Claims 8 and 15 have similar issues.
Appropriate correction is requested.
6. No Prior Art Rejection
Applicant’s amended claims have overcome the prior art of record. No further prior art has been asserted against the claimed invention.
7. Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite a mental process and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong One of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 17-20.
Specifically, the Applicant argues:
As the Examiner states on page 13 of the Office Action, a computer is required for the examples of what cannot be practically performed in the human mind. For example, transmitting data elements to nodes, transmitting files on systems, using a filter module, removing access to feeds in real time, real time normalizing, real time weighting, real time receiving, real time associating, etc all cannot be practically performed in the human mind. More particularly, Applicant asserts that at least the following claimed features (emphasis added) require a computer and cannot be practically performed in the human mind. See Arguments, pp. 17-18 – emphasis original.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As a preliminary note, the Applicant puts a lot of emphasis on performing functions “in real time.” Performing a function in real time involves capturing, processing, and responding to actions as they happen, with minimal delay. A human being can perform a function in real time.
A human being can transmit data elements (e.g., verbally communicate stock prices) to another entity, transmit files (e.g., a report pertaining to stock prices), use a filtering function (e.g., filter all the incoming information for the most relevant and trustworthy information), remove access to feeds in real time (e.g., discard irrelevant and untrustworthy information), perform real time normalization (e.g., remove outliers and normalize incoming information), perform real time weighting (e.g., weighting one information source over another), perform real time receiving (e.g., receiving information), and perform real time associating (e.g., associating two pieces of information).
A computer is not inherent to the underlying process and, as such, the claims recite a process that can practically be performed in the human mind.
Admittedly, the claimed invention is utilizing computerized elements to perform the abstract idea. But these are additional elements and additional elements are examined under Step 2A Prong Two, to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, not Step 2A Prong One. See MPEP §2106.05(f)(2).
Additionally, utilizing a computer to perform a mental process does not negate a finding that the claimed invention recites a mental process.
As MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) recites:
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
The claimed invention recites a mental process even though the claimed invention recites that the mental process is being performed on a computer. The claims merely recite that the “concept is performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept.”
Applicant further argues:
In particular, the claimed invention involves significant data volumes, processing speed and algorithmic complexity with computer executed operations and technical aspects at non-human implementation and scale. See Argument, p. 19.
The Examiner respectfully.
While a mental process performed on a computer system may be performed faster, more efficiently or on a larger scale, that does not does not negate a finding that the claimed invention recites a mental process.
On this point, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric System, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) stated:
At the same time, we note that, in viewing the facts in FairWarning's favor, the inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability. As we have explained, “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., 687 F.3d at 1278. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric System, Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) - emphasis added.
FairWarning appears to argue that, under a correct construction, the district court would have understood the term audit log data to “exist[] in the computer environment after at least one of [the] transactions or activities … are executed in the computer environment by an authorized user.” Id. at 30 (emphases omitted). The implication of this construction, FairWarning argues, would be that “the ′500 patent is necessarily rooted in computer technology.” Id. But this is the same argument we dismissed above, cloaked as claim construction. Simply requiring computer implementation of an otherwise abstract-idea process, as in FairWarning would require of the claim, does not make the claims patent eligible. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric System, Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
As in FairWarning, computer implementation of an otherwise abstract idea (i.e., reducing utilization of manipulated and/or unreliable data in financial analysis) does not make the claimed invention patent eligible.
Similar to FairWarning, the claimed invention appears to be "merely implement[ing] an old practice in a new environment" by updating the practice to a new computerized environment, and thus is patent-ineligible subject matter. See FairWarning, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Examiner notes that the claimed invention also recites a fundamental economic practice, a subcategory of certain methods of organizing human activities, which is distinct and separate from the mental processes grouping. No argument was asserted against the fundamental economic practice classification.
Applicant further argues:
As part of the process for executing real time trades, the claimed invention scans the communication (e.g., data feed) for malicious items (e.g., manipulations and unreliable data), flags the malicious items in the data feeds (e.g., identifies in the real time data set), continues to scan until no more malicious items are found (e.g., continues identifying), removes the malicious items (e.g., removing the feeds) and creates a new data file (e.g., a filtered real time data set). See Arguments, p. 20 – emphasis added.
The Examiner notes that the claims, as written, do not recite executing any trades.
Examiner also notes that the claimed invention was also classified as a fundamental economic practice in the previous Office Action. No rebuttal concerning its classification as a fundamental economic practice was received.
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argues that the claimed invention recites a practical application, specifically “an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,” and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong Two of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 15-17.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
Applicant asserts that examples of the technical problems and technical improvements are stated in the specification in paragraph 0016, namely that the claimed invention replaces the mostly manual systems, indexing and push architecture with multiple informational channels and multiple filtering processes, thereby tending to inhibit manipulation of index prices preferences. See Arguments, p. 15.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention does not establish that there is a technological problem.
Inhibiting manipulation of index price preferences is not a technological problem (i.e., a problem rooted in technology).
As DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com stated:
As an initial matter, it is true that the claims here are similar to the claims in the cases discussed above in the sense that the claims involve both a computer and the Internet. But these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) – emphasis added.
In the instant case, the problem that the claimed invention is designed to overcome, manipulation of index price preferences, is not a problem specifically arising from the realm of computers. This problem is a standard business problem that exists outside the realm of computers and existed before the age of computers.
Replacing “mostly manual systems” with a computerized system does not establish that there is a technological problem.
Admittedly, if the claimed invention enabled computerized systems to perform a function that computerized systems were unable to previously perform that would be an improvement. The claimed invention would be expanding the functional capabilities of a computer similar to McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016). But there is no such evidence that computer systems were incapable of performing the claimed process but for the claimed technology-based solution.
MPEP §2106.05(a) recites:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The 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. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. – emphasis added.
The specification does not provide any evidence that there is a technical problem (i.e., a technology-based problem) to be solved. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that existing and conventional technology was not capable of performing the claimed process but for the claimed technology-based solution.
Additionally, the specification does not provide any evidence that the claimed invention results in an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to conventional technology or technological processes. For example, the specification does not provide any evidence that the functionality of a computer or conventional technology has been improved, or their technological capabilities have been expanded beyond their existing capabilities.
Applicant further argues:
Applicant asserts that additional examples of the technical improvements and practical applications are stated in the specification in paragraph 0017, namely that the claimed invention reduces processing time, reduces network utilization, reduces data storage, increases data reliability, increases data accuracy, reduces data, simplifies data mining, provides real time index normalization and provides real time weighting functions. See Arguments, p. 16.
As to the indirect improvements to the technology (e.g., reducing network utilization, reducing data storage, reducing data, simplifying data mining) based upon performance of the claimed invention, any software can be argued to improve a computer. It can always be argued that the software runs the process more efficiently thereby reducing the demands placed upon the computer system.
In the claimed invention, the computer has not been improved. The non-technological process that the software is performing may have been improved but, according to Alice, improving the process without any technological innovation is not statutory. To be “directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality,” the claim “must be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336-39).
The computer still operates according to its known and standard capabilities. A reduction of load on the computer does not bring about an improvement to the computer, it merely offers resources to other processes that are running on the computer.
Examiner notes that the Applicant cites specification, para. 17, as support.
Specification, para. 17, recites:
In various embodiments, the system may eliminate or reduce index manipulation and improve index reliability, along with enabling enhanced automation features. The system may also reduce the cost of development, reduce system processing time for financial indexing, reduce network utilization, and/or reduce data storage overhead. The system may increase data reliability or accuracy by enabling data filtering functions and reliability testing. The system may also reduce a number of raw data sets for processing, thereby reducing a demand for system resources. The system may simplify data mining and enhance user experience by enabling immediate real time index normalization and weighting function generation. Benefits of the present disclosure may apply to any suitable trading environment. For example, the present disclosure may apply in equity trading, currencies trading, futures trading, and/or any other financial instrument, as well as in information analysis or fraud prevention contexts. See specification, para. 17 – emphasis added.
The specification does not even recite that these indirect benefits are derived from the claimed invention. The claimed functions may produce these benefits but, at the same time, they may not.
Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is analogous to Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA (Fed. Cir. 2016) which stated:
The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. see Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – emphasis added.
The claimed invention is not an improvement to computer technology or computer functionality. Rather, the claimed invention is applying a computer’s existing capabilities (i.e., computer’s existing features) to implement a particular abstract idea. As in Electric Power Group, the focus of the claimed invention is not on an improvement in computers as tools but on improving an abstract idea (i.e., generate a financial index) that uses computers as tools.
MPEP §2106.04(d) recites:
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); [and]
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Examiner asserts that the additional elements amount to merely (1) including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or alternatively, (2) merely links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
8. Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached on (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights