DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] 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
[2] 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10 October 2025 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
[3] This communication is in response to the Amendment and the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 10 October 2025. It is noted that this application a Continuation of United States Patent Application Serial No. 16/858,462, now United States Patent No. 11,093,902 which benefits from the effective filing date of 26 April 2019. Claims 10-11, 13, 17-20, 22, 24-25, and 27 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 21, and 23 have been amended. Claims 29-31 have been added. Claims 1-9, 12, 14-16, 21, 23, 26, and 28-31 are pending.
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.
[4] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-9, 12, 14-16, 21-24, and 26-28 (now claims 1-9, 12, 14-16, 21, 23, 26, and 28-31 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The revised statement of rejection presented below is necessitated by amendment and addresses the present amendments to the pending claims.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-9, 12, 14-16, 21, 23, 26, and 28-31 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 21, and 23 are directed to a method, a system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 21, and 23 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of monitoring and coordinating employee and supervisor absentee status, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed serves to determine personnel reporting arrangements and monitor absentee status of supervisors and employees, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., scheduling of absences from employment).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 1. In particular, claim 1 as presented by amendment includes:
“…obtaining, on a recurring basis…employee data corresponding to a plurality of employees of the entity…”, “…updating, based on the employee data…an organizational tree of the entity, wherein the organizational tree comprises a plurality of nodes that represent the responsive employees of the entity and a plurality of linking branches that represent hierarchy within the entity, thereby defining an updated organizational tree of the entity;…”, “...automatically retrieving…absentee status information for at least a portion of the plurality of employees of the entity in accordance with a continuous rolling period of time that encompasses a first contiguous present period of time,, wherein the absentee states information includes a respective absentee category and approval status for each absence of a plurality of absences, and the absentee status information corresponds to the first contiguous present period of time;...”, “…receiving an input from a supervisor in a set of supervisors at the entity, the input indicating a setting for an absentee calendar comprising an identification of a set of supervisees of the entity that directly or indirectly report to the supervisor, and a second contiguous period of time to be displayed in the absentee calendar; and in response to receiving the input:…” and “…causing display of…the absentee calendar… wherein the absentee calendar is populated in accordance with the absentee status information and includes, for each day in a set of days corresponding to the second contiguous period of time, a representation of a number of supervisees in the set of supervisees that have an absence during the day, and a representation of an absentee category for each absence during the day, and wherein…responsive to a selection of a first day in the set of days, provide an accounting of absences for the first day…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 1 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of monitoring and coordinating employee and supervisor absentee status, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., scheduling of absences from employment) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible processes/functions which are performable by human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Mental processes or concepts performed in the human mind including observation and evaluation are considered to be ineligible abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps performable by human mental processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 1 as presented by amendment recites:
“…in accordance with each retrieval of the absentee status information…associating the absentee status information, for each respective employee in the portion of the plurality of employees, with a respective node in the plurality of nodes in the organizational tree of the entity for a corresponding supervisor of the respective employee;…” and “…retrieving…set of absentee status information for a corresponding set of absences that (i) correspond to the set of supervisees, (ii) have an absentee status category that is in an enumerated list of absentee status categories, and (iii) occur during the second contiguous period of time…”.
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited processors and interface, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to update and organizational chart and a calendar based on a input time period and further view the organization chart and determine dependencies among personnel and formulate criteria a, e.g., dependencies and/or date ranges by which to retrieve desired data from a data store are practicable/performable by employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As presented by amendment, additional technical elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “one or more processors”, “memory”, “remote system”, “data store”, “data structure(s)”, and “graphical user interface” and “network”. Claim 1 further indicates, generally, that the claimed method is performed “at a computing system” as designated in the preamble. Claims 21 and 23, directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a system introduce a “computing device” and processor-executable “programs” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “computing system”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, computing device”, and “programs” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “remote system” is identified as being communicatively coupled to the computing system via the network and is further identified as the source of providing the employee data that is obtained on a recurring basis.
(3) The “data store” is identified as absentee status information.
(4) The “graphical user interface” is identified as displaying the calendar populated with absentee status information for specified days.
(5) The first and second “data structures” are identified as including an organizational tree and updated absentee status information for a specific supervisor.
With respect to the “remote system” being “…communicatively coupled to the computing system via a communications network…”, while this designation specifies/identifies the data transmission mechanism by which the system and computing system transmit data, the limitation merely presents an additional step capable of being performed by generic computing systems using a network, i.e., data transmission via a network.
With respect to the generation of the absentee calendar according to an input, the functions of the component technical element of the recited graphical user interface are limited to displaying the calendar based on the data retrieved from computer memory/data structures. Accordingly, these limitations merely recite a generic display of information, i.e., calendar for a specified/input time period and for the input employees of the supervisor.
With respect to the designations or first and second data structures, as presented, the claim presents particular data that is included in each structure, e.g., organizational tree and a portion of absentee information. Absent further clarification of the functional aspects of the recited data structures and the programmatic interactions among the group of specific structures, the structures as claimed are limited to the identified data and generic functions of storage and retrieval of the data from computer memory.
New claims 29-31 specify that the retrieving and generating steps are performed without human intervention. As presently constructed, the phrase “without human intervention” implies some automated function at an undefined step in the process of retrieving and displaying information. Absent clarification of the automated or programmatic processes, these recitations merely require that data is retrieved and a display is provided.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
NOTE: For Applicant’s benefit, clarification of the functional aspects of the recited data structures and the programmatic interactions among the group of specific structures to programmatically configure the calendar interface to provide a continuous/rolling configuration of the calendar as the rolling window proceeds could serve to establish an integrating technical element under Step 2A prong 2. However, as presented, the claim merely requires retrieval and display of data, i.e., generic computing functions.
As presented by amendment, each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., records and absentee status are obtained, supervisors are determined, absentee status is aggregated for a specified time period/input and a calendar is displayed etc.) as associated with the statement “at a computer system”. Beyond the general statement that steps occur at a computer system, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the recited computer system and instructions in producing the claimed result. A recitation of at a computer system, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the claimed result is reasonably understood to constitute a general linking to a technological environment, The technology as engaged is solely identified as storing and retrieving information (e.g., obtaining notifications in electronic format), performing tasks that are otherwise performable in the human mind (e.g., determine indirect and direct reports to a supervisor and aggregate absence information over a given time frame), and sending and receiving information over a network (e.g., communicating status notifications) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of monitoring and coordinating employee and supervisor absentee status using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment, e.g., generic devices capable of storing and retrieving information from memory and sending and receiving data and communications over a network. The claimed monitoring and coordinating employee and supervisor absentee status benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0081]-[0086] [0107]-[0108] and [0118]-[0124]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “computing system”, “one or more processors”, “memory”, computing device”, and “programs” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “remote system” is identified as being communicatively coupled to the computing system via the network and is further identified as the source of providing the employee data that is obtained on a recurring basis.
(3) The “data store” is identified as absentee status information.
(4) The “graphical user interface” is identified as displaying the calendar populated with absentee status information for specified days.
(5) The first and second “data structures” are identified as including an organizational tree and updated absentee status information for a specific supervisor.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) obtaining, in electronic format, a corresponding supervisor status notification for a corresponding supervisor in a set of supervisors at an entity without further human intervention by the corresponding supervisor; (2) construct an aggregated listing of supervisees that is configured responsive to a continuous rolling period of time ; and (3) displaying, on the display, on a graphical user interface, an absentee calendar.
With respect to the “remote system” being “…communicatively coupled to the computing system via a communications network…”, while this designation specifies/identifies the data transmission mechanism by which the system and computing system transmit data, the limitation merely presents an additional step capable of being performed by generic computing systems using a network, i.e., data transmission via a network.
As noted above, the functions of the recited graphical user interface are limited to displaying the calendar based on the data retrieved from computer memory/data structures, i.e., a generic display of information, i.e., calendar for a specified/input time period and for the input employees of the supervisor.
The first and second data structures, as presented, are limited to an identification of particular data that is included in each structure, e.g., organizational tree and a portion of absentee information. Absent further clarification of the functional aspects of the recited data structures and the programmatic interactions among the group of specific structures, the structures as claimed are limited to the identified data and generic functions of storage and retrieval of the data from computer memory.
New claims 29-31 specify that the retrieving and generating steps are performed without human intervention. As presently constructed, the phrase “without human intervention” implies some automated function at an undefined step in the process of retrieving and displaying information. Absent clarification of the automated or programmatic processes, these recitations merely require that data is retrieved and a display is provided.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., notifications obtained data); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., employee scheduling and listing of employees); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., determine indirect and direct reports to a supervisor and aggregate absence information over a given time frame). The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of monitoring and coordinating employee and supervisor absentee status. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., monitoring and coordinating employee and supervisor absentee status, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of monitoring and coordinating employee and supervisor absentee status benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 21 and 23, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9, 12, 14-16, 26, and 28-31, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Allowable Subject Matter
[5] Claims 1-9, 12, 14-16, 21, 23, 26, and 28-31 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 maintained in this Office action.
Subject Matter Overcoming Art of Record
[6] The most closely applicable prior art of record is presented in the Office Action mailed 25 November 2022 as ‘cited not applied’ to Avitabile et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0031184). Avitabile et al. provides a system and method for out-or-office aggregation. Avitable et al. includes functionality for a supervisor to receive messages/notifications from direct and indirect reports concerning a requested or scheduled out-of-office event. Avitable et al. utilizes an organizational hierarchy to identify managerial relationships.
While Avitable et al. is similar to the instant application in many respects, there are clear patentable distinctions. Initially, while Avitable et al. utilizes an organizational hierarchy/chart to identify reporting relationships, Avitable et al. does not teach recurrently receiving a supervisor notification which provides an aggregated listing of each supervisee that directly or indirectly reports to the corresponding supervisor in an enumerated list of status categories with current absentee status that is configured based on a rolling time period. In other words, while Avitable et al. disclose customizable preferences for messaging using identified reporting relationships, Avitable et al. fails to disclose an aggregated listing of status notifications generated based on an independent absentee status and further presenting the status notifications using an absence calendar specific to a supervisor and filtered to include only employees with a reporting relationship to the supervisor on a rolling basis.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[7] Applicant's remarks filed 10 October 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] Applicant’s remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 12, 14-16, 21-24, and 26-28 (now claims 1-9, 12, 14-16, 21, 23, 26, and 28-31 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Actions mailed 10 April 2025 are reasonably considered to have been fully addressed in the context of the revised rejection of the claims presented above responsive to the amendments to the subject claims and in consideration of the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Additionally, Applicant substantially rehashes arguments previously presented in the prior response. These arguments are addressed in accordance with Examiner’s response in the prior Office Actions mailed 10 April 2025, 1 October 2024, 28 March 2024, 8 March 2024, and 14 September 2023, incorporated in their entirety in response.
Conclusion
[8] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Baeck, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PLANNING, ADMINISTERING, AND PRESENTING PERSONALIZED VIEWS, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0171421, paragraphs [0021]-[0023]: Relevant Teachings: Baeck discloses a system/method that provides monitoring and management of on-the-job apprenticeship programs. The system/method include generating user-specific interfaces/views for monitoring data and progress associated with the apprenticeship program and includes monitoring and generating a calendar to track student absences.
Ehrler et al., ORGANIZER FOR MANAGING EMPLOYEE TIME AND ATTENDANCE, United States Patent No. 8,869,053: Relevant Teachings: Ehrler discloses a system/method that provides tacking of employee absence-related issues. The system/method includes generation of notifications and interfaces to inform managers of approaching employee absences.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625