DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 9, 16 and 21-26 have been amended.
Claims 5, 13 and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 9, 16, and 21-26 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner' s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claim 23. Objection to claim 23 due to minor informalities is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claims 1, 9 and 16. Applicants arguments have been fully considered, and after careful re-evaluation under the Office’s subject matter eligibility test, Applicant’s arguments were not persuasive. Rejections to claims are maintained.
Applicant argues [Pg.8 P.1] that amended Claim 1 limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After carefully re-evaluating the claims as amended, Examiner respectfully disagrees per the following reasoning (also see detailed evaluation within Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 section below).
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1, 21 and 22 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 9, 23 and 24 are directed to a device, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 16, 25 and 26 are directed to a non-transitory CRM, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A: Determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are all directed towards an abstract idea (mental processes and/or mathematical concepts) – see 35 USC §101 analysis below.
Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC §101 analysis section below, the additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional claim limitations identified (e.g. Claim 1) can be summarized as receiving data (i.e. obtaining design tables/layout schemes, importing the k-file), outputting data (i.e. output a k-file), and storing data (i.e. storing design layout schemes).
Receiving data amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre/post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Outputting data is interpreted as Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data outputting, pre/post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Storing data is interpreted as Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre/post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d), another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Since the additional elements of receiving data, outputting data and storing data are directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity and have been determined to be well understood, routine, conventional activity per MPEP 2106.05(d), claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Similar rationale for rejection is provided for additional independent/dependent claims below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims.
Applicant' s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Previous
rejections to claims are withdrawn.
See Allowable Subject Matter section below for details.
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, 9, 16, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1, 21 and 22 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 9, 23 and 24 are directed to a device, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a machine.
Claims 16, 25 and 26 are directed to a non-transitory CRM, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes and Mathematical Concepts, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the amended claim recites the limitations of:
performing machine language conversion on the first design table to
output a K file, (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, the limitation is directed towards Mathematical Relationships, which is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: ii. a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations.)
simulating the first embossment design layout scheme to obtain chassis
bearing strength; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, a person can reasonably determine/obtain (i.e. evaluate) a chassis bearing strength using an embossment design layout scheme, with the aid of pen and paper as a physical aid. The limitation is also interpreted as Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. “Simulating”, here, is interpreted as calculating a bearing strength, via mathematical calculation, dependent on the particular embossment design layout.)
filtering out multiple first embossment design layout scheme after the first design table is obtained; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, the limitation is directed towards Mathematical Relationships, which is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations.)
querying the database and determining whether the second embossment design layout scheme exists in the database; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For instance, a person can reasonably query (i.e. observe, evaluate) a database and determine (i.e. evaluate, judge) whether or not a second embossment design layout scheme exists. Also, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), examples of mental processes include: a claim to "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, and a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind.)
performing machine language conversion on the second design table to output a K file (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mathematical Concepts per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Specifically, the limitation is directed towards Mathematical Relationships, which is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include: ii. a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary, iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations.)
simulating the second embossment design layout scheme to obtain chassis bearing strength; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, a person can reasonably determine/obtain (i.e. evaluate) a chassis bearing strength using the second embossment design layout scheme, with the aid of pen and paper as a physical aid. The limitation is also interpreted as Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) which is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. “Simulating”, here, is interpreted as calculating a bearing strength, via mathematical calculation, dependent on the particular embossment design layout.)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Insignificant Extra-solution Activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
obtaining a first design table, the first design table including a first embossment design layout scheme; (This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. The element of “obtaining a first design table” is interpreted as pre-solution activity.)
performing machine language conversion on the first design table to output a K file, (This limitation amounts to Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering/outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of an activity the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, besides mere data gathering/outputting, is selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The element of outputting a “K file” is interpreted as a particular data type to be manipulated.)
and importing the k-file into a simulation software; (This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity, mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of an activity the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, besides mere data gathering, is selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The element of importing a “K file” is interpreted as a particular data type to be manipulated.)
storing the first embossment design layout scheme and corresponding
chassis bearing strength to a database. (This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions. The element of “storing” data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because the step of storing data in a process that simulates an embossment design layout scheme does not add a meaningful limitation to the claimed process.)
obtaining a second design table, the second design table including a second embossment design layout scheme (This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity, mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. The element of “obtaining a second design table” is interpreted as mere data gathering.)
performing machine language conversion on the second design table to output a K file, importing the K file into the simulation software when the second embossment design layout scheme is not present between the database and the second design table; (These limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering/outputting) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of an activity the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, besides mere data gathering/outputting, is selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. The element of output/importing a “K file” is interpreted as a particular data type to be manipulated.)
and storing the second embossment design layout scheme and corresponding chassis bearing strength to the database. (This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions. The element of “storing” data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity because the step of storing data in a process that simulates an embossment design layout scheme does not add a meaningful limitation to the claimed process.)
obtaining the second embossment design layout scheme in the database and the corresponding chassis bearing strength in a case that the second embossment design layout scheme is present between the database and the second design table. (This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. The element of “obtaining the second embossment design” is interpreted as mere data gathering.)
Accordingly, these 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 when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) referencing MPEP 2106.05(d).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations (e.g. simulating an embossment layout), iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claims 9 and 16 are directed to substantially the same subject matter as independent claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Furthermore, Claim 9 recites the elements of An electronic device, comprising: a storage device; and at least one processor, wherein the storage device stores one or more programs, and Claim 16 recites A non-transitory storage medium. The additional feature(s) amount to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the additional elements are considered to invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Therefore, claims 9 and 16 are rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim 21 recites querying the database and obtaining the first embossment design layout scheme and corresponding chassis bearing strength; (The additional feature(s) is considered to disclose Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (mere data gathering) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The element of obtaining the first embossment design layout scheme and corresponding chassis bearing strength are interpreted as mere data gathering.)
comparing the first embossment design layout scheme and the corresponding chassis bearing strength to determine a best embossment design layout scheme. (The additional feature(s) is considered to disclose Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). An example of a claim that recites mental processes is “a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind”.)
Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 22, which is dependent on claim 21, recites recommending and displaying the best embossment design layout scheme. The additional features recite Mental Processes per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and/or Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity per MPEP 2106.05(g). To recommend is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement. And displaying the best embossment design layout scheme is interpreted as mere data gathering/outputting (i.e. insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 23, which is dependent on claim 9, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 21 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 24, which is dependent on claim 21, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 22 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 25, which is dependent on claim 16, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 21 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Claim 26, which is dependent on claim 25, recites substantially the same subject matter as claim 22 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9, 16, and 21-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Soto US Patent No. US 6473724 B1 discloses a method for designing embossed ribs in plates by integrating orthotropic material property computation, stress analysis, and structural topology optimization. It inputs data of a loaded un-embossed plate, computes orthotropic properties and stresses, determines optimum rib orientation via a stress-based polynomial solution, and performs local optimization to find rib location and spacing, but fails to specifically disclose first design table, the first design table including a first embossment design layout scheme, performing machine language conversion on the first design table to output a K file, and importing the K file into a simulation software, storing the first embossment design layout scheme and corresponding chassis bearing strength to a database, filtering out multiple first embossment design layout scheme after the first design table is obtained, a second design table, the second design table including a second embossment design layout scheme, querying the database and determining whether the second embossment design layout scheme exists in the database, performing machine language conversion on the second design table to output a K file, importing the K file into the simulation software when the second embossment design layout scheme is not present between the database and the second design table, storing the second embossment design layout scheme and corresponding chassis bearing strength to the database, and in a case that the second embossment design layout scheme is present between the database and the second design table.
Kawabe et al. US Patent No. US 8731874 B2 discloses a three-dimensional CAD model creating apparatus and program that simplify the setting of change logic for parametric and programmed transformations. By allowing users to input change logic as tabular data describing conditions and resulting model states, and converting this data into executable model built-in programs registered within the CAD model, the invention enables easy creation, editing, and maintenance of transformation logic, but fails to specifically disclose performing machine language conversion on the first design table to output a K file, and importing the K file into a simulation software; filtering out multiple first embossment design layout scheme after the first design table is obtained; querying the database and determining whether the second embossment design layout scheme exists in the database; performing machine language conversion on the second design table to output a K file, importing the K file into the simulation software when the second embossment design layout scheme is not present between the database and the second design table, and in a case that the second embossment design layout scheme is present between the database and the second design table.
Becker et al. US Patent No. US 7698287 B2 relates to spreadsheet applications and aims to provide a method and system for manipulating tables of data within spreadsheets by applying database functions row-by-row. It intends to improve data reorganization, filtering, sorting, duplicate removal, appending tables, and adding columns dynamically and efficiently within spreadsheet environments, but fails to specifically disclose performing machine language conversion on the first design table to output a K file, and importing the K file into a simulation software; querying the database and determining whether the second embossment design layout scheme exists in the database; performing machine language conversion on the second design table to output a K file, importing the K file into the simulation software when the second embossment design layout scheme is not present between the database and the second design table.
Oh US Patent No. 8744821 B2 discloses a method and computer system for modeling complex systems using a spreadsheet environment enhanced with an add-in that supports OMG SysML graphical modeling language, but fails to specifically disclose performing machine language conversion on the first design table to output a K file, and importing the K file into a simulation software; performing machine language conversion on the second design table to output a K file, importing the K file into the simulation software when the second embossment design layout scheme is not present between the database and the second design table.
LS-DYNA Keyword User’s Manual Volume 1 (LS-DYNA R13), Livermore Software Technology (LST), An Ansys Company, 09/24/2021 discloses performing machine language conversion on the first design table to output a K file, and importing the K file into a simulation software; performing machine language conversion on the second design table to output a K file, importing the K file into the simulation software when the second embossment design layout scheme is not present between the database and the second design table, but fails to disclose remaining independent claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ciuciu, Ioana, and Yan Tang Demey. "Modelling Ontology-Based Decision Rules for Computer-Aided Design." OTM Confederated International Conferences" On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems". Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013. “We use Semantic Decision Table (SDT), which is a decision table enhanced with ontology technologies, to assist the user in specifying domain-specific design rules in a user-friendly approach. The proposed concept is illustrated on a case study related to the insertion of dies in a car parcel shelf while respecting the volumetric constraint, among others.” [Intro]
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 Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186