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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final rejection. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 03/24/2022 comply with the provisions 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 05/28/2026. Amending claims 1, 8, and 15.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 is updated in light of the amendments.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103- No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below. See applicant remark pages 13-15 05/28/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument received 05/28/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 10-11 of the remarks): abstract idea
Independent claims 8 and 15 have been amended to recite similar limitations. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as amended, are not an abstract idea under either the organizing human activity grouping. More specifically, even if the claims involve "risk", they are not directed to the enumerated "organizing human activity" subgroupings (e.g., fundamental economic practices or commercial/legal interactions). Rather, the claims are directed to industrial/robotics safety control in a smart environment (i.e., controlling which worker (human vs robotic) performs an activity based on a machine configuration safety score computed from environment/machine data and simulation. MPEP § 2106 emphasizes that "not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas" and that the "organizing human activity" grouping is limited to the enumerated sub-groupings (e.g., fundamental economic practices, commercial/legal interactions, managing personal behavior), and it should not be expanded beyond them except in rare cases. MPEP § 2106 further describes "commercial or legal interactions" as including "agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations."
…
Consistent with that framework, the Appeals Review Panel decision in Ex parte Desjardins emphasizes that Step 2A Prong Two asks whether additional elements integrate an exception into a practical application and that improvements to other technology/technical fields support eligibility.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims integrate any alleged concept of "safety scoring" into a practical application by using real-time machine locations and equipment statuses and simulation-driven recommended machine configurations to improve safety operations in a smart environment.
To the extent Step 2B is reached, MPEP § 2106 explains that Step 2B evaluates whether the claim includes an "inventive concept" such that the claim amounts to "significantly more" than any exception. MPEP § 2106.05(a) explains that improvements to computer functionality or to any other technology/technical field can support eligibility, and the claim should reflect a specific way to achieve the improvement.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Applicant's Specification titled "RISK REDUCTION OPTIMIZATION IN A SMART ENVIRONMENT" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for identifying a safety score associated with the one or more workers" (Spec. [0014]).
As the claim limitations below (see 101 rejection) demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are recites the abstract idea of identifying a safety score associated with the one or more workers. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited below (see 101 rejection) provide a business solution of receiving worker information, and identifying a safety score associated with the one or more workers. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite receiving worker information, and identifying a safety score associated with the one or more workers. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. Also, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation of a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions, a system, a memory and a processor in communication with the memory, by one or more processor, a smart environment, and a digital twin are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 8 and 15 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions, a system, a memory and a processor in communication with the memory, by one or more processor, a smart environment, and a digital twin.
Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claims are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions.
Further, with data mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data) the courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routing, and conventional functions when they are claimed in merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.059d)).
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 8, and 15 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.
In claims 1, 8, and 15, the recited limitation responsive to activation of the safety threshold, generating via the simulating, one or more recommended configurations of the one or more machines within the smart environment, each recommended configuration having an associated safety score that does not activate the safety threshold; is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner how the system calculates a safety score for each recommended configuration that does not activate the safety threshold.
Also, the recited limitation “based on activation of the safety threshold identifying a human worker, of the one or more workers, that is assigned to the activity, wherein the activity is assigned to the human worker prior to activation of the safety threshold, and reassigning performance of the activity by unassigning the human worker and assigning the activity to a robotic worker of the one or more workers; and causing the robotic worker to perform the activity.” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if the task is assigned to a human worker or a robotic worker and how the system assign separate safety score “reassigning performance. Further, claim 6 recite “granting permission to the approved worker to perform the activity”. 33
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 8, 10-11, 13-14 are directed to a system (machine) and Claims 15, 17-18, and 20 are directed to a computer program product (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Examiner Note: with regard to claims 15, 17-18, and 20, Examiner interpret the program product in view of applicant specification [0081] that the computer-readable storage medium is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claims 8, and 15 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, data derived from a smart environment having one or more machines, one or more workers, and one or more activities to be performed by the one or more workers via the one or more machine, wherein the one or more workers comprise human workers and robotic workers, and wherein the data comprises, for each of the one or more machines, a real-time location and a current equipment status;
generating a digital twin of the smart environment, wherein the digital twin is based, at least in part, on the data;
simulating the digital twin of the smart environment; and
identifying, responsive to the simulating, a safety score, based at least in part on real-time locations and current equipment status of the one more machines, associated with a configuration of the one or more machines used to perform an activity of the one or more activities, wherein the configuration comprises a location of the one or more machines within the smart environment;
determining the safety score associated with the configuration activates a safety threshold;
responsive to activation of the safety threshold, generating via the simulating, one or more recommended configurations of the one or more machines within the smart environment, each recommended configuration having an associated safety score that does not activate the safety threshold;
based on activation of the safety threshold identifying a human worker, of the one or more workers, that is assigned to the activity, wherein the activity is assigned to the human worker prior to activation of the safety threshold, and reassigning performance of the activity by unassigning the human worker and assigning the activity to a robotic worker of the one or more workers; and causing the robotic worker to perform the activity.
The Applicant's Specification titled "RISK REDUCTION OPTIMIZATION IN A SMART ENVIRONMENT" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for identifying a safety score associated with the one or more workers" (Spec. [0014]).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 are recites the abstract idea of identifying a safety score associated with the one or more workers. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) and (ii) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of receiving worker information, and identifying a safety score associated with the one or more workers. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite receiving worker information, and identifying a safety score associated with the one or more workers. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. Also, fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk). See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, and 17-18, and 20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments, such as
claim 2 (Similarly Claims 9 and 16) Cancelled
claim 3 (Similarly Claims 10 and 17) identifying the human worker as an unapproved worker; and
preventing the unapproved worker from performing one or more workplace tasks.
claim 4 (Similarly Claims 11 and 18) prompting the unapproved worker to perform one or more training activities.
claim 5 (Similarly Claims 12 and 19) Canceled
claim 6 (Similarly Claim 13) determining that the safety score associated with configuration of the one or more machines does not activate a safety threshold;
identifying that, responsive to determining the safety score does not activate a safety threshold, the human worker is an approved worker; and
granting the approved worker permission to perform the activity.
claim 7 (Similarly Claim 14) identifying one or more precautions associated with a reduced safety score, wherein the reduced safety score is less than the safety threshold.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1.
by one or more processor, a smart environment, and a digital twin.
Claim 8. A system, a memory and a processor in communication with the memory, by one or more processor, a smart environment, and a digital twin
Claim 15 a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions, by one or more processor, a smart environment, and a digital twin.
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 8 and 15 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions, a system, a memory and a processor in communication with the memory, by one or more processor, a smart environment, and a digital twin which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (figs. 9-11). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claim 1 (Similarly claims 8 and 15) as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for receiving worker information, and identifying a safety score associated with the one or more workers and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention receiving worker information, and identifying a safety score associated with the one or more workers. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 17-18, and 20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively, for example, claims 7, 14, and 20 recite a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions, a system, a memory and a processor in communication with the memory, by one or more processor, a smart environment, and a digital twin but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 8 and 15 include a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions, a system, a memory and a processor in communication with the memory, by one or more processor, a smart environment, and a digital twin. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to receiving worker information, and identifying a safety score associated with the one or more workers.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection when needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 12-15, 17-18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected based claim, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the current rejection(s).
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, No art rejections has been put forth in the rejection.
Closest prior art to the invention include Oboril et al. US 2022/0105634: Situation-aware safety assessment of robot-human activities, Swift et al. US 2021/0372561: Dynamically determining safety equipment for dynamically changing environments. Ahmann CA 3039046: Automated warehouse fulfillment system and method of operation. Bessler J, Prange-Lasonder GB, Schaake L, Saenz JF, Bidard C, Fassi I, Valori M, Lassen AB, Buurke JH. Safety assessment of rehabilitation robots: A review identifying safety skills and current knowledge gaps. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 2021 Mar 22;8:602878. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims, “wherein the data comprises, for each of the one or more machines, a real-time location and a current equipment status; … based at least in part on real-time locations and current equipment status of the one more machines, associated with a configuration of the one or more machines used to perform an activity of the one or more activities … responsive to activation of the safety threshold, generating via the simulating, one or more recommended configurations of the one or more machines within the smart environment, each recommended configuration having an associated safety score that does not activate the safety threshold;”. The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bessler J, Prange-Lasonder GB, Schaake L, Saenz JF, Bidard C, Fassi I, Valori M, Lassen AB, Buurke JH. Safety assessment of rehabilitation robots: A review identifying safety skills and current knowledge gaps. Frontiers in Robotics and AI. 2021 Mar 22;8:602878.
Kiran et al. US 12,109,015: Apparatus and method for monitoring performance of a physical activity.
Trivelpiece et al. US 2020/0394589: Methods and systems for monitoring workers in a retail environment.
Ruiz Moreno et al. US 2022/0340304: System for monitoring and controlling production lines.
Yang, Longqi WO2022/026018: Enhancing remote work productivity data.
Ward et al. US 2019/0122036: Worker task performance safety.
Chong et al. US 2018/0151049: Providing predictive alerts for workplace safety.
Kozloski et al. US 9,633,538: System and method for wearable indication of personal risk within a workplace.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights