DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action is in response to RCE filed 10/8/2025.
2. Claims 39-56 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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/8/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 39-56
Claims 39 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lack of Algorithm
Claims 39 and 48 are also rejected for lack of algorithms for carrying out the following calculations:
“calculate an amount of compensation to send to an account of the performer in response to the movement and based on the compensation parameter;”
and
“calculate a degree of movement of the performer sext toy in response to the movement and based on the movement parameter;”
Examiner notes that neither the claims nor the specification provides sufficient disclosure of the algorithm for performing above listed calculation steps so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP 2161.01(I) (“In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.”).
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 39-56
Claims 39-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Independent claims 39 and 48 are directed to a method, which is one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter).
Step 2A: A claim is eligible at revised Step 2A unless it recites a judicial exception and the exception is not integrated into a practical application of the application.
Prong 1: Prong One of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Groupings of Abstract Ideas:
I. MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS
A. Mathematical Relationships
B. Mathematical Formulas or Equations
C. Mathematical Calculations
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
A. Fundamental Economic Practices or Principles (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
B. Commercial or Legal Interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
III. MENTAL PROCESSES.
Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) Abstract Idea Groupings [R-10.2019]
Independent claims 39 and 48 are directed to – calculate an amount of compensation to send to an account of a performer in response to the movement of a user sex toy, calculate a degree of movement of the performer sex toy in response to the movement and a movement parameter, provide an amount of compensation to the account of the performer based on the compensation parameter – that describes Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People and/or Commercial/Legal Interactions and hence falls under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea to – types of movement; compensation being proportional to the intensity with which user sex toy is moved; movement of performer sex toy is proportional to the intensity with which the user sex toy is moved; compensation is provided to the performer account each time the user sex toy is moved – that also constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Hence under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 39-56 recite a judicial exception.
Prong 2: Prong Two of Step 2A evaluates whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e)
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Additional elements recited by the independent claims, beyond the abstract idea, include: user sex toy; performer sex toy; sensor; server; network; web interface; video link. The steps – transmit signal, providing video link – constitute insignificant data gathering activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner thus finds that, based on the disclosure from the specification and figures, the additional elements have been recited at a high level of generality such that the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) or insignificant data gathering activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The combination of additional elements does not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the additional elements do no more than use the sex toy devices, sensor, server as tools and/or link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The focus of the claims is not on improvement in computers, but on certain independently abstract ideas – calculate an amount of compensation to send to an account of a performer in response to the movement of a user sex toy, calculate a degree of movement of the performer sex toy in response to the movement and a movement parameter, provide an amount of compensation to the account of the performer based on the compensation parameter – that merely use sex toys, sensor, server and network as tools. Steps that do no more than spell out what it means to “apply it on a computer” cannot confer patent eligibility.
Hence, under Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
In Step 2B, the evaluation consists of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
As discussed in Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept.
See MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019].
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
When considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the abstract idea of – calculate an amount of compensation to send to an account of a performer in response to the movement of a user sex toy, calculate a degree of movement of the performer sex toy in response to the movement and a movement parameter, provide an amount of compensation to the account of the performer based on the compensation parameter – into significantly more.
Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101
Applicant argues:
The claims are directed to the technological implementation of a method that couples real-time physical device movement with automated payment functionality through a networked environment. This technological coordination of sensors, mechanical devices, and server-based operations yields a specific, useful, and concrete improvement in the field of remote interactive systems and processes including a payment based on device movement. The claimed method cannot be performed mentally or through mere pen-and-paper processes – it requires the presence and operation of tangible devices (i.e., sex toys with embedded or attachable sensors, mechanized performer devices, an application, and a server with control software). The combination of these features constitutes a non-conventional and non-generic integration of computer and mechanical technologies. The invention enables a new type of device-movement-based remote physical and financial interaction that could not be achieved using existing manual or computer-only systems. By moving a user sex toy, a payment is automatically made to a performer (based in part on a compensation parameter), and the performer device also moves (based in part on a movement parameter). This allows a user to stay “in the moment” with a performer, while the performer can receive compensation based on the movement of a user device. This inventive arrangement contrasts sharply with the generic computer implementation found in Alice or the purely data-analysis claims in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the method yields tangible effects in the physical world-the movement of the performer device and the transfer of compensation-both initiated by sensor-detected user motion. This is precisely the type of “practical application” identified in MPEP §2106.04(d) as indicative of patent eligibility.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Connecting (sex toy) devices to a network containing a server is merely insignificant pre-solution activity. Moving a sex toy device falls under the “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People” subcategory of abstract ideas. Receiving indication of movement of user sex toy and transmitting a signal to move the performer sex toy based on a calculated movement parameter is mere data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“Mere Data Gathering”). Calculating compensation amount, degree of movement and providing compensation fall under the “Commercial/Legal Interactions” subcategory of abstract ideas. The claims do not result in any physical transformation. The movement of a sex toy device does not lead to any more of a tangible change in the physical world as for example, a person using a video game console remote. Therefore, it is unclear on what basis, the applicant concludes the claims yield tangible effects in the physical world. It is also unclear what the applicant refers to by “stay in the moment” – which appears more akin to a marketing jargon (or perhaps sensory feeling) than the description of a technical process. In response to applicant’s assertion that the claims cannot be done using pen and paper, Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the calculation of amount of compensation can be calculated mentally or on a piece of paper albeit with the necessary formula or algorithm which the specification fails to disclose (see 112 rejection above).
Unlike DDR, where the click of a hyperlink would cause an e-commerce website to lose a customer to a rival e-commerce website, there is no such business or technical problem confronting the user. Applicant’s invention does not set out to solve any specific business or technological challenges comparable to that in DDR. There is no risk of losing business to a rival because of a mouse click. The claimed invention does not involve internet browsing and its associated challenges. Nor do the claims describe any technical solutions to any problem. Calculating performer compensation based on the movement of user sex toy is not even remotely comparable to navigating a merchant website. Hence, the DDR is completely inapplicable here.
The claimed limitations do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation. See MPEP 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e)-(h). Hence, when considered individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Previously Addressed Arguments
Applicant argues that, when viewed as whole, the claims include “real world” elements (sex toy devices) that does not make the entire claim abstract as in Thales Visionix.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the improvement was in a physical tracking system. The use of mathematics to achieve an improvement no more changed the conclusion that improved physical things and actions were the subject of the claimed advance than it did in Diamond v. Diehr.
The subject matter the Thales court considered was a method that eliminates many complications in previous solutions for determining position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. Thales, 850 F.3d at 1348. The Thales court reasoned that because the motion of a moving platform like a plane is more dynamic and unpredictable than the earth’s rotation, a traditional system that measured inertial data with respect to the earth had difficulty accurately calculating inertial data of an object on a moving platform. Id. The Thales court concluded the subject claims did not recite an abstract idea because the claims were directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a new way to reduce errors in measuring the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame. Id. at 1348-49. Unlike the claims in Thales, the present claims do not recite an improvement to technology.
Unlike Thales’ claims equipped with several hardware components (i.e., first and second inertial sensors and an element) to measure the relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame of an inertial tracking system, the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 14 in the present application, recite “moving the customer sex toy to product a first and second signal” which is a certain method of organizing human activity. Unlike Thales, the claims are not directed to solving technical problems akin to accurately determining the position and orientation of objects on a moving platform without introducing errors. In the applicant’s invention, the movement of the sex toy is not to determine position or orientation but instead to obtain compensation parameters which is a certain method of organizing human activity.
Applicant asserts, citing Ex parte Olson, that the presently claimed subject matter is drawn to a method including usage of device elements which, when viewed in combination with the method steps, and when viewed as a whole, lead to the practical application of payment and device interaction from the same movements.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, PTAB decisions are not precedential and not binding on the PTO. Second, Ex parte Olson, is directed to addressing problems arising in the context of mapping a catheter navigation system to a three-dimensional image in connection with cardiac procedures which bears little similarity, if at all, to calculating compensation for a performer based on movement of a sex toy. The claims in Olson concerned mapping the coordinates of a catheter navigation system. The claims included elements reciting mathematical formulas, e.g., “using at least two fiducial pairs (Xi, Y) to generate a mapping function f that transforms points within [] X to [] Y such that, for each fiducial pair[], an error function f (Xi) — Y is approximately equal to 0".” The PTAB found that even though the claims included mathematical concepts, such concepts were integrated into the practical application of improving registration of a catheter navigation system into a three-dimensional image of a heart by accounting for non-linearities, which resulted in reduced errors in cardiac procedures. Applicant’s invention, in contrast, does not purport to use mathematical formulas to correct any errors in medical procedures. Rather the present claims are directing to calculating a compensation parameter that can be computed mentally and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Hence, Ex parte Olson is also inapposite here.
MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-10.2019]:
II. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD
Consideration of improvements is relevant to the integration analysis regardless of the technology of the claimed invention. Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining that the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the trader but did not improve computers or technology.
Similarly, any purported improvement in the claims is in the judicial exception itself and not in the technology. The claimed steps may help a second user receive value in exchange for the use of a sex toy device by a first user but does nothing to improve computer or technology. Neither of the first customer sex toy device, second customer sex toy device, sensor or server has been improved by the claims. See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“To be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, we have required the claims to be directed to an improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform.”).
Applicant argues that like BASCOM, there is a practical application of remote sexual interaction and performer compensation which provides a technical solution to the problem of uninterrupted customer and performer interaction.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As noted above, using the motion of a sex as a determinant to calculate compensation to a performer is neither a technical problem nor a technical solution but instead a certain method of organizing human activity.
Previously Addressed Arguments
Applicant argues that the present claims closely follow the claims of Diamond v. Diehr.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims in Diehr were directed to a process for curing synthetic rubber, and recited a series of steps (e.g., the loading of a molding press with raw, uncured rubber, closing the press, constantly determining the mold temperature, constantly recalculating the cure time, and automatically opening the press at the proper time) that together provided a significant and novel practical application of the well-known Arrhenius equation, and transformed uncured synthetic rubber into a new state or thing. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184-87. In holding the claims patent eligible, the Court explained:
“[W]e think that a physical and chemical process for molding precision synthetic rubber products falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. That respondents’ claims involve the transformation of an article, in this case raw, uncured synthetic rubber, into a different state or thing cannot be disputed. The respondents’ claims describe in detail a step-by-step method for accomplishing such, beginning with the loading of a mold with raw, uncured rubber and ending with the eventual opening of the press at the conclusion of the cure. Industrial processes such as this are the types which have historically been eligible to receive the protection of our patent laws.”
The present claims do not involve any “industrial” or “physical and chemical process,” and does not involve the “transformation of an article … into a different state or thing. For the above reasons, the Diehr analogy is inapplicable to the present invention.
Applicant also asserts that the present claims recite improvements in the computing system as in Visual Memory and Enfish.
Again, Examiner finds this unpersuasive. Enfish involved a new data structure called self-referential table to improve database processing; Visual Memory involved an improved memory system. In contrast, the present claims do not create new memory or new data structure to improve data processing or storage. Unlike Enfish or Visual Memory, Applicant’s invention is not directed to improving the functioning of a computer data structure. Instead, the invention is directed to an interactive tipping system of manipulating a sex toy by a customer to provide value to a performer. The claimed steps – receiving first and second signal from a customer sex toy, calculating manipulation parameter, determining compensation parameter, and controlling motion of a performer sex toy device – do not improve the customer sex toy or the performer sex toy; nor do they improve the server. For the above reasons, the Enfish and Visual Memory analogies do not hold up.
Applicant alleges that the office action has not identified any evidence that the invention is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because Applicant has applied the incorrect standard. Berkheimer does not stand for the proposition that the invention is well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC), rather it applies to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea. As explained in Prong 2 and Step 2B, the additional elements have been described at a high level of generality so that, when considered as a whole, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept or provide significantly more. For the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims are not directed to any of the enumerated subgroupings of abstract ideas.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant cannot reasonably deny that an interaction between two users using sex toys that includes transferring value to the account of the performer does not constitute Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People and/or Commercial/Legal Interactions. For the above reasons, the claimed steps of determining a compensation parameter based on sex toy manipulation parameter by a first user and transferring value to the account of second user (performer) based on compensation parameter fall under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Previously Addressed Arguments
Applicant argues that the present applicant does not involve Commercial/Legal Interactions and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and that reducing the recitation of the claims to being absent a practical application is oversimplification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As set forth above in Prong 1, providing compensation to a performer account based on a manipulation parameter constitutes Commercial/Legal Interactions and/or Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People and hence falls under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
With respect to the data gathering and signal transmission steps, the Federal Circuit has consistently held that abstract ideas include the concepts of collecting data, analyzing the data, and displaying the results of the collection and analysis, including when limited to particular content. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (identifying the abstract idea of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (characterizing collecting information, analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, and presenting the results of collecting and analyzing information, without more, as matters within the realm of abstract ideas); see also Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1337-38 (forwarding real-time information to users having access to a communications network by processing streams of audio or visual information routed information by reciting result-based functional language of converting, routing, controlling, monitoring, and accumulating records that did not describe how to achieve those results in a non-abstract way and thus recited an abstract idea); Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims recited the abstract idea of capturing and transmitting data from one device to another device to publish to the Internet); ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 773 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims to the abstract idea of communicating over a network for device interaction is a “building block of the modern economy”) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 220); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (communicating regional broadcast content to an out-of-region recipient with no particular way to perform that function is an abstract idea).
Similarly, collecting data relating to the movement of sex toy device, and determining compensation parameter constitutes collecting and analyzing data followed by the commercial act of providing value to the second user account – that places the claims squarely in the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Applicant argues that the claim recitations relating to “transmitting a signal by an from the customer device … such movement being detected by a sensor of the customer device,” and “determining, by the interactive system, a compensation parameter … in response to the signal meeting a manipulation parameter” achieves benefits over conventional systems.
Examiner finds this unpersuasive because transmitting signal, detecting movement are merely insignificant extra solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022] (“i. 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 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages 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)”). See also SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information … is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”).
Applicant argues that the claims align with Example 38 of the 2019 PEG Examples.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner finds no parallel whatsoever between Example 38 and the present invention. Whereas Example 38 is directed to mixing audio, the present invention is directed to tipping by a customer using a sex toy. Whereas the steps of audio mixing involve simulating digital representation of analog circuit that do fall under the abstract idea categories, in contrast, the present claims involve collecting sensor data and determining compensation to be paid to a performer which is a commercial interaction and hence an abstract idea.
For the above reasons, claims are patent ineligible under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1646. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM 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, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ARUNAVA CHAKRAVARTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692