DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 06/15/2026. Claims 1, 10, and 11 have been amended. Therefore, Claims 1-15 are pending and have been addressed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more.
3. Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 1 recites a machine (i.e., consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), claim 10 recites a process (i.e., a series of acts or steps), claim 11 recites a manufacture, (i.e., an article that is given a new form, quality, property, or combination through man-made or artificial means.) Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
4. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 recite:
“generate…a transmission image”, “generate…based on training data, the training data being transmission images of a previously-specified object, …estimate whether the previously-specified object is captured in a transmission image;”, “determine, based on the generated transmission image…, whether the target person carries a previously-specified object;”, “decide, based on a result of the determination, an inspection route where the target person proceeds from among a plurality of the previously-determined inspection routes;”, “execute guidance processing of guiding the target person to the decided inspection route, wherein the plurality of the previously-determined inspection routes include a self-inspection route for performing inspection…, when it is decided to guide the target person to the self-inspection route, transmit a result of the determination about whether the target person carries the previously-specified object…,
the result of the determination having used to decide the inspection route, and…decide a content of an inspection to be performed thereby, based on the result of the determination perform, in a preliminary belongings inspection and before irradiating the target person…, a belongings inspection…being arranged along a path through which the target person passes;”, “compute, based on the generated transmission image…, a degree of similarity between a feature value of belongings of the target person and a feature value of the previously-specified object”, and “determine, when the degree of similarity is equal to or more than a first reference value, that the target person carries the previously-specified object;”, “decide the first reference value with respect to each target person according to whether a predetermined detection target is detected…, such that the first reference value is relatively lowered when the predetermined detection target is detected…, and the first reference value is relatively raised when the predetermined detection target is not detected...”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations above recite the abstract idea of managing how to triage and route a person through a security screening inspection which encompasses fundamental practices (i.e., mitigating risks), commercial interactions, (i.e., legal obligations, business relations), managing personal behavior or interactions between people, (i.e., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), mental processes (i.e., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions), and mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical formulas/calculations, which is subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and mathematical groupings of abstract ideas.
Applicant’s Specification emphasizes [0015] First, by using Fig. 1, an outline of a processing system according to the present example embodiment is described. The processing system according to the present example embodiment is used in a scene requiring a belongings inspection such as an airport, a building, and an event site. [0016] A belongings inspection according to the present example embodiment is divided into a plurality of inspection routes. A plurality of inspection routes are different from each other in a manner, a content, and the like in inspection. A plurality of inspection routes may be divided, for example, into an inspection route where detailed inspection is performed and an inspection route where simple inspection is performed, or may be divided into other inspection routes. Note that, in an example in Fig. 1, division is made into two inspection routes, but division may be made into three or more inspection routes.
Consistent with the disclosure, the limitations cover steps for managing how to triage and route a person through a security screening inspection. The limitations recite processes for initially screening a person for prohibited carried objects and directing the person to an appropriate lane for secondary inspection which involves concepts relating to mitigating risks, legal obligations, and/or managing personal behavior or interactions between people. The claim also recites mental processes because the limitations that recite “generate”, “determine” and “decide” relate to tasks for collecting and comparing known information about the person and their carried objects and making routing decisions, which are observations and determinations that may be performed in the human mind with or without pen and paper. For example, the limitations cover mental tasks or decisions normally performed by screening agents observing persons and their objects and then directing flow of persons through the next appropriate security screening lane. The limitations also recite “compute a degree of similarity”, “determine when the degree of similarity is equal to or more than a first reference value” which describes mathematical formulas/calculations that are necessary for triaging the person’s features and carried objects. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
5. Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a processing system”, “at least one sensor panel”, “a radar”, “at least one transmission antenna and at least one reception antenna are arranged”, “at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions;”, “at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:”, “irradiate…with an electromagnetic wave via the sensor panel”, “based on a signal of the received electromagnetic wave”, “an estimation model by machine learning”, “the estimation model being configured to”, “the estimation model”, “by a self-inspection apparatus”, “cause the self-inspection apparatus to”, “via the sensor panel”, “using another detection device such as a metal sensor and an odor sensor, the another detection device”, “by the another detection device”, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions to:”, “the self-inspection apparatus”, “a non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to” – see claims 1, 10, 11, are all recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification. Since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing any of the particulars, the additional elements recited may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used in their ordinary capacity to perform the judicial exception. Here, the additional elements merely add the words “apply it” 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 as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (f).
The other additional element of: “receive a reflection wave of the irradiated electromagnetic wave;” adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., data gathering, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g)
6. Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
7. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: “a processing system”, “at least one sensor panel”, “a radar”, “at least one transmission antenna and at least one reception antenna are arranged”, “at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions;”, “at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to:”, “based on a signal of the received electromagnetic wave”, “by machine learning”, “by a self-inspection apparatus”, “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the one or more instructions to:”, “the self-inspection apparatus”, “a non-transitory storage medium storing a program causing a computer to” – see claims 1, 10, 11 at best amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The other additional element of: “receive a reflection wave of the irradiated electromagnetic wave;” was considered insignificant extra solution activity and must be re-evaluated under Step 2B to determine whether the elements are well-understood, routine, and/or conventional. The Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, Alice, Ultramerical court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that “receiving or transmitting data over a network” is/are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a generic manner. Thus, the claim is ineligible under Step 2B.
8. Claims 2-9 and 12-15 are dependent claims:
Claim 2 recites “wherein the plurality of inspection routes include a first inspection route for performing, with attendance of an inspector, inspection for belongings and a body, and a second inspection route for performing, without attendance of an inspector, inspection for at least either of belongings and a body, and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: decide, when it is determined that the target person carries the specified object, the first inspection route as the inspection route where the target person proceeds, and decide, when it is determined that the target person does not carry the specified object, the second inspection route as the inspection route where the target person proceeds.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 3 recites “wherein the plurality of inspection routes include a first inspection route for performing, with attendance of an inspector, inspection for belongings and a body, a second inspection route for performing, without attendance of an inspector, inspection for belongings and a body, and a third inspection route for performing, without attendance of an inspector, inspection for belongings, and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: decide, when it is determined that the target person carries the specified object, the first inspection route as the inspection route where the target person proceeds, and decide, when it is determined that the target person does not carry the specified object, the second inspection route or the third inspection route as the inspection route where the target person proceeds.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 4 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to receive an electromagnetic wave from the target person being subjected to inspection in the second inspection route, and perform, based on a signal of the received electromagnetic wave, inspection of whether the specified object is present in a portion, where an object is detected in determination based on the determination unit, in a body of the target person” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed and describes processes ordinarily executed by a scanner. It is important to note that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Claim 5 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: acquire customer identification information of the target person; store customer information relating to each of the target persons in association with each of a plurality of pieces of the customer identification information, and decide, based on a result of the determination and the customer information of the target person, the inspection route where the target person proceeds.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 6 recites “wherein the customer information includes at least one of a matter of whether a qualification for receiving favorable treatment in inspection is granted, a past inspection result, nationality, a travel history, a criminal history, a performance history of a predetermined action, a matter of whether registration has been made in a whitelist, and a matter of whether registration has been made in a blacklist, and the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to decide the inspection route where the target person proceeds, based on at least either of a matter of whether the customer information satisfies a preferential inspection criterion in which favorable treatment in inspection can be received and a matter of whether the customer information satisfies a non- preferential inspection criterion in which favorable treatment in inspection is prohibited to receive.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 7 recites “wherein the past inspection result indicates whether it has been detected that the specified object is carried in a past inspection, and the preferential inspection criterion includes at least either of a matter that a number of detections of carrying of the specified object in past inspections is equal to or less than a first threshold and a matter that a ratio of a number of detections of carrying of the specified object to a number of past inspections is equal to or less than a second threshold.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 8 recites “wherein the past inspection result indicates whether it has been detected that the specified object is carried in a past inspection, and the non-preferential inspection criterion includes at least either of a matter that a number of detections of carrying of the specified object in past inspections is equal to or more than a third threshold and a matter that a ratio of a number of detections of carrying of the specified object to a number of past inspections is equal to or more than a fourth threshold.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 9 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: generate, based on a signal of the received electromagnetic wave, a transmission image, and decides, based on whether a degree of similarity between a shape of an object captured in the transmission image and a shape of the specified object exceeds a threshold, whether an object captured in the transmission image is determined as the specified object, and modify, based on the customer information, the threshold with respect to the each target person.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 12 recites “execute the one or more instructions to transmit, to the self-inspection apparatus, the result of the determination indicating a portion of a body where the previously-specified object is detected; and cause the self-inspection apparatus to determine the portion of the body where the previously-specified object was detected as a target portion to be inspected.” further narrows how the abstract idea may be performed, but does not make the claimed invention any less abstract. Claim 13 recites “wherein guiding the target person includes opening at least one gate associated with the decided inspection route” is recited at a high-level and merely adds the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f). For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. Claim 14 recites “wherein guiding the target person includes illuminating one or more lamps associated with the decided inspection route.” is recited at a high-level and merely adds the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f). For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception Claim 15 recites “wherein guiding the target person includes displaying a notification indicating the decided inspection route” is recited at a high-level and merely adds the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f). For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. Accordingly, when the limitations above are viewed individually and in combination with the judicial exception, the limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “As amended, claim 1 recites a particular arrangement of two distinct detection devices. Claim 1 recites "at least one sensor panel configured by a radar in which at least one transmission antenna and at least one reception antenna are arranged," which "irradiate a target person passing through a predetermined region with an electromagnetic wave via the sensor panel, and receive a reflection wave of the irradiated electromagnetic wave." Claim 1 additionally recites "another detection device such as a metal sensor and an odor sensor, the another detection device being arranged along a path through which the target person passes," and recites that the belongings inspection by this "another detection device" is performed "in a preliminary belongings inspection and before irradiating the target person via the sensor panel." The two detection devices are therefore not recited as generic components operating independently; rather, claim 1 recites a specific physical configuration in which the "another detection device" is positioned along the path of the target person and operates upstream of, and prior to, the irradiation by the radar-based "sensor panel." This recited arrangement of the detection devices is consistent with a particular machine under MPEP 2106.05(b) and is not a generic computing component used in its ordinary capacity.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b) mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept) See Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 623, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1715 (Fed. Cir. 2015) In the instant case, the response and the Specification do not explain how the arrangement of detection devices results in any technological improvements. The fact that one screening detection device may be used before or after another screening detection device does not provide a technological solution to a technological problem. The specification [i.e., ¶ 0025, 0107, 0110, Fig. 1] simply describes the components in terms of performing generic computing functions and, accordingly, "are not directed to a solution to a "technological problem" as was the case in Diamond V Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Nor do the claims attempt to solve a 'challenge particular to the Internet.' DDR Holdings, LLC V Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 - 57 (Fed. Cir. 2014); cf. Intellectual Ventures /, 792 f.3d at 1371 (because the patent claims at issue did not "address problems unique to the Internet, DDR has no applicability.") Here, the vague functional descriptions of computing components in the claim including "at least one sensor panel configured by a radar in which at least one transmission antenna and at least one reception antenna are arranged" and “another detection device” are insufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “Beyond the arrangement of the detection devices, claim 1 recites a specific improvement to the operation of the machine learning model itself. As recited, the determination of whether the target person carries the previously-specified object is performed by computing "a degree of similarity between a feature value of belongings of the target person and a feature value of the previously-specified object" "based on the generated transmission image and the estimation model," and by determining that the target person carries the previously-specified object "when the degree of similarity is equal to or more than a first reference value." The "first reference value" is thus the decision criterion applied by the "estimation model" that is "generate[d]...by machine learning based on training data." Claim 1 now recites that this decision criterion of the estimation model is adjusted on an individualized basis: the processor is configured to "decide the first reference value with respect to each target person according to whether a predetermined detection target is detected by the another detection device, such that the first reference value is relatively lowered when the predetermined detection target is detected by the another detection device, and the first reference value is relatively raised when the predetermined detection target is not detected by the another detection device. Accordingly, the operating criterion of the machine learning model is reconfigured for each individual target person in dependence on a real-time detection result obtained from a separate physical detection device.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The response purports improvements to the machine learning model itself. It is important for Applicant to consider, the claims do not recite any iterative training or feedback loop being used with the estimation model. The Specification and response are also silent with respect to any technological improvements related to machine learning functionality. Here, the response discusses the operations being performed by the processor and estimation model as improvements, however, these operations merely restate what is actually recited in the claim which is not confer patent eligibility. (claiming result-oriented functions did not claim how to achieve the results in anon-abstract way) - see Int'! Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2022); (using result-focused, functional claim language is a frequent feature of ineligible claims, especially those that claim the use of generic computer and network technology to carry out economic transactions) – See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argue “This recited combination of operations is not a mental process of the kind identified in the Office Action. The Office Action characterizes the abstract idea as encompassing "a series of mental tasks or decisions for managing flow of persons in a security area normally performed by screening agents." The operations recited above are of a different character. The recited operations adjust the "first reference value" used by the "estimation model" that is, an operating criterion internal to a machine learning model that analyzes a transmission image generated from a reflection wave received by a radar-based sensor panel in dependence on whether a "predetermined detection target is detected by the another detection device." A screening agent does not, and cannot, perform the recited adjustment of the decision criterion of a machine learning model on a per-person basis according to the output of a separate physical detection device. The recited operations therefore are not practically performed in the human mind.”
The Applicant arguments are not persuasive. In the instant case, the inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability. Claims can recite a mental process even though they are being performed by a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(b) The claimed methods are not rendered patent eligible by the fact that using a machine learning model and detection devices they perform a task previously undertaken by humans with greater speed and efficiency than could be previously achieved. The only improvements identified by Applicant are generic speed and efficiency improvements in applying the use of a computer to any task. See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The recited combination further reflects an improvement to a technology or technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a). Paragraph [0112] of the specification describes that, where it is determined whether a prohibited object is carried by computing the degree of similarity against the first reference value, the route decision is improved by deciding "the first reference value with respect to each target person 206" according to "whether a predetermined detection target is detected by another detection device," such that "the first reference value can be relatively lowered" when the predetermined detection target is detected and "can be relatively raised" when it is not. The detection result of one detection modality, the "another detection device such as a metal sensor and an odor sensor," is thereby used to tune, on an individualized and real-time basis, the operating criterion of a second detection modality, the machine learning "estimation model" that analyzes the transmission image. This is a specific improvement to the operation of the inspection technology, in which the determination performed by the machine learning model is rendered more accurate for each individual target person by incorporating the real-time detection result of the separate physical detection device, rather than a generic instruction to apply the abstract idea on a computer.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The response alleges the claim limitations recite improvements to inspection technology. The cited passages from Applicant’s original disclosure has been reproduced below:
[0112] In this case, the route decision unit 13 may decide, according to whether a predetermined detection target is detected by another detection device, the first reference value with respect to each target person 206. When, for example, a predetermined detection target is detected by another detection device, the first reference value can be relatively lowered, and when a predetermined detection target is not detected by another detection device, the first reference value can be relatively raised.
As can be seen, the Applicant’s Specification is silent with respect to any improvements relating to machine learning or inspection technology. The claim also does not recite any technical improvements relating to the estimation model. The fact that the results from one screening detection device may be used or passed to another or secondary screening detection device during a security screening inspection does not improve computers or technology. Transferring result information between screening detecting devices is merely what security devices or computers do and does not change the analysis. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “The Office Action also contends, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, that "receive a reflection wave of the irradiated electromagnetic wave" amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the nature of data gathering, and that receiving or transmitting data is a well- understood, routine, and conventional operation when claimed in a generic manner. The features added to claim 1 are not of this character. The "another detection device" is not recited merely to gather data; the result of its preliminary belongings inspection is used to "decide the first reference value with respect to each target person," thereby changing the operating criterion applied by the machine learning model in the subsequent determination. The detection result is therefore put to a specific use within the recited operations and is not mere data gathering or generic conveyance of data. Considered as an ordered combination, the recited operations performing the preliminary belongings inspection by the "another detection device" arranged along the path of the target person and prior to the radar irradiation, and deciding the "first reference value" of the machine learning estimation model with respect to each target person according to the detection result of that device amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified in the Office Action.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The response discusses a subset of limitations from the claim alleges the ordered combination of limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner maintains the claimed invention does not describe a technological solution to a technological problem or provide an inventive concept. The limitation of “receive” adds insignificant extra-solution activity, i.e., data gathering, to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g) The step uses existing security screening technology, i.e., radar, reflection waves, to scan or capture data relating to the person and carried objects. The rejection under Step 2B also cited to court decisions from MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that discuss how “receiving and transmitting data over a network” are generic computer functions that add generic computer functionalities to support the rejection. Next, the Examiner asserts merely adding “another detection device” to the security screening process and “using the results to aid in further triaging the person” at best are claiming result-oriented functions but do not claim how to achieve the results in a non-abstract way. Thus, the ordered combination of limitations recite the necessary steps and equipment to carry-out the abstract idea. When viewed individually and as an ordered combination none of the alleged limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see 5-8, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to claims 1-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 over Obata (US 2020/0393594 A1) in view of Perticone (US 2018/0336672 A1) in further view of Hastings (US 2020/0320814 A1) of 03/13/2026 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights