DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 and 22 are currently pending and rejected. Response to arguments and amendment are provided at the end of this Non-Final Office Action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim 1-15 and 17-20 and 22 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement (WDR) requires an Applicant to demonstrate possession of each feature of a claimed invention. The Federal Circuit has described the function of the WDR as "[ensuring] that, as of the filing date, the inventor conveyed with reasonable clarity to those of skill in the art that he was in possession of the subject matter of the claims." Union Oil Co. of Calif. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 208 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Specifically, the claims disclose the following which is not supported sufficiently by the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention as cited below.
The specification fails to provide sufficient support for any of the issues cited below as is considered new matter. Specifically, the claims disclose the following which is not supported sufficiently by the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention as cited below. In order to satisfy written description requirement for new matter, there must be sufficient disclosure for each claim element which applicant has described as essential or critical that shows that applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
New matter as currently amended is recited below:
Claims 1 and 11:
graphical user interface presentation in real-time… without requiring batch reprocessing…
wherein the updating comprises:
storing, in a session memory, previously computed statistical outputs representing an analytical state for reuse across successive user interactions within the current user session;
identifying, by the one or more processors, based on dependency relationships between the received user query and the determined control, a subset of the statistical outputs affected by the received user query;
recomputing, by the one or more processors, only the identified subset of statistical outputs while maintaining in the session memory previously computed statistical outputs that are not affected by the received user query; and
updating only graphical interface elements corresponding to the recomputed subset of statistical outputs within the same user session.
Additionally, aside from what is already known in the prior art, applicant has not shown anything inventive to distinguish from the prior art and what the applicant intends to accomplish with the above-mentioned limitations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would merely understand the basic concept of the invention with the tools given in the prior art, however based on Applicant's specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to specifically implement or perform the invention according to how the applicant specifically wants it done or implemented, specifically the limitations of claims 1 and 11 recited above. There is no adequate disclosure of how the applicant is distinguishing updating the GUI with or without requiring batch reprocessing, any dependency relationships between the user query, control and subset of statistical outputs affected by the user query, nor how maintaining the session memory previously computed statistical outputs that are not affected by the user query while recomputing only the identified subset of statistical outputs. Additionally, there is no adequate support for updating only GUI elements corresponding to only the recomputed subset that within the same user session.
Further, since applicant's disclosure is silent regarding the recited steps above, Examiner asserts that there are almost infinite possible permutations and combinations of how the updating, identifying and recomputing can be implemented. The fact that nothing concrete has been provided in applicant's specification about how to implement the recited steps above demonstrates that the applicant has failed to reasonably convey possession at the time of the invention.
In other words, the Examiner asserts that the applicant has failed to provide support, in the specification, for specifically demonstrating how the limitation is being performed according to how the applicant intends for it to be practiced and, as a result, because the claimed invention is broader in scope and is attempting to disclose embodiments that are not supported by the specification, i.e. the claimed invention is directed towards a genus, the applicant has not properly complied with the written description requirement. Because the dependent claims depend on the independent claims 1 and 11, they are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for failing to reasonably convey possession at the time of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 1-15 and 17-20 and 22 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains improper antecedent basis for the newly amended “by the one or more processors” and Claim 11 recites only “at least one processor…causing the processor to” implement the steps of the claimed invention, however contains improper antecedent basis for “by the one or more processors” therefore correction is required. The dependent claims are also rejected for the same reason based on their respective dependencies.
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.
1-15 and 17-20 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Regarding Step 1,
Step 1 addresses whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. Claim 1 is directed toward a method (process) and claim 11 is directed to a system (machine) which all fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 and 22 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1, also representative of independent claims 11 for the same abstract features, is provided below with the underlined limitations emphasized that recite the limitations as an abstract idea of the claimed invention:
Claim 1 (and Claim 11). A computer-implemented method and system for dynamically adjusting analyzing pay data and adjusting pay policies, the method comprising:
an initial dataset representative of pay-related allocation metrics from user-provided datasets;
determining one or more controls (policies) related to the data-driven environment;
calculating a benchmark allocation equitable pay range for the data-driven environment using the determined controls, wherein the benchmark pay range is dynamically adjustable based on real-time user interactions;
retrieving permissions associated with a user role within the data-driven environment to access specific analytical tools;
receiving a user query, wherein the user query requests a secondary dataset pertaining to a particular data attribute, and is based on the control;
calculating the secondary dataset based on the query;
calculating statistical variances based on the secondary dataset in relation to the determined control; and
dynamically updating within a current user session, the secondary dataset and corresponding graphical interface presentation in real-time in response to a user interaction event modifying at least one of the determined controls, without requiring batch reprocessing, wherein the updating comprises:
identifying, based on dependency relationships between the received user query and the determined control, a subset of the statistical outputs affected by the received user query;
recomputing, by the one or more processors, only the identified subset of statistical outputs while maintaining in the session memory previously computed statistical outputs that are not affected by the received user query; and updating only graphical interface elements corresponding to the recomputed subset of statistical outputs within the same user session.
The Specification refers to the field of human resources and employment business practices, pertaining to “evaluating the consistency, bias, legitimacy, or intended effects of employment policies within an organization or company” (Specification; [0002]), and emphasizes the business need to “performing statistical analysis and providing relevant data and output to enable users to make changes to their business policies and practices in a meaningful way consistent with the laws” (Specification; [0004]).
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea for analyzing and evaluating the impact of pay policy information on a selected group of employees. Consistent with the Specification, the underlined recited limitations encompass gathering pay information for a group of employees to determine an equitable pay range, and evaluating an impact of pay policies on a selected group of employees within an organization or company, which fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas since the steps include commercial or legal interactions including agreements and business relations between employees and employers and also relates to managing personal behavior/relationships or interactions between employees and employers following certain rules/instructions for evaluating pay policies within an organization. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Alternatively, the recited limitations above can be considered mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas including statistical outputs representing user data and recomputing a subset of statistical outputs, including calculating a benchmark equitable pay range using control values, calculating the secondary dataset, calculating statistical variances based on the secondary dataset in relation to the determined control with mathematical operations, dynamically recalculating the secondary dataset based on the statistical variances, such that a user may change inputs for the mathematical calculations and determine how results are impacted based on the statistical mathematical operations, and integrating graph and analysis generation, showing the impacts of the pay data and adjusting pay policies. Since mathematical operations are involved to calculate the equitable pay range and second set of pay data, the claimed limitations recite an abstract idea. Examiner notes that even the presence of the recitation of generic computer components of the claimed invention does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea based on the mathematical operations.
Alternatively, the recited limitations can be considered as a mental process abstract idea category as they include gathering and analyzing employee information based on observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. For example, the steps can be accomplished either verbally or writing down with the aid of pen & paper, and/or can certainly be accomplished based on forming a judgement or opinion about evaluating the impact on a selected group of employees based on analyzing the pay information and forming a judgement on equitable pay ranges for the set of employees and further forming an opinion of employee pay information based on the observation, evaluation and judgement in the mind or with the aid of pen/paper. The Courts generally treat collecting information as well as analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds and/or by pen & paper as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.
Furthermore, the recited steps do not involve any activities that cannot be practically accomplished by the human mind and/or via pen & paper. Despite “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1098. The Courts have established that even if the recitation of generic computer components are present, the claim can still be considered a mental process if it covers performance in the mind using observation, evaluation, and judgment and/or utilizing pen & paper, as is the case here.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-15, 17-20 and 22 merely reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments, such as characterizing the parameters that impact the pay calculations including geographical, gender, age, education factors. For example, evaluating a second pay range and adjusted/unadjusted pay gap evaluations, and related statistical/mathematical determination of pay gaps, and claims 7 & 17 further include concepts such as calculating root cause analysis, which are nonetheless reciting fundamentally the same abstract ideas for the same reasons, as indicated above.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
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. In this case, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits that provide any practical application.
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 and 22 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 include the following underlined and [bracketed] identified additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1 (and Claim 11). A [computer-implemented method] and [system], [the system comprising]:
[a memory; and at least one or more processors, coupled to the memory, the memory including instructions causing the processor];
[(data) is dynamically adjustable based on real-time];
[storing in a memory device an initial dataset (representative of pay-related allocation metrics), the initial dataset being derived (selected) from tangible data sources including one or more of database systems, the data source including applicant tracking system (ATS) data];
[generating a user interface for display on a computing device, wherein the user interface offers (displays) data views in accordance with data (permissions associated with the user's role and a selected analytical tools, featuring functionalities optimized for user-specific interactions, selections and a capability to incorporate or exclude elements) using pre-defined visual layouts designed to correspond with data (tasks designated for each user role), wherein, the user interface is also configured to allow users to select from an array of data (controls pertinent to the data-driven environment, based on the permissions), the user interface further including an interface to oversee and manage data input (chosen controls), wherein an icon within the interface denotes data (a quantity of controls selected), and upon an interface's activation, a detailed window emerges highlighting the data (controls selected for distinct groups within the environment, all determined by the data (permissions tied to the user's role)];
[transmitting the data (customized secondary dataset) for display on a display of a user device];
[presenting a graphical representation of the statistical data (variances in relation to the determined control) on the user device]; and
[dynamically updating (data input and gathering) and interface presentation in real-time in response to a user interaction (user data input)….wherein the updating includes storing (data), and updating GUI elements corresponding to data output within the user session, wherein the updating comprises:
storing, in a session memory, previously computed statistical outputs [data] representing an analytical state for reuse across successive user interactions within the current user session.
The underlined [bracketed] additional elements of the limitations recited above in independent claims 1 and 11 merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with generic computer hardware and functionality, implementing data gathering and outputting steps recited at a high-level of generality, 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 §2106.05 (a-c & e).
In light of the Specification, there is no indication that the claimed steps performed by the computer devices require any specialized computer hardware. In fact, the Specification admits that the system of the present disclosure includes “hardware, software or combinations thereof as are all known in the art” (Specification; [0162]). Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize particular hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or any particular machine, or invoke any inventive programming.
In this case, the claims merely involve automated steps executed by a computer processing device and computational components at a high-level of generality with no technical improvement to the functioning of the computer/technology elements or processor itself. See also Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that “mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement”). The additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e). For example, dynamically updating data in real-time are nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea above by adding the words “apply it” with the judicial exception, and does not provide an improvement.
Claims 1 and 11 recite a generic use of a processor, memory, database, and other computer components for data gathering, storage and outputting merely limited to the pay policies and pay data. The Supreme Court made clear in Alice that the mere recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“An abstract idea does not become non-abstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”). 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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
For claims 1 and 11, the additional elements recited above are merely performing generic computer functions (i.e., receiving, storing, outputting information) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea recited above by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or providing nothing more than generally linking the use of the abstract to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f & h).
Alternatively, the processor implementing generic data gathering and transmitting steps recited to [storing in a memory device an initial dataset (representative of pay-related allocation metrics), the initial dataset being derived (selected) from tangible data sources including one or more of database systems, the data source including applicant tracking system (ATS) data]; [generating a user interface for display on a computing device, wherein the user interface offers (displays) data views in accordance with data, wherein, the user interface is also configured to allow users to select from an array of data, and upon an interface's activation, a detailed window emerges highlighting the data]; [transmitting the data (customized secondary dataset) for display on a display of a user device]; [presenting a graphical representation of the statistical data on the user device]; and such that user inputs in real time on the display of the user device, wherein the data (changes) on the display show (data output)], and storing in a session memory [data] are insignificant extra-solution activity. Receiving and sending/outputting data by the computer and/or computer user interface using a computer network, or selecting a particular data source or type of data is considered one of the most basic functions of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and even in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and fail to integrate the judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Step 2B addresses whether the claims recite "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 and 22 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements recited above are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they fail to (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of the MPEP 2106.05(a-h).
Claims 1 and 11, pertain to automating the recited claimed features with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea recited above by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or providing nothing more than generally linking the use of the abstract to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f & h). For the same reasons, the recited elements are insufficient to provide an inventive concept and fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive”). The recited additional elements do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea since they amount to no more than mere instructions at a high-level of generality to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer for data gathering and data transmittal/display.
Additionally, re-evaluating the insignificant steps recited above to be mere data gathering and transmitting over a computer network, as insignificant extra-solution activity, these elements are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The legal precedent in Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receipt and transmission/display of information over a computer network are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a generic manner, as is the case here. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-15, 17-20 and 22 merely reiterate the same abstract ideas using the same additional elements as recited above for gathering and transmitting/outputting data, additionally claim 22 merely recites using a generic a graphical user interface with display and what is generically expected of GUI functions of enabling and disabling input and output and displaying data using, without imposing any meaningful limits or any further practical application. Furthermore, claims 4 and 14, includes using statistical software to automatically output statistical graphs and reports based on pay data, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea recited above by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or providing nothing more than generally linking the use of the abstract to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(f & h).
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354– 56 (holding that the sequence of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real-time was abstract); Bozeman, 955 F.3d at 980–91 (holding that sequence of receiving, storing, receiving, and determining data and sending data based on the results of the determining did not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention).
Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, it has been determined that the claim as a whole, is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Amendment & Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments from 4/6/2026 have been considered however they are found to be unpersuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
782
811
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Performing “iterative data analysis and interface updating” is not an improvement to the computer technology itself. There is no evidence that the invention improves the functioning of the computer itself or how the computer system operates as an improvement to the computer itself. Applicant has failed to overcome the claim rejections. Applicant argues that “these operations cannot be practically performed mentally with pen or paper” however Applicant is incorrectly conflating the abstract idea analysis with the practical application of additional elements (technological components such as processor, memory and GUI) therefore Applicant is confusing the two-part analysis. The GUI is a generic GUI and the dynamic aspect of updating an interface merely pertains to updating data therefore the interface displays an updated version of the updated data, thus merely updating the GUI with updated data is typically what is expected of GUI to generically display recalculated outputs or updated data. The fact that data is being presented by the GUI in real-time is not a technological improvement nor a practical application, presentation in real-time without requiring reprocessing of data is the typical outcome of real-time or immediate display of outputs using a generic computing system.
The claimed limitations that pertain to receiving and sending/outputting data by the computer and user interface using a computer network, and selecting a particular data source or type of data is considered one of the most basic functions of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Re-evaluating the insignificant steps recited above to be mere data gathering and transmitting over a computer network, as insignificant extra-solution activity, these elements are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The legal precedent in Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receipt and transmission/display of information over a computer network are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a generic manner, as is the case here. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities).
Furthermore, the USPTO Examples 37, 40 and 41 do not apply in this particular case since the factual pattern and features of this claimed invention are not the same as any or all of the Examples.
Relevant Prior Art
The relevant prior art made of record below is not relied upon but considered pertinent
to applicant's disclosure and can be found in the current and/or previous PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Relevant Prior Art References and Non-Patent Literature
Relevant Prior Art:
US 11087412 Intelligent compensation management
US 20220180324 System for Providing Pay Rate Guidance for a Job Position
US 20210150443 Parity detection and recommendation system.
US 20140279700 Pay plan system and method for mitigating risk and improving employee compensation.
Relevant Non-Patent Literature:
Kenthapadi, Krishnaram, et al. "Bringing salary transparency to the world: Computing robust compensation insights via linkedin salary." Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 2017.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to LAURA YESILDAG whose direct telephone number is (571) 270-5066 and part-time work schedule is generally Monday, Thursday and Friday, from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful for any urgent matter that needs immediate attention, the Examiner’s Supervisor, LYNDA JASMIN, can be reached at (571) 272-6782.
Examiner interviews are available using the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. For sending Interview agendas, the Examiner’s direct fax number is (571) 270-6066. For filing authorization for Internet Communication in order to receive email communication from the Examiner, please file the form accessed at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information about the USPTO Patent Center, please access https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ The USPTO Electronic Business Center can be contacted for questions regarding the Patent Center by calling 1-866-217-9197.
/LAURA YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights