DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continuous Examination filed 10/04/2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/04/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-12 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC § 101:
Applicant submits on page 1 of the remarks that claim 1 does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG) and under step 2A of the analysis of claims per the Alice framework, if a claim limitation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant submits on page 2 of the remarks that the claim integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. And that the additional elements in the claim provide a meaningful link of the alleged abstract idea to a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements recited in the claims are just applying the use of a generic computer environment to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements do not provide improvement to the computer technology and do not provide a meaningful link of the abstract idea to a practical application.
Claim Rejections 35 USC § 103:
Applicant submits on page 3 of the remarks that Bhat doesn’t provide an Agent Productivity Score for each scheduled-shift in the preconfigured period to select a shift having a highest APS. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Bhat discloses performance scores in at least Col. 10, Lines 17-35. Further, Applicant submits that Bhat does not teach or suggest a system for scheduling agents based on performance. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Bhat discloses a workforce management unit 145 configured to manage the agents of the contact center 101, including setting the work schedules for the agents of the contact center in accordance with predicted demand; The schedules generated by the workforce management unit 145 may also account for time spent by agents in meetings, training, coaching, and the like. See at least Col. 10, Lines 17-35.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant submits that the references do not address an automatic dynamic scheduling of agents based on performance and availability. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as explained above, See Bhat in at least Col. 9-10. Further Col. 25 discloses a dynamic process.
Further, Applicant submits on page 4 that there is no motivation to combine Fama with Lyerly and that neither Bhat nor Fama nor Lyerly alone or combined, teaches or suggests the subject matter of claim 1.The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, the independent claims (claims 1 and 12) are directed, in part, to a method and a system for increasing productivity of agents in a contact center. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-2, 6-11 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process and claim 12 is directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes managing personal behavior.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to increasing productivity of agents in a contact center…; …upon selection of a schedule generation…; receiving an activity type, a period for agents shift placement and a preconfigured number of metrics and attributed weight thereof; (ii) retrieving historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics from the data store of agents' metrics and the data store of applications for each scheduled-shift during a preconfigured period; wherein the preconfigured number of metrics are aggregated from different applications and the metrics are at least one of: (i) level of adherence; (ii) quality score; (iii) Average Handle Time (AHT); (iv) agent sentiment score; (v) available time; (vi) average speed of answer (vii) concurrent time; (viii) consult time; (ix) working time; (x) agent contracts; (xi) holds; (xii) refused contacts; (xiii) takeovers; (xiv) occupancy; (xv) active talk time; and (xvi) working rate, (iii) calculating a weighted sum of the retrieved historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics and the selected attributed weight thereof to yield an Agent Productivity Score (APS) for each scheduled-shift in the preconfigured period, wherein a nature of each preconfigured attributed weight is selected from (i) positive; (ii) zero; and (iii) negative, and wherein for each performance metric, an attributed weight is determined as positive when a performance metric has a positive correlation with the APS, the attributed weight is determined as zero when a performance metric is not considered for APS calculation and the attributed weight is determined as negative when the performance metric has a negative correlation with APS; and (iv) selecting a shift having a highest APS and adding the selected shift of the agent to a list-of-maximum-shifts, wherein when the list-of-maximum-shifts includes all agents in the data store of agents' metrics and skills then the list-of-maximum-shifts is sent to the WFM application for an automatic shift-schedule generation for the activity type and a determined period, based on the list-of-maximum-shifts and other input parameters, and wherein the automatically generated shift-schedule is presented to a user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: “an automatic-scheduling generation in a Workforce Management (WFM) application”; “a graphical user interface”; “an Agent Productivity Score Generator (APSG) module”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 8 and related text and [0021] in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure, the computerized system may include one or more processors, one or more applications, and a memory including a data store of agents' metrics and skills and a data store of applications. [0022] Furthermore, in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure, the one or more processors may be configured to operate an Agent Productivity Score Generator (APSG) module, for each agent in the data store of agents' metrics and skills; [0045] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, the improvement of the automatic- scheduling generation, in a WFM application, may be implemented by having agents placed in shifts in which they are most productive, according to related historic data of preconfigured KPI metrics. [0046] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, in a computerized-system, such as system 100 that includes one or more processors 190, one or more applications 150, and a memory 115 including a data store of agents' metrics and skills 120 and a data store of applications 110, the one or more processors 190 may operate a module, such as Agent Productivity Score Generator (APSG) module 160, and such as APSG 200 in Figs. 2A-2B; [0074] According to some embodiments of the present disclosure, in current systems a GUI, such as GUI 300A, may be used for generating new schedules for a determined period, such as a week having a start date and end date, to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 11,528,362 (hereinafter; Bhat) in view of US Pub. No. 2019/0130329 (hereinafter; Fama) in view of US Pat. No. 7,913,063 (hereinafter; Lyerly).
Regarding claims 1/12, Bhat discloses:
A computerized-method; a computerized system for increasing productivity of agents in a contact center by improving an automatic-scheduling generation in a Workforce Management (WFM) application, said computerized-method comprising: upon selection of a schedule generation via a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is associated to the WFM application, operating an Agent Productivity Score Generator (APSG) module, for each agent in a data store of agents’ metrics and skills, said APSG module comprising: (Bhat Col 10, Lines 17-35 disclose the contact center 101 may additionally include a workforce management unit 145 configured to manage the agents of the contact center 101, including setting the work schedules for the agents of the contact center in accordance with predicted demand; The schedules generated by the workforce management unit 145 may also account for time spent by agents in meetings, training, coaching, and the like. In some embodiments, the workforce management unit 145 may also arrange the agents to handle interactions from different communication channels based on the skills and performance of the agents, such as certain performance scores for certain categories. Col. 19, Lines 5-6 disclose Quality Assurance (QA) Score: A QA score measures and evaluates agent soft skills and performance during a customer interaction. Figs 7A-7D disclose snapshots of a user interface.)
upon selection of a schedule generation via a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is associated to the WFM application, operating an Agent Productivity Score Generator (APSG) module, for each agent in a data store of agent’s metrics and skills, said APSG module comprising: (Bhat Col. 19, Lines 5-6 disclose Quality Assurance Score measures and evaluates agent soft skills and performance during a customer interaction.)
(ii) retrieving historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics from the data store of agents’ metrics and the data store of applications for each scheduled-shift during a preconfigured period; (Bhat Col. 9, Lines 10-15 disclose historical information about interactions performed by an agent. Lines 15-25 disclose the interaction analysis unit 137 may include a plurality of metrics that may be used to measure agent performance of an agent. The plurality of metrics may be generated based on the consolidation data for an agent. That is, the data from different sources (e.g., different departments, different teams, or across different communication channels) are all combined in generating the metrics for the agent. The generated metrics may include a measurement of single user interaction or an average from a plurality of interactions within a certain period (e.g., within past week, past month, past quarter, past year, or the whole service history of the agent in the contact center).)
wherein the preconfigured number of metrics are aggregated from different applications and the metrics are at least one of: (i) level of adherence; (ii) quality score; (iii) Average Handle Time (AHT); (iv) agent sentiment score; (v) available time; (vi) average speed of answer (vii) concurrent time; (viii) consult time; (ix) working time; (x) agent contracts; (xi) holds; (xii) refused contacts; (xiii) takeovers; (xiv) occupancy; (xv) active talk time; and (xvi) working rate, (Bhat discloses quality score, See at least Col. 14, Line 35; Col. 15, Line 57 disclose a sentiment+quality score; See also Col. 21.)
(iii) calculating a weighted sum of the retrieved historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics and the selected attributed weight thereof to yield an Agent Productivity Score (APS) for each scheduled-shift in the preconfigured period, (Bhat Col. 21, Lines 51-60 disclose determined by the agent performance measurement framework may be an average score for an agent based on a plurality of agent interactions. In some embodiments, each average score may be also a weighted score that is weighted based on the focus and objective of the contact center, among other possible factors. In some embodiments, the agent performance measurement framework may also provide an overall performance score for the agent, e.g., by adding the weighted productivity score, knowledge score, sentiment+quality score, and VoC score together.)
wherein a nature of each preconfigured attributed weight is selected from (i) positive; (ii) zero; and (iii) negative, and wherein for each performance metric, an attributed weight is determined as positive when a performance metric has a positive correlation with the APS, the attributed weight is determined as zero when a performance metric is not considered for APS calculation and the attributed weight is determined as negative when the performance metric has a negative correlation with APS, (Bhat Col. 13, Lines 27-31 disclose Accordingly, by analyzing the messages, audio transcripts, complaint data, and survey data collected throughout the interaction, the tone analyzer may determine whether customer feedback to the service provided by the agent is positive, negative, or neutral. Accordingly, by analyzing the messages, audio transcripts, complaint data, and survey data collected throughout the interaction, the tone analyzer may determine whether customer feedback to the service provided by the agent is positive, negative, or neutral.)
Although Bhat discloses a workforce management system with multiple user interfaces, Bhat does not specifically disclose user selection. However, Fama discloses the following limitations:
receiving user selection via the GUI of an activity type, a period for agents shift placement and a preconfigured number of performance metrics and attributed weight thereof; (Fama [0028] discloses an activity template. See also [0033]; Fig. 4 (410: Activity type); User selection is described in at least [0153-0155].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for scheduling agents based on performance of Bhat with the system for automated scheduling of Fama in order to schedule workers based on a workload forecast (Fama 0004] because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Although Bhat discloses a workforce management system with multiple user interfaces, Bhat does not specifically disclose a list of maximum shifts with highest productivity score. However, Lyerly discloses the following limitations:
(iv) selecting a shift having a highest APS and adding the selected shift of the agent to a list-of-maximum-shifts, wherein when the list-of-maximum-shifts includes all agents in the data store of agents’ metrics and skills then the list-of-maximum-shifts is sent to the WFM application for an automatic shift-schedule generation for the activity type and a determined period, based on the list-of-maximum-shifts and other input parameters, and wherein the automatically generated shift-schedule is presented to a user via the GUI. (Lyerly Col. 1, Lines 50-55 disclose A workforce management system interface receives a first performance indicator associated with a first agent and a second performance indicator associated with a second agent. An agent priority list ranks the first agent and the second agent based upon at least the first performance indicator and the second performance indicator.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for scheduling agents based on performance of Bhat with the performance based called distribution system of Lyerly in order to produce a queue rank associated with agents (Lyerly Col. 1, Lines 45-48) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 2, although Bhat discloses a workforce management system that takes into account agent’s skills and preferences, Bhat does not specifically disclose input parameters including forecast and staffing plans. However, Fama discloses the following limitations:
The computerized-method of claim 1, wherein the other input parameters are (i) forecast and staffing plans; and (ii) agent’s skills and preferences. (Fama [0028] discloses Variable-length activity templates 230 are provided as input to a scheduler 240, which produces a schedule 250 that attempts to optimize goals 260 while meeting a workload forecast 270 and a set of work rule constraints 280; [0051] discloses routing different call types to agents based on their individual skills.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for scheduling agents based on performance of Bhat with the system for automated scheduling of Fama in order to schedule workers based on a workload forecast (Fama 0004] because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 6, Bhat discloses:
The computerized-method of claim 1, wherein the preconfigured number of performance metrics are retrieved from at least one application of: (i) Automatic Call Distribution (ACD); (ii) Quality Management (QM); (iii) Workforce Management (WFM); (iv) Interaction Analytics (IA); and (v) other applications. (Bhat Col. 14, Lines 18-30 disclose during data collection, all data points and source files may be collected from various business functional teams in a contact center, such as operations (Ops) team, VoC team, quality assurance team, workforce management team, and so on, as illustrated in block 401. It is to be noted that in the case of a blended contact center serving multiple channels like phone, messaging, chat, etc., a plethora of metrics may be collected from all of these channels for the agent performance measurement framework. Accordingly, when the metrics for evaluating agent performance are eventually identified, the metrics will come out of data that is spread across multiple systems and technologies that used in the contact center.)
Regarding claim 7, although Bhat discloses a workforce management system with multiple user interfaces, Bhat does not specifically disclose manual changes. However, Fama discloses the following limitations:
The computerized-method of claim 1, wherein upon selection of a manual schedule change via a Graphical User Interface (GUI) for shift schedules update, the APSG is operated for each agent in the data store of agent’s metrics and skills which are not scheduled for the received period. (Fama [0179] discloses manual adjustments.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for scheduling agents based on performance of Bhat with the system for automated scheduling of Fama in order to schedule workers based on a workload forecast (Fama 0004] because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 8, Bhat discloses:
The computerized-method of claim 1, wherein the APSG module is further comprising generating a report showing trends of the agents preconfigured number of performance metrics against past shift-schedules. (Bhat Col. 9, Lines 11-14 disclose the interaction analysis unit 137 may retrieve previous interactions performed by an agent, and combine them with the just completed interaction, to generate or update a statistical report (e.g., certain trends) for the agent.)
Regarding claim 9, Bhat discloses:
The computerized-method of claim 8, wherein the report is used for agents coaching purposes. (Bhat Col. 3, Lines 57-67 disclose by consolidating data from different sources (e.g., from different communication channels and/or different departments with an enterprise), the technical solutions disclosed herein may allow a holistic view of the agent performance to be achieved during a contact center analytics reporting. By using the consolidated and contextualized agent data instead of siloed data, a clearer and more consistent agent performance measurement framework may be built and used for agent performance evaluation. The improved evaluation framework will allow better identification of improvement opportunities and coaching needs for an agent.)
Regarding claim 10, although Bhat discloses a workforce management system that takes into account agent’s skills and preferences, Bhat does not specifically disclose multiple shifts. However, Fama discloses the following limitations
The computerized-method of claim 1, wherein each day in the period includes two or more shifts. (Fama discloses different periods and time blocks with different durations in at least [0035].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for scheduling agents based on performance of Bhat with the system for automated scheduling of Fama in order to schedule workers based on a workload forecast (Fama 0004] because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Claim(s) 4, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat in view of Fama, in view of Lyerly, further in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0081873 (hereinafter; Geffen).
Regarding claim 4, although Bhat discloses a workforce management system, Bhat does not specifically disclose calculating a percentage of the metrics. However, Geffen discloses the following limitations:
The computerized-method of claim 3, wherein each metric of the preconfigured number of performance metrics is converted into an aggregated percentage value of the metric during a preconfigured period. (Geffen [0021-0023] disclose KPI percentages.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for scheduling agents based on performance of Bhat with the system for automated prioritizing of Geffen in order to effectively reach a predefined KPI goal (Geffen abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claim 11, although Bhat discloses a workforce management system, Bhat does not specifically disclose calculating a percentage of the metrics. However, Geffen discloses the following limitations:
The computerized-method of claim 1, wherein the retrieved historical-data of the preconfigured number of performance metrics are converted to a percentage value for the calculated weighted sum of the retrieved historical-data of the preconfigured number of metrics. (Geffen [0013-0015] disclose After performing all the calculations for each metric, the computerized method may be calculating a weighted sum of the one or more metrics based on the weight of each metric to yield the KPI; performing for each agent: a. retrieving the goal accomplished percentage from the one or more performance management databases for the past period and the current period.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for scheduling agents based on performance of Bhat with the system for automated prioritizing of Geffen in order to effectively reach a predefined KPI goal (Geffen abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625