DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
In response filed on September 15, 2025, the Applicant amended claims 1, 8, and 15. Claims 1-15 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Priority
v The instant application has a filing date of September 13, 2022 and claims for the benefit of a prior-filed foreign application number 2021-149936 (JP). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file (filed on August 14, 2024).
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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
v Applicant has amended the claims to correct informalities identified in the previous action. These objections have been withdrawn accordingly.
v Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been maintained accordingly.
Applicant specifically argues that
1) “As described in the first paragraph of page 4 and the paragraph spanning pages 4-5 of the specification…represent time-series data…and are therefore constantly changing. Device 100 processes this constantly changing information and outputs the results that change moment by moment. Accordingly, the processing performed by the device 100 can be described as dynamic processing
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s first argument.
Applicant’s argument relies on what certain portions of the specification describes rather than the actual claim language itself. The portions of the specification identified by Applicant do not provide any explicit definition for any of the claim terms. Nor has Applicant shown the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language to be erroneous. Even if the paragraphs identified by Applicant describe data that could be “constantly changing” (an assertion the Examiner is hesitant to agree with), the claims do not require analysis of data that is constantly changing, and embodiments/limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. The same is true for applications discussion of outputting results “that change moment by moment”. This is not reflected in, or required by, the actual claim language. The claims merely require storing information that is time-series information, analyzing (i.e., via calculating a similarity) this information, and creating/providing notification based on the analysis. As such, Applicant’s current and previous argument are incommensurate with what is actually claimed. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant specifically argues that
2) “Filtering: The similarity calculation unit 130 and advertisement information creation unit 140 select target first user information 220 for analysis. Therefore, device 100 can be said to include filtering processing…Prediction: based on the third paragraph of page 3 of the specification…Optimized for a specific application: the advertisement information notification unit sends advertisement information 320 by specifying the user identification information….
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s second argument.
Applicant’s claims do not recite a similarity calculation unit, advertisement information creation unit, or advertisement information notification unit, nor do the claims recite selecting target first user information for analysis. Applicant’s arguments again appear to be referring to certain discussions/embodiments from the specification rather than the claim language itself. The portions of the specification identified by Applicant do not provide any explicit definition for any of the claim terms. Nor has Applicant shown the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim language to be erroneous. Embodiments/limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Applicant specifically argues that
3) “If advertisements are issued indiscriminately without narrowing down the recipients, significant resources are consumed on the advertisement distribution server, the communication network, and the receiving user terminals. In contrast, the present invention filters and limits the volume of advertisement delivery based on the logic set forth in the claims. As a result, the amount of advertising is reduced, lowering the processing load on the advertisement server, reducing network traffic, and decreasing the number of received ads and resource usage on the user terminal. Accordingly, for at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s previously-filed “fourth” arguments are commensurate with what is actually claimed. Even further, as discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed process lowers the processing load on the advertisement server, reduces network traffic, and decreases the number of received ads and resource usage on the user terminal.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s third argument.
There is nothing to suggest (e.g., based on the language of the claims and/or based on the discussion found in the specification) that the claims limit or otherwise reduce the volume of advertisement delivery based on the logic of the claims. Applicant’s assertion that the present invention filters and limits the volume of advertisement delivery based on the logic set forth in the claims is conclusory and not necessarily true. Furthermore, there is nothing to say that the implementing the instant invention results in transmission of an entirely new form of advertisement. In other words, implementing the claimed invention may result in consuming more computing resources that were previously being consumed, even if less resources than could be are being consumed. Using more resources, but less resources than one could choose to consume, does not mean the invention is directed to conserving resources (or results in less network traffic, lower processing load, etc.).
Applicant specifically argues that
4) “MPEP § 2106.05(a).Liv. provides an example that the courts have indicated may show an improvement in computer-functionality as “[a] distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records, Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1536-37 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” which is directly analogous to the above-discussed technological improvements and advantages that directly result from the recited features of independent claim 1 of the present application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s fourth argument.
Applicant has not shown or explained why the instant invention can be said to result on operating a distributed networking architecture in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion in any way that is analogous to the invention in Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1536-37 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Applicant’s argument is conclusory, and is therefore not persuasive. The instant Applicant is not analogous to the invention in Amdocs, as the cases have entirely different limitations and fact patterns.
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.
v Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are drawn to computing apparatus (i.e., a machine/manufacture), while claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1-15 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 8 ad 15) recites/describes the following steps;
store…first user information that is time-series information related to a behavior or characteristic of one user at first corresponding times, wherein the first user information includes first user attribute information of the one user, and wherein the first user attribute information indicates an age of the one user at each time-series information;
store…second user information that is time-series information related to a behavior or characteristic of an other user at second corresponding times and user terminal identification information that is information for specifying the user terminal of the network when notification of an advertisement is provided by designating the user terminal operated by the other user and one advertisement application installed in the user terminal identified by the user terminal identification information in association with each other, wherein the first user information of the one user precedes the second user information of the other user, wherein the second user information includes second user attribute information of the other user, and wherein the second user attribute information indicates an age of the other user at each time-series information;
calculate a similarity between a second processing target information that is latest information related to a predetermined feature amount of the second user information and a first processing target information that is information in the same period as the second processing target information related to the predetermined feature amount of the first user information based on a match of information regarding same items of the second processing target information and the first processing target information, wherein the predetermined feature amount comprises a purchase history information for a product or service at a store, a behavior history information associated with history of behavior at the store, and a health index history information;
create, based on the similarity being larger than a predetermined value, for the other user advertisement information for providing notification…based on an analysis result obtained by analyzing the first user information in a period after an observation period of the second processing target information during which the second user information is not observed, wherein the advertisement information relates to an improvement of an index of the health index history information
provide notification of the advertisement information created by designating the user…
wherein the providing notification comprises instructing…to display the advertisement information…so as to be displayed
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth analyzing stored information regarding a first and second user (e.g., by calculating a similarity using certain data), creating advertisement information for providing a notification (e.g., when the similarity is larger than a predetermined value, and based on the analysis), and providing the notification of the advertisement information to a user “to display the advertisement information” to the user. The claims are clearly concerned with providing certain advertising/recommendation information (or, as referred to by Applicant, “particular information”) to certain users at certain times, and which amounts to a commercial or legal interactions (specifically, an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 8 and 15 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any element(s) recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim. The same reasoning is similarly applicable to the limitations in the remaining dependent claims, and their respective limitations are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of
“an advertisement apparatus connected to a user terminal via a network comprising: a memory storing one or more computer-readable instructions; and a processor configured to execute the one or more computer readable instructions to cause the advertisement apparatus to…at a first user information storage unit of the advertisement apparatus…at a second user information storage unit of the advertisement apparatus…” (independent claims 1 and 8)
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with an advertisement computer program for causing a computer to execute the method” (claim 15)
“for providing notification to the one advertisement application capable of receiving an advertisement installed in the user terminal identified by the user terminal identification information…by designating the user terminal identification information and the one advertisement application stored in the second user information storage unit to the user terminal via an external server apparatus; and wherein the providing notification comprises instructing the external server apparatus of the network that manages distribution of the advertisement information to display the advertisement information in the one advertisement application so as to be displayed on a display apparatus of the user terminal” (independent claims 1, 8, and 15)
“wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more computer readable instructions to further cause the advertisement apparatus to…” (dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 12)
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an advertisement apparatus connected to a user terminal via a network comprising: a memory storing one or more computer-readable instructions; and a processor configured to execute the one or more computer readable instructions to cause the advertisement apparatus to…at a first user information storage unit of the advertisement apparatus…at a second user information storage unit of the advertisement apparatus…” (independent claims 1 and 8) and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with an advertisement computer program for causing a computer to execute the method” (claim 15) and “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more computer readable instructions to further cause the advertisement apparatus to…” (dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 12) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Various portions of Applicant’s published disclosure explains that the these elements may be embodied as a general-purpose computer (e.g., [0020] “the user terminal 270 may be a personal computer or…smartphone”, [0049]-[0055] “hardware configuration of the present apparatus…CPU…executes a program stored in the ROM…”). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The recited additional element(s) of “for providing notification to the one advertisement application capable of receiving an advertisement installed in the user terminal identified by the user terminal identification information…by designating the user terminal identification information and the one advertisement application stored in the second user information storage unit to the user terminal via an external server apparatus; and wherein the providing notification comprises instructing the external server apparatus of the network that manages distribution of the advertisement information to display the advertisement information in the one advertisement application so as to be displayed on a display apparatus of the user terminal” (independent claims 1, 8, and 15) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computing environments, such as distributed computing environments and/or the internet, where information is represented digitally, exchanged between computers over a network, and presented using graphical user interfaces via programs operating on the device(s).. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The recited element(s) of “store…first user information that is…” and/or “store…second user information that is…” and/or “provide notification to the advertisement information created by designating the user…” and/or “wherein the providing notification comprises instructing…to display the advertisement information…so as to be displayed”, even if treated as being “additional elements recited in the claims, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional element(s) do are deemed “extra-solution” because all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and because such data gathering and solution-outputting/transmission steps have long been held to be insignificant pre/post-solution activity. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h) and (g)).
Furthermore, although the claims recite a specific sequence of computer-implemented functions, and although the specification suggests certain functions may be advantageous for various reasons (e.g., business reasons), the Examiner has determined that the ordered combination of claim elements (i.e., the claims as a whole) are not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. For example, Applicant’s specification suggests that it is advantageous for advertisers/business to analyze certain information to create an advertisement notification because it can have a higher effectiveness (e.g., increased probability of provoking a purchase - see, for example, paragraphs [0002]-[0006] & [0021] & [0038] & [0063] of Applicant’s published disclosure). These are non-technical business advantages/improvements. At most, the ordered combination of claim elements is directed to a non-technical improvement to an abstract idea itself (e.g., an improved advertisement, an improved process for creating an advertisement or notification to an advertisement).
Dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). For example, claim 3 recites “wherein the information related to the preference tendency of the one user includes information related to a usage status of a coupon used for marketing of the product or service”. This is an abstract limitation which further sets forth the abstract idea encompassed by claim 3 (e.g., it further describes the information used in the commercial or legal interaction). This limitation is not an “additional element”, and therefore it is not subject to further analysis under Step 2A- Prong Two or Step 2B. The same logic applies to each of the other dependent claims, whose limitations are not being repeated here for the sake of brevity and clarity.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “an advertisement apparatus connected to a user terminal via a network comprising: a memory storing one or more computer-readable instructions; and a processor configured to execute the one or more computer readable instructions to cause the advertisement apparatus to…at a first user information storage unit of the advertisement apparatus…at a second user information storage unit of the advertisement apparatus…” (independent claims 1 and 8) and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with an advertisement computer program for causing a computer to execute the method” (claim 15) and “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more computer readable instructions to further cause the advertisement apparatus to…” (dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 12) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of “for providing notification to the one advertisement application capable of receiving an advertisement installed in the user terminal identified by the user terminal identification information…by designating the user terminal identification information and the one advertisement application stored in the second user information storage unit to the user terminal via an external server apparatus; and wherein the providing notification comprises instructing the external server apparatus of the network that manages distribution of the advertisement information to display the advertisement information in the one advertisement application so as to be displayed on a display apparatus of the user terminal” (independent claims 1, 8, and 15) serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited element(s) of “store…first user information that is…” and/or “store…second user information that is…” and/or “provide notification to the advertisement information created by designating the user…” and/or “wherein the providing notification comprises instructing…to display the advertisement information…so as to be displayed”, even if treated as being “additional elements recited in the claims, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional element(s), taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of advertising/marketing. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more”. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that associating/storing data in a database is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by the Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of associating/storing data in a database.The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional at the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, the lack of technical detail/description in Applicant’s own specification provides implicit evidence that these steps were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14 is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea identified by the Examiner to which each respective claim is directed).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite novel and non-obvious subject matter. Each of the dependent claims similarly recite novel and non-obvious subject matter by virtue of their dependency on one of these claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of novel and non-obvious subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Yasnoff et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0083125 A1 – Hereinafter Yasnoff); Lee et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0054698 A1 – Hereinafter Lee); Kumar et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0199230 A1 – Hereinafter Kumar); Pisaris-Henderson et al. (US Patent No. 8,700,469 B2 – Hereinafter Pisaris-Henderson); Dittus (US PG Pub. No. 2014/0324447 – Hereinafter Dittus).
Yasnoff discloses analyzing stored user information to identify similar users within similar patterns of historical data to identify advertising targets.
Lee discloses an advertising apparatus that uses time periods and device/terminal identification information and calculation of similarity scores.
Kumar discloses selecting media based on similarity scores between users being above a threshold.
Pisaris-Henderson discloses targeting advertisements based on coupon usage.
Dittus discloses correlating stored product purchase data with health index history information in order and providing targeted ads/recommendations to users based on these learned correlations and user’s personal health data.
As per claims 1, 8, and 15, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the specific combination of limitations now recited in the claims. While each of the individual features may have been known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 depend upon claims 1 or 8 and have all the limitations of claims 1 or 8, and therefore similarly recite novel and non-obvious subject matter.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JAMES M DETWEILER whose telephone number is (571)272-4704. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at telephone number (571)-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAMES M DETWEILER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621