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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 5/15/2026 and claim set filed 3/11/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-23 have been examined in this application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/15/2026 (RCE) and claim set filed 3/11/2026 have been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 19, and 20 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 3-4 and 7 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks page 10, with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues the claims are eligible, based on the Core Wireless Decision.
USPTO Memorandum dated 4/2/20218 states the following with respect to the Core Wireless decision (cited herein):
In Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the claimed invention involves a graphical user interface (GUI) for mobile devices that displays an application summary of each application on the main menu while those applications are in an unlaunched state. The claims to computing devices were held patent eligible because the court concluded that they are directed to an improved user interface for electronic devices, not to the abstract idea of an index. In particular, the claims contain precise language delimiting the type of data to be displayed and how to display it, thus improving upon conventional user interfaces to increase the efficiency of using mobile devices. Finding the claims eligible, the court compared the improved user interface in the patent claims to the improved systems claimed in Enflsh, Thales, Visual Memory, and Finjan.
And MPEP 2106.05(a), states the following with respect to improvements to the functioning of a computer (cited herein):
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
From the above, in Core Wireless the claims were found eligible by being an improved user interface that increase the efficiency of using mobile devices where the claims contain precise language delimiting the type of data to be displayed and how to display it, thus improving upon conventional user interfaces to increase the efficiency of using mobile devices.
This is not the case with the present application as the claims are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite an abstract idea (certain methods of organizing human activities), with additional computer elements that result in merely apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as detailed in the 101 rejection below.
MPEP 2106.05(a) clearly states an important consideration in determining whether the claims as cited improves technology is the extent to which a claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. This is the case here, that the claims additional elements merely claim the idea of a solution or outcome, as the claims additional elements merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed in the 101 rejection below.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks pages 11-13, Applicant argues the 101 rejection with respect to the Desjardins decision. While the Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments here, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
USPTO Memorandum dated 12/5/2025 Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins states the following with respect to the Desjardins decision:
This advance notice revises the Ninth Edition, Revision 01.2024, November 2024 publication of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) to include Ex Parte Desjardins, as indicated below. These updates are not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and are meant to be consistent with existing USPTO guidance. Indeed, the Ex Parte Desjardins decision analyzed eligibility in terms of whether the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under longstanding Federal Circuit precedent in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(l) and 2106.05(a).
As detailed above in section 4, the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or improvement to other technology or technical field because the claims recite an abstract idea given the broad recitation of the claims and the additional computer elements merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers. MPEP 2106.05(a) makes it clear that such additional element recitations of apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, are not an improvement to the functioning of a computer or improvement to other technology or technical field.
On Remarks pages 13-14, Applicant argues with respect to the 101 rejection that the claims recite a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of collecting business data, creating a simulation based on collected business data, running a simulation where multiple users can collaborate based on permissions and updating the simulation based on user input like a time future constraint as broadly recited in the claims. Further the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of performing a simulation for a different time like the future, for example monitoring sales or number of customers in the morning vs the evening. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that these limitations that as broadly recited in the claims are “computer implemented”, the simulation is “animated virtual reality”, and the simulation is displayed in a “virtual reality device”, merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks 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 or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recites a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement to virtual reality rather applicant is merely using animated virtual reality as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further these additional elements merely results in generally linking the abstract idea to the field of computers.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On remarks pages 14-16 with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues an improvement to another technical field and cites McRO for support of this decision. It is noted as detailed above in section 4 the claims do not recite an improvement to another field. Specifically here the claims recite an abstract idea given the broad recitation in the claims and the additional computer elements are recited at such a broad result based level of abstraction that they merely result in recitation of “apply it” or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the 101 rejection below.
Further it is noted in response to Applicant’s arguments here that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in computers or technology, see MPEP 2106.05(a) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks pages 16-17 with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed towards a fundamental economic practice and are therefore not directed towards a method of organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states the following:
“The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks.”
It relates to commerce or economy, as it relates to business data (information)(claim 1) and further specific business information of customer flows in a retail environment (see claims 20-21) and or productions in a production line (see claim 22). It is a business process (relates to commerce or economy) to collect business data, creating a simulation based on collected business data, running a simulation where multiple users can collaborate based on permissions and updating the simulation based on user input like a time future constraint .
Therefore the claims recite a fundamental economic practice, and therefore are included in the certain methods of organizing human activity.
On remarks pages 18-19 with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues mental process, however the Examiner did not cite mental process in the Final Rejection. Therefore these arguments are not relevant to the current updated 101 rejection below.
On Remarks pages 20-23 with respect to the 101 rejection below, Applicant argues the claims recite meaningful limitations on a judicial exception,. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims additional elements merely recite apply it or generally linking it to the field of computer as detailed in the updated 101 rejection below to reflect Applicant’s amendments. Such additional elements are limitations previously found by the courts not to be enough to result in a practical application and or significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)).
On Remarks pages 20-23 with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues a particular solution rooted in computer technology and cites DDR holding for support of this argument. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claims additional elements merely recite apply it or generally linking it to the field of computer as detailed in the updated 101 rejection below to reflect Applicant’s amendments and Examiner’s response section 4 above.
Further the general idea of collecting business data, creating a simulation based on collected business data, running a simulation where multiple users can collaborate based on permissions and updating the simulation based on user input like a time future constraint exists outside the realm of computer networks as broadly recited herein the result based recitation, therefore further the claims are unlike DDR.
On Remarks page 23 with respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues several dependent claims. However the Examiner has provided reasonings as to why these additional elements do not amount to more than an abstract idea or as to why the additional elements merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as claimed. See updated 101 rejection below to reflect Applicant’s amendments.
On remarks pages 24-28, Applicant argues the cited prior art, however, such arguments are moot in view of the newly cited prior art of Rakshit (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0109837).
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-18, and 21-23 recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claim 19 recites an article of manufacture as the claims recite a computer readable medium being executed by a computer to cause the computer to perform operations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se. “As such, a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 1294, 112 USPQ2d 1120, 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03” (see MPEP 2106.03). However, it is noted that claim 19 is not interpreted as signals per se based on Applicant’s specification, that states that computer readable storage medium is not be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, see paragraph 0022 (cited herein): “A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media. As will be understood by those of skill in the art, data is typically moved at some occasional points in time during normal operations of a storage device, such as during access, de-fragmentation or garbage collection, but this does not render the storage device as transitory because the data is not transitory while it is stored.” Claim 20 is a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor executing logic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 8-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 8-23 recite collecting business data, creating a simulation based on collected business data, running a simulation where multiple users can collaborate based on permissions and updating the simulation based on user input like a future time constraint.
Concepts relating to the economy or commerce (commercial practice) are fundamental economic practices. Fundamental economic practices or principles are in the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
The idea collecting business data, creating a simulation based on collected business data, running a simulation where multiple users can collaborate based on permissions and updating the simulation based on user input like a time future constraint is recited at such a high level of abstraction in the claims, that the claims recite a fundamental economic practice or principal.
It relates to commerce or economy, as it relates to business data (information)(claim 1) and further specific business information of customer flows in a retail environment (see claims 20-21) and or productions in a production line (see claim 22). It is a business process (relates to commerce or economy) to collect business data, creating a simulation based on collected business data, running a simulation where multiple users can collaborate based on permissions and updating the simulation based on user input like a future time constraint .
Certain methods of organizing human activity are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of collecting business data (intelligence reports), creating a simulation based on collected business data, running a simulation and updating the simulation based on user input like a future time (for example monitoring sales or number of customers in the morning vs the evening), as broadly recited in the claims. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that these limitations that as broadly recited in the claims are “computer implemented”, the simulation is “animated virtual reality”, and the simulation is displayed in a “virtual reality device”, merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks 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 or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recites a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement to virtual reality rather applicant is merely using animated virtual reality as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further these additional elements merely results in generally linking the abstract idea to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of performing a simulation at a time corresponding to when some of the parameters (business report) was collected. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that this process is “computer” implemented and the simulation is in the “animated virtual reality” environment recite merely apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 5, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of performing a simulation in a twin environment, specifically a space that is identical in some way to the actual live environment (for example a mockup of a store etc.). This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that this process is “computer” implemented and the simulation is in the “animated virtual reality environment” recite merely apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
Further the additional element of this twin being the “digital” twin environment results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks 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 or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement to digital twin environment rather applicant is merely using digital twin environment as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further the additional elements above merely result in generally linking the abstract idea to the field of computers.
As per claim 6, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of perform a simulation in a visual twin environment, specifically a space that is identical in some way to the actual live environment (for example a mockup of a store etc.). This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that this process is “computer” implemented, the simulation is in the “animated virtual reality environment”, and the twin is a “digital” twin, merely recite apply it or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of computers as discussed in the claims above.
As per claim 8, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of performing another simulation for another set of parameters or mock up (for example another business report). Further it is certain methods of organizing human activities to provide input as to which business report (or parameters) to use as broadly claimed. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that this simulation is a “virtual” reality simulation and the process is “computer” implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the claims above.
As per claim 9, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of receiving a set of parameters to define information in a business report as broadly recited in the claims. Specifically linking the metrics in a report at/to a certain time of day or years, for example. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that the process is “computer” implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of computers as discussed in the claims above.
As per claim 10, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of receiving a set of parameters for defining a context of the analysis and then perform the analysis based on the parameters. For example receiving parameters related to time and then performing the analysis based on that time parameter. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that the process is “computer” implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of computers as discussed in the claims above.
As per claim 11, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of deriving parameters from a report, for example determining important information from looking at a report as broadly recited in the claims. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that the process is “computer” implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of computers as discussed in the claims above.
As per claim 12, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of providing interaction in a simulation or provide interaction to determine information to be provided to a simulation and provide contextual analysis on the input. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that instead of this information being provided by a user to for example another user in a simulation, this information is provided by “one or more sensors” that detect human interactions including “a gesture, body language, a voice command, and a visual touch” and the contextual analysis is being performed using “artificial intelligence” merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks 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 or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement in sensors, input detection (like gesture, body language, voice command, or visual touch), or artificial intelligence rather applicant is merely using sensors and artificial intelligence as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further the additional elements merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
Further the additional element that the method is instead being “computer” implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking the judicial exception to the field of computers as discussed in the previous claims above.
As per claim 13, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of receiving parameters and update a simulation based on the parameters. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional element that the simulation is an “animated virtual reality” simulation and the process is “computer” implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking the judicial exception to the field of computers as discussed in the claims above.
As per claim 14, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of receive specifications of the physical environment, and analyze the report to select information relevant to the physical environment. This is part of the abstract idea.
Further the additional element that the method is instead being “computer” implemented merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the claims above.
As per claim 15, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of allowing collaboration with multiple users in a simulation. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the process is “computer implemented”, the simulation is output to an “animated reality device” and the simulation is an “animated virtual reality simulation” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed in the previous claims above.
As per claim 16, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of allowing users to participate or see various parts of the simulation or simulation aspects based on permissions levels. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the process is “computer implemented”, the simulation is output to an “animated reality device” and the simulation is an “animated virtual reality simulation” merely results in apply it or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 17, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of allowing users to participate or see various parts of the simulation or simulation aspects based on permissions levels and also allow a user to communicate or collaborate with other users based on permissions. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the process is “computer implemented”, the simulation is output to an “animated reality device” and the simulation is an “animated virtual reality simulation” merely results in apply it or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of computers as discussed in the previous claims above.
As per claim 18, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities of providing an indicator in a simulation environment of where a user or product is in the environment as broadly recited in the claims. This is part of the abstract idea as broadly recited herein.
The additional element that the process is “computer” implemented and the simulation is “an animated virtual reality simulation” merely results in apply it or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of computers as discussed in the claims above.
Further the additional element that the user or item is an “avatar” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks 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 or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement to avatars in the virtual reality environment rather applicant is merely using as avatars in the virtual reality environment as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further here, the additional of element being performed by “avatars” merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 19, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of collecting business data, creating a simulation based on collected business data, running a simulation and updating in real time the simulation based on user input like a time future constraint (for example monitoring sales or number of customers in the morning vs the evening), as broadly recited in the claims. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that these limitations are performed by software executing on a computer “a computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to:” , the simulation is “animated virtual reality”, by “the computer”, and the simulation is displayed in a “virtual reality device”, merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks 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 or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement to virtual reality rather applicant is merely using animated virtual reality as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further these additional elements merely results in generally linking the abstract idea to the field of computers.
As per claim 20, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of collecting business data, creating a simulation based on collected business data, running a simulation and updating the simulation based on user input like a time future constraint, as broadly recited in the claims. Further the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of performing a simulation at a different time like the future based on input from a user like body language or touch (for example one user interpreting another user’s touch of the physical simulation or body language to change the simulation), for example monitoring sales or number of customers in the morning vs the evening. Additionally the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of running a simulation in the physical environment of a retail store to depict (simulate) a virtual flow of customers along the future timeline. This is of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that these certain methods of organizing human activities is being performed by software executing on a computer “a processor; and logic integrated with the processor, executable by the processor, or integrated with and executable by the processor, the logic being configured to” , the simulation is “animated virtual reality”, and the simulation is displayed in a “virtual reality device”, merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks 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 or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims recite an improvement to virtual reality rather applicant is merely using animated virtual reality as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further these additional elements merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
Further the additional element that instead of this information being provided by a user to for example another user in a physical simulation, this information is provided by “one or more sensors” that detect human interactions including body language and a “virtual” touch merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks 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 or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, but fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, as the claims here merely recite a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it.” Here Applicant does not recite as broadly recited in the claims an improvement in sensors (like virtual touch) in the virtual reality environment rather applicant is merely using sensors (like virtual touch) as a way to implement the abstract idea, which is apply it.
Further the additional elements of “one or more sensors” including body language and a virtual “touch” merely results in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 21, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of performing a simulation related to a retail store, and changing the time for the simulation based on input derived from monitoring the users interaction with the simulation, where updating the simulation corresponds to depicting a flow of customers along a future timeline. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that the simulation is “virtual reality”, “virtual” ,and that the method is “computer” implemented merely results in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 22, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity of performing a simulation related to a predictive simulation of products moving along a production line at a time in the future when the information of the business intelligence report was collected, where the business intelligence report includes information about machine health and productively issues in terms of capacity of a conveyer system of the production line, and the predictive simulation includes a visual simulation of a prediction in product throughout for a period of time in the future timeline. This is part of the abstract idea as broadly recited herein.
The additional elements that the simulation is “animated virtual reality” and that the method is “computer” implemented merely results in apply it and generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above.
As per claim 23, the claims certain methods of organizing human activity of detecting one or more interactions selected from a group of body language and touch(for example one user interpreting another user’s touch of the simulation or body language to change the simulation). This is part of the abstract idea as broadly recited herein.
The additional elements that the information is detected via “body sensors” and the information or touch is “virtual” merely results in apply it or generally linking the abstract idea to the field of computers as discussed in the claims above.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as recited above under the practical application step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-17, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Rakshit (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0109837).
As per claim 1, Rakshit teaches A computer-implemented method, comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: method for simulating workflows and activities of physical assets using digital twin models).
analyzing a business intelligence report for correlating information therein with a physical environment, and for determining effects of the information in the business intelligence report on the physical environment; creating an animated virtual reality simulation of the physical environment, as affected by the information, based on results of the analysis of the business intelligence report; (see paragraphs 0069-0072, Examiner’s note: creating new digital twin models for simulation over time based on changes to the physical asset where this information can be collected by sensors or for example be input by a user).
outputting the animated virtual reality simulation to a virtual reality device; deriving, while a user is navigating the animated virtual reality simulation using the virtual reality device, user input for changing a time factor for the animated virtual reality simulation along a future timeline; and updating, while the user is navigating the animated virtual reality simulation using the virtual reality device, the animated virtual reality simulation to correspond to the changed time factor (see paragraphs 0076-0079 and Figure 5, Examiner’s note: here teaches the simulation may be performed in augmented reality (see paragraph 0079) where a user can select a specific configuration or configurations to use, so for example if a user was using a past configuration (for example Version 1 ) in Figure 5 and then selected Version 4 in Figure 4, for a part of a whole part of the system, this would be selection along a future timeline as broadly recited herein).
As per claim 2, Rakshit teaches
wherein the animated virtual reality simulation includes a simulation of the physical environment at a time corresponding to when at least some of the information of the business intelligence report was collected (see paragraphs 0076-0079 and Figure 5, Examiner’s note: here teaches the simulation may be performed in augmented reality (see paragraph 0079) where a user can select a specific configuration or configurations to use, so here for example a user can a select a version 1 from 1/6/18 as shown in Figure 5).
As per claim 5, Rakshit teaches
wherein the animated virtual reality simulation includes a digital twin of the physical environment upon which the information is based. (see paragraphs 0069-0072, Examiner’s note: creating new digital twin models for simulation over time based on changes to the physical asset where this information can be collected by sensors or for example be input by a user).
As per claim 6, Rakshit teaches
wherein the animated virtual reality simulation includes a combination of visual and digital twin simulations of the physical environment upon which the information is based. (see paragraphs 0069-0072 and 0079, Examiner’s note: creating new digital twin models for simulation over time based on changes to the physical asset where this information can be collected by sensors or for example be input by a user (see paragraphs 0069-0072) and further teaches this simulation can be performed in augmented reality (AR) therefore this is a visual simulation (see paragraph 0079).)
As per claim 8, Rakshit teaches
receiving input indicating a selection of a different business intelligence report; analyzing the different business intelligence report for correlating information therein with the physical environment, and for determining effects of the information in the business intelligence report on the physical environment; creating a second animated virtual reality simulation of the physical environment as affected by the information of the different business report; and outputting the second animated virtual reality simulation. (see paragraphs 0076-0079 and Figure 5, Examiner’s note: here teaches the simulation may be performed in augmented reality (see paragraph 0079) where a user can select a specific configuration or configurations to use, so for example if a user was using a past configuration (for example Version 1 ) in Figure 5 and then selected Version 4 in Figure 4 for another simulation this would read on the claim).
As per claim 9, Rakshit teaches
comprising receiving a set of parameters for defining the information in the business intelligence report. (see paragraphs 0069-0072, Examiner’s note: creating new digital twin models for simulation over time based on changes to the physical asset where this information can be collected by sensors or for example be input by a user).
As per claim 10, Rakshit teaches
comprising receiving a set of parameters for defining a context of the analysis, and performing the analysis based on the set of parameters. (see paragraphs 0069-0072, 0076-0079, and Figure 5, Examiner’s note: creating new digital twin models for simulation over time based on changes to the physical asset where this information can be collected by sensors or for example be input by a user (see paragraphs 0069-0072). This could alternatively read on defining the version or versions of the model to run the simulation (see paragraphs 0076-0079 and Figure 5)).
As per claim 11, Rakshit teaches
wherein the set of parameters is derived from a selection of particular information from the business intelligence report to analyze. (see paragraphs 0069-0072, Examiner’s note: creating new digital twin models for simulation over time based on changes to the physical asset where this information can be collected by sensors or for example be input by a user).
As per claim 12, Rakshit teaches
wherein the set of parameters is based, at least in part, on input derived from one or more human interactions selected from the group consisting of: a gesture, body language, a voice command, and a virtual touch; and further comprising using artificial intelligence to perform contextual analysis on the input. (see paragraphs 0076-0079 and Figure 5, Examiner’s note: teaches users interacting with the AR system to define the models and versions of models used to run the simulation. Further this is using artificial intelligence as so broadly claimed here as the system is processing user inputs to provide results of those inputs to the user in real time, e.g. assembling an augmented reality simulation for use in performing simulations ).
As per claim 13, Rakshit teaches
wherein the set of parameters is received during the outputting of the animated virtual reality simulation, wherein the animated virtual reality simulation is updated based on the set of parameters. (see paragraphs 0076-0079 and Figure 5, Examiner’s note: teaches users interacting with the AR system to define the models and versions of models used to run the simulation).
As per claim 14, Rakshit teaches
comprising receiving specification of the physical environment, wherein the analysis includes selection of information in the business intelligence report relevant to the specified physical environment. (see paragraphs 0069-0072, Examiner’s note: creating new digital twin models for simulation over time based on changes to the physical asset where this information can be collected by sensors or for example be input by a user).
As per claim 15, Rakshit teaches
wherein the animated virtual reality simulation is also output to a second animated virtual reality device for allowing collaboration of multiple users in the animated virtual reality simulation (see paragraphs 0074, 0079, and 0083, Examiner’s note: simulations can be augmented reality (see paragraph 0079) and providing results of the simulations to other users (see paragraphs 0083 and 0074)).
As per claim 16, Rakshit teaches
wherein portions of the animated virtual reality simulation output to the second animated virtual reality device are removed based on a permission level of the user associated with the second virtual reality device (see paragraphs 0074, 0079, and 0083, Examiner’s note: teaches simulations are augmented reality and providing them based on being public or being a customer of the manufacturer, so here a user can view public simulations (e.g. permission level) and view if they are a manufacturer customer (e.g. permission level)).
As per claim 17, Rakshit teaches
comprising: performing a second analysis of the business intelligence report based on a permission level of a second user; creating a second animated virtual reality simulation of the physical environment as affected by the information based on results of the second analysis; and outputting the animated virtual reality simulation to a second virtual reality device for allowing collaboration of multiple users in the animated virtual reality simulations (see paragraph 0074, 0076-0077, 0079, and 0083, Examiner’s note: teaches the simulations may be augmented reality (see paragraph 0079), sharing information for improved simulations between users for example users of a specific physical asset (See paragraph 0074 and 0083) and generating a simulation based on user constraints and the collected simulation data (see paragraphs 0076-0077).
As per claim 19, Rakshit teaches A computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to: (see paragraphs 0022-0023, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform operations where these computer readable medium can include things like a disk).
analyze, by the computer, a business intelligence report for correlating information therein with a physical environment, and for determining effects of the information in the business intelligence report on the physical environment; create, by the computer, an animated virtual reality simulation of the physical environment, as affected by the information, based on results of the analysis of the business intelligence report; (see paragraphs 0069-0072, Examiner’s note: creating new digital twin models for simulation over time based on changes to the physical asset where this information can be collected by sensors or for example be input by a user).
output, by the computer, the animated virtual reality simulation to a virtual reality device; derive, by the computer in real time while a user is navigating the animated virtual reality simulation using the virtual reality device, user input for changing a time factor for the animated virtual reality simulation along a future timeline; and update, by the computer while the user is navigating the animated virtual reality simulation using the virtual reality device, the animated virtual reality simulation to correspond to the changed time factor. (see paragraphs 0076-0079 and Figure 5, Examiner’s note: here teaches the simulation may be performed in augmented reality (see paragraph 0079) where a user can select a specific configuration or configurations to use, so for example if a user was using a past configuration (for example Version 1 ) in Figure 5 and then selected Version 4 in Figure 4, for a part of a whole part of the system, this would be selection along a future timeline as broadly recited herein).
As per claim 23, Rakshit teaches
wherein the set of parameters is based, at least in part, on output from one or more sensors detecting one or more human interactions selected from the group consisting of: body language, and a virtual touch. (see paragraphs 0037, 0076-0079 and Figure 5, Examiner’s note: teaches using interacting with the AR system to define the models and versions of models used to run the simulation (see paragraphs 0076-0079 and Figure 5) and paragraph 0037 teaches the device may be include a touch screen with one or more input devices).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rakshit (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0109837) further in view of Schmirler et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0130260).
As per claim 18, Rakshit teaches
wherein actions of the users are generated and presented in both of the animated virtual reality simulations (see paragraph 0078-0079, Examiner’s note: augmented reality showing users selections).
Rakshit does not expressly teach presenting avatars of the users in a simulation.
However, Schmirler which is in the art of virtual reality simulation (see abstract) teaches avatars of the users in a simulation (see paragraphs 0050-0053 and 0157-0158, Examiner’s note: presenting avatars in simulations).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rakshit with the aforementioned teachings from Schmirler with the motivation of including a known element in virtual reality simulations for presenting user actions (see Schmirler paragraphs 0050, 0053, and 0157-0158), when presenting user actions in virtual simulations is known (see Rakshit paragraphs 0078-0079).
As per claim 22, Rakshit teaches
wherein the animated virtual reality simulation includes a predictive simulation of products at a time in the future relative to when the information of the business intelligence report was collected, wherein the information in the business intelligence report includes information about machine health and productivity issues in terms of simulation of information collected for a period of time in the future timeline. (see paragraphs 0070-0071, 0076-0079 and Figure 5, Examiner’s note: here teaches the simulation may be performed in augmented reality (see paragraph 0079) where a user can select a specific configuration or configurations to use, so for example if a user was using a past configuration (for example Version 1 ) in Figure 5 and then selected Version 4 in Figure 4, for a part of a whole part of the system, this would be selection along a future timeline as broadly recited herein).
Rakshit does not expressly teach simulation of products moving along a production line at a time, wherein the information in the business intelligence report includes information about machine health and productivity issues in terms of capacity of a conveyor system of the production line, wherein the predictive simulation includes a visual simulation of a reduction in product throughput
However, Schmirler et al. which is in the art of industrial simulations (see abstract) teaches simulation of products moving along a production line at a time, wherein the information in the business intelligence report includes information about machine health and productivity issues in terms of capacity of a conveyor system of the production line, wherein the predictive simulation includes a visual simulation of a reduction in product throughput (see paragraphs 0056, 0136, 0161, Examiner’s note: simulation information related to conveyor belt system as well as notes for future operators).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rakshit with the overmentioned teachings from Schmirler with the motivation of simulating information in another known environment or physical asset for simulations and predictions (see Schmirler et al. paragraphs 0056, 0136, 0161), when performing the functions of simulations on various physical assets with varying constraints or changes is known (see Rakshit paragraphs 0018-0019).
Claim(s) 20-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rakshit (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2021/0109837) further in view of Caution et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0024907).
As per claim 20, Rakshit teaches A system, comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: system for simulating workflows and activities of physical assets using digital twin models).
a processor; and logic integrated with the processor, executable by the processor, or integrated with and executable by the processor, the logic being configured to: (see paragraphs 0022-0023, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform operations.
analyze a business intelligence report for correlating information therein with a physical environment, and for determining effects of the information in the business intelligence report on the physical environment; create an animated virtual reality simulation of the physical environment, as affected by the information, based on results of the analysis of the business intelligence report; (see paragraphs 0069-0072, Examiner’s note: creating new digital twin models for simulation over time based on changes to the physical asset where this information can be collected by sensors or for example be input by a user).
output the animated virtual reality simulation to a virtual reality device; (see paragraph 0079, Examiner’s note: information can be displayed in augmented reality).
receive, while a user is navigating the animated virtual reality simulation using the virtual reality device, output from one or more sensors detecting one or more human interactions selected from the group consisting of: body language, and a virtual touch derive, based on the output from the one or more sensor, user input corresponding to the output from the one or more sensors; (see paragraphs 0037, 0076-0079 and Figure 5, Examiner’s note: teaches using interacting with the AR system to define the models and versions of models used to run the simulation (see paragraphs 0076-0079 and Figure 5) and paragraph 0037 teaches the device may be include a touch screen with one or more input devices).
perform contextual analysis on the user input for determining that the user input is for changing a time factor for the animated virtual reality simulation along a future timeline; and update, while the user is navigating the animated virtual reality simulation using the virtual reality device, the animated virtual reality simulation to correspond to the changed time factor, wherein the physical environment corresponds to a physical asset, wherein the input changing the time factor for the animated virtual reality simulation is based on input derived from monitoring the user's interaction with the virtual reality simulation, wherein updating the animated virtual reality simulation to correspond to the changed time factor includes depicting information of the simulation (see paragraphs 0076-0079 and Figure 5, Examiner’s note: here teaches the simulation may be performed in augmented reality (see paragraph 0079) where a user can select a specific configuration or configurations to use, so for example if a user was using a past configuration (for example Version 1 ) in Figure 5 and then selected Version 4 in Figure 4, for a part of a whole part of the system, this would be selection along a future timeline as broadly recited herein).
Rakshit does not expressly teach wherein the physical environment corresponds to a retail store and updating the simulation includes depicting a virtual flow of customers along the future timeline.
However, Caution et al. which is in the art of predicting needs at a future time (simulations) period based on collected and analyzed data (see abstract) teaches this other business process tracking environment of a retail store or more specifically wherein the physical environment corresponds to a retail store and updating the simulation includes depicting a virtual flow of customers along the future timeline (see paragraphs 0029, 0063, and Figures 4-5, Examiner’s note: detect a flow of customer and predict a decrease or increase at a future time at a store, where the users purchase information (see paragraphs 0029, 0063). The teaches the terminals needed in a certain time period).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rakshit with the aforementioned teachings from Caution et al. with the motivation of simulating information in another known environment or physical asset for making simulations and predictions (see Caution et al. paragraphs 0029, 0063, and Figures 4-5), when performing the functions of simulations on various physical assets with varying constraints or changes is known (see Rakshit paragraphs 0018-0019).
As per claim 21, Rakshit teaches
wherein the physical environment corresponds to a physical asset, wherein the input changing the time factor for the animated virtual reality simulation is based on input derived from monitoring the user's interaction with the virtual reality simulation, wherein updating the animated virtual reality simulation to correspond to the changed time factor includes depicting information of the simulation (see paragraphs 0076-0079 and Figure 5, Examiner’s note: here teaches the simulation may be performed in augmented reality (see paragraph 0079) where a user can select a specific configuration or configurations to use, so for example if a user was using a past configuration (for example Version 1 ) in Figure 5 and then selected Version 4 in Figure 4, for a part of a whole part of the system, this would be selection along a future timeline as broadly recited herein).
Rakshit does not expressly teach wherein the physical environment corresponds to a retail store and updating the simulation includes depicting a virtual flow of customers along the future timeline.
However, Caution et al. which is in the art of predicting needs at a future time (simulations) period based on collected and analyzed data (see abstract) teaches this other business process tracking environment of a retail store or more specifically wherein the physical environment corresponds to a retail store and updating the simulation includes depicting a virtual flow of customers along the future timeline (see paragraphs 0029, 0063, and Figures 4-5, Examiner’s note: detect a flow of customer and predict a decrease or increase at a future time at a store, where the users purchase information (see paragraphs 0029, 0063). The teaches the terminals needed in a certain time period).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rakshit with the aforementioned teachings from Caution et al. with the motivation of simulating information in another known environment or physical asset for making simulations and predictions (see Caution et al. paragraphs 0029, 0063, and Figures 4-5), when performing the functions of simulations on various physical assets with varying constraints or changes is known (see Rakshit paragraphs 0018-0019).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Wilkinson (World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO): WO
2021/113896) which is in the art simulations teaches being provided updated
simulations based on manipulating a time (see pages 3 and 28-29)
b. Brewer et al. (United States Patent Application publication Number:
US 2019/0251750) using virtual reality to simulate an experience in the real world
(see abstract and Figures 7E-7H)
C. Kanski et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number:
US 2021/0383611) teaches using a 3D virtual model using a rendered digital twin
to monitor an item (see abstract and Figures 8-13)
d. Cella et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2022/0036302) teaches using a digital twin simulation system for simulation that
allows for collaboration between users (see abstract and paragraph 1103)
e. Van der Velden et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0293705) teaches a simulation augmented reality system for real world systems (see abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights