DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues that:
“the claimed elements of amended independent claim 2 recite a specific arrangement of sensors (e.g., one or more connected home sensors, at least one additional connected home sensor) to detect physical conditions of the home. The specific arrangement of sensors provides an adaptive activation mechanism to determine whether one or more features of the home are outside an expected range.
Applicant’s representative also states the claimed elements of amended independent claim 2 recite a specific technical architecture, and not an abstract idea implemented on generic hardware. Applicant’s representative then states amended independent claim 2 does not recite an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A.
In response, the claims merely recite activating one or more sensors, and a function of “increasing a monitoring frequency by activating at least one additional connected home sensors for obtaining or gathering sensed data. The sensors as noted in the specification are known devices for capturing sensed data from a device.
These sensors are generic types and conventional and known capturing devices. Using a known or conventional capturing device to capture or obtain a specific type of information or data for data gathering purposes is not an inventive concept as was found in Alice at 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (emphasis added). The same principle is applied here.
The claims further recite functions of :
“analyzing the second plurality of photos of the one or more features of the home using image analysis to detect differences between the baseline and the second plurality of photos; identifying at least one of the differences as damage to the one or more features of the home occurring within the predetermined period of time that the home was rented by the one or more individuals”.
As per these limitations, functions of comparing data or image data were stated to be an abstract concept by the Courts.
Furthermore the additional element of a generic processing unit does not add a significant more than the abstract idea. As noted in the applicant’s specification, the generic processing unit can be any known server or computer processor or software or hardware components.
The listed computer and " CPU " noted in the applicant's specification are routine computer processors or computers performing generic computer functions such as comparing data to produce a result. Accordingly, a sensor for capturing data and a generic processing unit for comparing the captured data with a reference data involves or are the application of a conventional or known captured devices and a conventional or generic computer elements such as a generic processing to perform their known functions.
The reliance of computers to perform their routine tasks even more accurately is not sufficient to transform a claim into patent eligible subject matter as noted in Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2359. As indicated by the court "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions and issue simultaneous instructions" was not an inventive concept. The claims or even the applicant's specification does not support or provide or claim any specifically inventive technology or algorithm for performing the claimed functions.
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative further states:
amended independent claim 2, as a whole, recites an integration into a practical application. As set forth in the August 4th Memorandum, the Step 2A Prong Two analysis considers the claim as a whole such that the way in which additional elements interact with or use the alleged judicial exception may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, where additional limitations that meaningfully limit the judicial exception can render the claim patent eligible and should not be considered in a vacuum. August 4th Memorandum, pages 3-4, section II(B).
Applicant’s representative argues that:
amended independent claim 2 recites a specific practical application including a technically integrated system and method for automated home damage detection and verification via adaptive sensor activation and cross modal correlation with photos to verify home damage.
In response, the claims as currently amended still fail step 2A of the Mayo Alice test.
The claims as now amended still fail to recite technological implementation details of how the claimed functions are being realized. Claims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101." Beteiro, LLC V. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The specification does not even provide details of a specific architecture or means or structures or specific computer executed modules for performing the claimed functions.
The claims "do[es] not improve the functioning of the computing system or device or insurance system or make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem", Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. V. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019). "Nothing in the claim[s], understood in light of the specification, calls for anything but preexisting computers and displays, programmed using techniques known to skilled artisans, to present the new arrangement of information." Brumfield V. IBG LLC, 97 F Ath 854, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The claims also do not show a technical improvement in the architecture of the device, sensors or insurance system. The recited functions involve generic or conventional functions and setup of a basic computer system.
The mere recitation of a generic computing system and a device performing their expected functions cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention as stated in Alice Corp., 134S.Ct. at 2358; DDR Holdings, LLC V. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cri. 2014) ("And after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible. (citation omitted)). Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to 'implement' an abstract idea 'on a computer', that addition cannot impart patent eligibility." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (internal citation omitted). The claimed system and device are merely a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Each of the independent claims uses generic computer technology (such as a generic computing system and a device) for sensing and comparing data or information, and providing the data to an insurance system as such do not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation").
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding Step 2B, applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite a specific practical application which include a technically integrated system and method for automated home damage detection and verification, and that the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B.
In response, the claims as currently amended still fail Step 2B of the Mayo Alice test.
Under Step 2B, it must be determined “whether an additional element or combination of elements. . . [a]dds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present.” (2019 Guidance at 56.) Taking the claim elements separately, claim 2 recites a function capturing image data by mobile device and of initiating…by a home insurance “system”. Sensors are used to capture various data in a home. The use of sensors is mainly to capture data. Accordingly, the capturing of data involves data gathering functions.
There is not a showing or description of receiving, analyzing, and identifying data or images data, and calculating an insurance claim using an insurance system.
Furthermore there is a lacking of evidence that the claims improve the manner in which the computing system, insurance system or device operates, as the claims in Enfish had performed their claimed invention via a “self-referential table” for a computer database. Applicant is being referred to Enfish, 822, F.3d at 1327, 1337.
The instant claims merely receive sensed data or images, compare them and provide the data to an insurance computing system for calculating an amount of an insurance claim. These are routine and generic computer functions for processing or effecting the abstract idea. Hence, there is not a significant improvement of the computing system or mobile device or the architecture of the overall system.
The elements together execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an overall outcome which, similarly, are merely the combined and coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Accordingly, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The 35 USC 101 rejection of the claims as currently amended is found below.
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 2-21 as now amended 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Standard
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined
whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Specifically, claims 2 and 20 are directed to a method. Claim 17 is directed to a system. Each of
the claims falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined
whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea).
The claims recite the following abstract idea absent the bolded language.
Claim 2 recites:
receiving, from a device associated with an owner of a home, data indicating that the owner is
renting out the home to one or more individuals for a predetermined period of time;
receiving a first plurality of photos of one or more features of the home, the first plurality of
photos captured by a mobile device prior to the predetermined period of time beginning;
storing the first plurality of photos in a digital repository as a baseline for damage determination;
activating one or more connected home sensors that monitor the one or more features of the
home in response to detecting the one or more features of the home outside an expected range occurring within the predetermined period of time, wherein the one or more connected home sensors include at least one of a motion sensor, a temperature sensor, or an image device;
increasing a monitoring frequency of the one or more features of the home by activating at least one additional connected home sensor of the one or more connected home sensors in response to the activation of the one or more connected home sensors, wherein activating the at least one additional connected home sensor comprises receiving additional monitored data associated with the one or more features of the home outside the expected range;
receiving a second plurality of photos of the one or more features of the home, the second
plurality of photos captured by the mobile device after the predetermined period of time expires;
analyzing the second plurality of photos of the one or more features of the home using image
analysis to detect differences between the baseline and the second plurality of photos;
identifying at least one of the differences as damage to the one or more features of the home
occurring within the predetermined period of time that the home was rented by the one or more individuals;
correlating the detected differences with at least one of monitored data from the one or more
connected home sensors or the additional monitored data to verify that the identified damage in the second plurality of photos corresponds with the monitored data indicating that the one or more features of the home are operating outside the expected range;
initiating, by a home sharing insurance system comprising a calculation module and an
inventory module configured to maintain information stored in at least one database, an insurance claim based upon the verification of the identified damage to the one or more features of the home;
computing, by the calculation module, an amount for the insurance claim based upon the
identified damage; and
transmitting, to the device associated with the owner of the home, a notification of the amount.
Claim 3 recites:
wherein the monitored data indicating indicates a performance and a quality of the one or more
features of the home; and
wherein the monitored data indicating that the one or more features are outside the
expected range, indicates the damage has occurred to the one or more features of the home.
(Accordingly, claim 3 recite parameters to apply to the functions of claim 2).
Claim 4 recites: wherein the one or more connected home sensors at the home include at least
one of motion sensors, water heater sensors, power sensors, moisture sensors, temperature sensors, window sensors, sump pump sensors, heat or smoking sensing devices, presence sensors, float sensors, speed sensors, breakage sensors, camera, or proximity sensors.
Accordingly, claim 4 recites generic home appliances and or sensors.
Claim 5 recites wherein the one or more connected home sensors at the home capture a video
feed.
Accordingly, claim 5 merely recites a generic video as video fed .
Claim 6 recites wherein capture of the video feed begins upon receipt of an indication from
another of the one or more connected home sensors at the home.
Accordingly, claim 6 recites receiving monitored data which is similar to a data gathering
step.
Claim 7 recites wherein the monitored data is received in real time.
Accordingly, a receiving function is similar to a data gathering function.
Claim 8 recites modifying the second plurality of photos to include only one or more portions
corresponding to the damage to the one or more features of the home.
Accordingly, a modifying function is similar to a manual/mental process and/or involves a
generic computer function.
Claim 9 recites wherein the one or more portions are saved in a digital repository.
Accordingly, the storing of data involves a generic computer function such as storing of data.
Claim 10 recites wherein the predetermined period of time is a period of time the home is being
rented.
Accordingly, claim 10 merely recites a parameter to be applied to the functions of claim 2. Claim 10 is neither a function, computer components or structures or means for performing
any functions.
Claim 11 recites wherein identifying at least one of the differences as damage to the one or more
features of the home comprises utilizing historical images of damage.
Accordingly, an identifying function is similar to a mental process and/or involves a generic
computer function.
Claim 12 recites wherein the image analysis includes discrete cosign transform or Fourier
transform.
Accordingly, a determining function is similar to a mental process and mathematical process and/or involves a generic computer function.
Claim 13 recites identifying a damage type of the damage to the one or more features of the
home.
Accordingly, an identifying function is similar to a mental process and/or involves a generic
computer function.
Claim 14 recites identifying a damage severity of the damage to the one or more features of the
home.
Accordingly, an identifying function is similar to a mental process and/or involves a generic
computer function.
Claim 15 recites wherein the one or more features of the home are associated with home devices,
home appliances, personal items, or home systems.
Accordingly, claim 15 merely recites a feature or parameter. Claim 15 is neither a function,
computer components or structures or means for performing any functions.
Claim 16 recites wherein the at least one database further includes at least one of receipts
or pricing associated with the one or more features of the home.
Accordingly, claim 16 merely recites a data parameter. Claim 16 is neither a function,
computer components or structures or means for performing any functions.
Claim 17 recites:
a calculation module;
an inventory module in communication with the calculation module,
the inventory module configured to maintain information stored in at least one database, the system being configured to:
receive, from a device associated with an owner of a home, data indicating that the owner is
renting out the home to one or more individuals for a predetermined amount period of time;
receive a first plurality of photos of one or more features of a home, the first plurality of photos
captured by a mobile device prior to the predetermined period of time beginning;
store the first plurality of photos in the at least one database as a baseline for damage
determination;
activating one or more connected home sensors that monitor the one or more features of the home in response to detecting the one or more features of the home outside an expected range occurring within the predetermined period of time, wherein the one or more connected home sensors include at least one of motion sensor, a temperature sensor, or an image device;
increase a monitoring frequency of the one or more features of the home by activating at least one additional connected home sensor of the one or more connected home sensors in response to the activation of the one or more connected home sensors, wherein activating the at least one additional connected home sensor comprises receiving additional monitored data associated with the one or more features of the home outside expected range;
store a second plurality of photos of the one or more features of the home, the second plurality of
photos captured by the mobile device after the predetermined period of time expires;
analyze the second plurality of photos of the one or more features of the home using image
analysis to detect differences between the baseline and the second plurality of photos;
identify at least one of the differences as damage to the one or more features of the home
occurring within the predetermined period of time that the home was rented by the one or more individuals;
correlate the detected differences with at least one of monitored data from one or more connected
home sensors or the additional monitored data to verify that that the identified damage in the second plurality of photos corresponds with the monitored data indicating that the one or more features of the home are outside the expected range;
initiate an insurance claim based upon the verification of the identified damage to the one or more
features of the home;
compute, by the calculation module, an amount for the insurance claim based upon the
identified damage; and
transmit, to the device associated with the owner of the home, a notification of the amount.
Claim 18 recites: wherein the monitored data indicates a performance and a quality of the one or
more features of the home; and
wherein the monitored data indicating that the one or more features are outside the
expected range indicates the damage has occurred to the one or more features of the home.
Accordingly, claim 18 recites parameters to apply to the functions of claim 17.
Claim 19 recites: wherein the one or more connected home sensors at the home include at
least one of motion sensors, water heater sensors, power sensors, moisture sensors, temperature sensors, window sensors, sump pump sensors, heat or smoking sensing devices, presence sensors, float sensors, speed sensors, breakage sensors, camera, or proximity sensors.
Accordingly, claim 19 recites generic home appliances and or sensors.
Claim 20 recites:
receiving, from a device associated with an owner of a home, data indicating that the owner is
renting out the home for a predetermined amount period of time;
receiving a first plurality of photos of one or more features of a home, the first plurality of photos
captured by a mobile device prior to the predetermined period of time beginning;
storing the first plurality of photos in a digital repository as a baseline for damage determination;
activating one or more connected home sensors that monitor the one or more
features of the home in response to detecting the one or more features of the home outside an expected range occurring within the predetermined period of time, wherein the one or more connected home sensors include at least one of a motion sensor, a temperature sensor, or an image device;
increasing a monitoring frequency of the one or more features of the home by activating at least
one additional connected home sensor of the one or more connected home sensors in response to the activation of the one or more connected home sensors wherein activating the at least one additional connected home sensor comprises receiving additional monitored data associated with the one or more features of the home outside the expected range;
receiving a second plurality of photos of the one or more features of the home, the second
plurality of photos captured by the mobile device after the predetermined period of time expires;
analyzing the second plurality of photos of the one or more features of the home using image
analysis to detect differences between the baseline and the second plurality of photos;
identifying at least one of the differences as damage to the one or more features of the home
occurring within the predetermined period of time;
correlating the detected differences with monitored data from one or more connected home
sensors or the additional monitored data to verify that the identified damage in the second plurality of photos corresponds with the monitored data indicating that the one or more features of the home are outside the expected range;
initiating, by a home sharing insurance system comprising a calculation module and an
inventory module configured to maintain information stored in at least one database, an insurance claim based upon the verification of the identified damage to the one or more features of the home;
computing, by the calculation module, an amount for the insurance claim based upon the
identified damage; and
transmitting, to the device associated with the owner of the home, a notification of the amount.
Claim 21 recites: wherein the at least one database further includes at least one of receipts or
pricing associated with the one or more features of the home.
Accordingly, claim 21 merely recites a data parameter. Claim 21 is neither a function,
computer components or structures or means for performing any functions.
Here, the claimed concept still falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) because it amounts to the analyzing of photos of data in a home. Photos before a home is rented and photos after a predetermined time period is elapsed are analyzed to determine differences therein. The BRI of the claimed limitations describes functions of initiating, by a home sharing insurance system, an insurance claim based upon the identified damage to the one or more features of the home, and computing, by the home sharing insurance system, an amount for the insurance claim based upon the identified damage.
As per claims 2, 17 and 20, applicant is to be noted that the steps or functions of “receive” or
“receiving”, “activating or activated” and “captured...” are considered as data gathering functions. The functions of “analyze” or analyzing” and “identify” or “identifying”, “initiate” and “initiating” or “correlate” or “correlating” involve mental processes and/or generic computer functions. Transmitting functions involve an insignificant post solution activity.
Step 2A, Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In
particular, the clams still recite the above noted bolded limitations understood to be the additional limitations:
These limitations performing steps of computing an amount of an insurance claim merely amount
to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ( see MPEP 2106.05(1) ), also see applicant's specification for guiding interpretation of these claim features, describing implementation with generic commercially available devices or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions, similarly describing usage of general and special purpose computer and including generic commercially available devices.
The claimed insurance system, and the devices are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate between devices, sensors and systems "now available or later developed may be used” which is properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a computer or device.
Performance of a receiving step by a computer processor amounts to performing steps which
amount io insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering - see MPEP Z106.05(g).
Performing steps by generic computer processors with memories merely limit the abstraction to
computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 ¢h).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract
idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
The claims recite receiving data using various types of known sensors which are performing their
intended functions. The breadth of these limitations reasonably includes collecting information by communicating between sensors over a network.
Reciting a “device” ,”modules”, “system”, “sensors”, and the one or more "processors”’ and
“memories” is understood ad to be similar to Alappat, which as noted in MPEP 2106. 05(b)(1) is superseded, and the correct analysis is to look whether the added elements integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims in the instant application are performed by one or more processors which receive data, store data, process data and transmit data.
Consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add
anything compared to when the steps are considered separately. The claims recite a particular sequence of functions to compare a number of photos or images, to find differences as damages and initiate an insurance claim based on the differences. Performance of these steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim which would reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Receiving and collecting data by electronic means or hardware amounts to receiving and transmitting information over a network has been recognized by the courts as well- understood, routine, and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d)UD, citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G10, L18 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fic., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, LiS USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fic. v. Google, Inc.. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Independent claims 17 and 20 recite the same limitations as claim 2 but instead claim one or more processors with memories for performing the steps of process claim 2. The same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2 are equally applicable to claims 17 and 20.
Positively reciting a computer processor and memory storing software instructions does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be a general purpose computer and one or more sensors for performing basic or routine computer functions. These claimed elements are noted to a be a generic computer for collecting data, storing data and performing routine and conventional functions. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed “processors”, “sensors”, “modules” and “memories”, “system” and “device” are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 2, 17 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
The prior art taken alone or in combination failed to teach or suggest:
“increasing a monitoring frequency of the one or more features of the home by activating at least
one additional connected home sensor of the one or more connected home sensors in response to the activation of the one or more connected home sensors wherein activating the at least one additional connected home sensor comprises receiving additional monitored data associated with the one or more features of the home outside the expected range, receiving a second plurality of photos of the one or more features of the home, the second plurality of photos captured by the mobile device after the predetermined period of time expires, identifying at least one of the differences as damage to the one or more features of the home occurring within the predetermined period of time, correlating the detected differences with monitored data from one or more connected home sensors or the additional monitored data to verify that the identified damage in the second plurality of photos corresponds with the monitored data indicating that the one or more features of the home are outside the expected range, initiating, by a home sharing insurance system comprising a calculation module and an inventory module configured to maintain information stored in at least one database, an insurance claim based upon the verification of the identified damage to the one or more features of the home, and computing, by the calculation module, an amount for the insurance claim based upon the identified damage; and transmitting, to the device associated with the owner of the home, a notification of the amount” a recited in independent claim 2 and as similarly recited in independent claims 17 and 20
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANTZY POINVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-6797. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00AM to 5:30PM.
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, Michael W. Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/fp/
/FRANTZY POINVIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights