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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to PCT Patent Application No. JP2020-160506, filed on 09/25/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 3/16/2026 have been considered.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Claim 12 has been canceled.
Claims 15 and 16 are newly added.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, and 13-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9-13 that the Non-Final Rejection (filed 12/16/2025) has not shown the claim features to be within the specific meaning of “commercial interactions”, and that the recited of features of claim 1 are unlike the examples of “commercial or legal interactions” recited in MPEP 2106.04. This argument has been considered and is not persuasive. Among the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, set forth in the MPEP, is the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping, which includes activity that falls within the enumerated sub-grouping of commercial or legal interactions, including subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. MPEP 2106.04(a). According to the MPEP 2106.04, the question of whether a claim is “directed to” a judicial exception in Step 2A is now evaluated using a two-prong inquiry. Prong One asks if the claim “recites” an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Under that prong, the mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a method of organizing human activity in a claim means that the claim “recites” a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04 [“The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.”]). Additionally, MPEP 2106.04 instructs examiners to refer to the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities, and mental processes) in order to identify abstract ideas. The analysis for the 101 rejection of the claims in the Non-Final Rejection was properly performed, with the limitations believed to be abstract highlighted via bolding (see at least Non-Final Rejection, [Pages 3-4]), indicating that the claims recite limitations falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, including commercial interactions such as sales activities, which fall under the subgrouping of “commercial or legal interactions”. The instant amended claims recite limitations that remain directed to the “Certain Methods” grouping, as they recite receiving control information for specifying a display, content information for specifying a content to be displayed, and display condition from a manufacturer, computing a usage fee of the display being charged to the manufacturer, displaying the content based on an association between a display and a product of the manufacturer, and performing an error process when a respective association does not correspond to a respective manufacturer. These limitations amount to commercial interactions in that they are directed to manufacturer content control of product displays in a retail store, where content includes an advertisement, campaign information, a coupon, and product associated information (see at least specification [0017][0051]). The claims are directed to manufacturer control of advertisements, campaigns, coupons, product information, etc. within a retail store, and accordingly the claims remain directed to the “Certain Methods” grouping, in that they recite commercial interactions, which include sales activities, and therefore fall within the enumerated subgrouping of “commercial or legal interactions”, as enumerated by the MPEP. This is unlike the claims set forth in Example 2 of the USPTO’s Subject Matter Eligibility examples, where it was determined that the claims were directed to automatically generating and transmitting a web page in response to activation of a link using data identified with a source web page having certain visually perceptible items, and therefore did not recite a mathematical algorithm or fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice. The analysis of the claims from Example 2 further notes that “if the examiner does not identify an abstract idea recited in the claim, the claim should be deemed to be not directed to a judicial exception… the claim is eligible”. However, with regards to the instant claims, an abstract idea has been identified. The claims in Example 2 were found eligible by the Federal Circuit in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com et al., 113 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which was patent-eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in a computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer technology" as the claims included specific links that overrode the conventional way a processor operated and therefore the claims were directed to a technological solution for a specifically technological problem. Unlike the circumstances in DDR Holdings, the abstract idea of managing and displaying product-related information in response to defined conditions is merely tied to the electronic (technical) environment, rather than being necessarily rooted in the technical environment.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues on pages 13-15 that the amended represent a technical improvement by “solv[ing] a problem for preventing erroneous interference with an electronic shelf label associated with a product of another company”. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. As claimed, the additional elements represent the mere use of generic computing components to facilitate the abstract idea. Notably, the specification provides only a brief description of performing an error process ([0047-0049]). It is further noted that “preventing erroneous interference with an electronic shelf label associated with a product of another company”, but for reciting an electronic shelf label, does not amount to a technical improvement, and is rather directed to an improvement in the abstract idea.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional function 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. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary sill 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 (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Applicant’s specification does not provide the requisite detail necessary such that one of ordinary skill in the art could recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient detail with respect to interference regarding electronic shelf label associations, and is specific only in utilizing said electronic shelf labels to facilitate the abstract idea of managing and displaying product-related information, by performing an error process when it is determined that a specified electronic shelf label satisfies display conditions, including displaying content corresponding to a specified manufacturer (see at least [0027][0047-0049]). Nor does the specification provide technical detail of how interference with electronic shelf labels is addressed, aside from generic computing components (i.e., a processor, an electronic shelf label) implemented to send error information to a manufacturer in certain cases. It is further noted that the specification describes the claimed error process as merely “replying” error information to an external terminal of a manufacturer (see at least [0047-0049]).
Accordingly, the claims do not represent a technical improvement, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant further argues on pages 14-15 that the claims reflect an improvement that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art from viewing the specification, in view of Ex Parte Desjardins. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. While the claims need not explicitly recite the technical improvement, they must still recite limitations that reflect a technical improvement apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, as described in the specification. MPEP 2106.04. In the instant case, the claims amount to implementing the abstract idea using generic computing technology, as discussed above, and accordingly are insufficient to reflect a technical improvement apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. This is different from the claims in Ex Parte Desjardins, where while the claims were directed towards mathematical concepts, and therefore an abstract idea, it was determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, and that the claimed limitations reflected this disclosed improvement (reflecting benefits such as reduced storage, reduced system complexity, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks). On the other hand, the specification of the instant application does not identify an improvement to the electronic label as would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, but rather describes merely utilizing the electronic shelf label as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see at least specification [0047-0049]), and therefore the instant disclosure is not analogous to Desjardins, contrary to Applicant’s assertion. The instant claims and specification reflect an abstract improvement to a commercial process, not a technical improvement apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, as was the case in Desjardins. In other words, the instant claims are not analogous to those in Desjardins, and therefore the present rejection does not violate the reasoning set forth in Desjardins.
Accordingly, neither the claims nor the specification provide a technical improvement apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 9, as well as Applicant’s Remarks (see Remarks Pages 15-16), have been considered and are persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 9 have been indicated as subject matter overcoming the cited prior art, and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 101 rejection set forth in this Office Action, above. Accordingly, the previously filed 103 rejections of dependent claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11 and 13-14 have been withdrawn. New claims 15 and 16 depend from claim 1, and therefore have similarly been indicated as overcoming the prior art if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Accordingly, the 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11 and 13-16 are directed towards a machine. Claims 9 is directed towards a process. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11 and 13-16 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11 and 13-16).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Taking Claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
acquire, from a manufacturer, authentication information including manufacturer identification information, and perform authentication of the manufacturer based on the authentication information;
in a case where the authentication is successful, acquire, from the manufacturer, control information including display terminal specification information for specifying at least one display installed in a store, content information for specifying a content to be displayed on the specified display, and display condition for specifying a timing when the specified content is displayed on the specified display, the content to be displayed on the specified display being specified among contents stored in advance, the display condition being defined with any of a time period, a day of a week, a weather, a temperature, a congestion status of a store;
output information indicating the control information according to the control information; and
compute a usage fee of the display based on the control information, the usage fee being charged to the manufacturer,
wherein the at least one display is a shelf label,
in the store, a plurality of shelf labels, including the shelf label, are installed in association with each of a plurality of products, and
the at least one display is specified as a display on which to display the content based on an association of the at least one display with a product of the manufacturer specified by the manufacturer identification information, and
identify, for each of the plurality of products, which of the plurality of shelf labels that each of the plurality of products are, in the store, respectively associated;
determine, for each of the plurality of products, whether respective associations of each of the plurality of products to ones of the plurality of shelf labels correspond to ones of different manufacturers specified for different ones of the plurality of electronic shelf labels; and
perform an error process in a case where any one of the respective associations does not correspond to a respective one of the different manufacturers specified for a corresponding one of the different ones of the plurality of shelf labels, the corresponding one of the different ones of the plurality of shelf labels being one of the different ones of the plurality of shelf labels included in the one of the respective associations.
Independent Claim 9 recites the same limitations believed to be abstract as recited in claim 1, and additionally recites a processing method.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of managing and displaying product-related information. These recited limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" Grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1 and 9 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including A center apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions; an external terminal; at least one display terminal; a storage device; wherein the at least one display terminal is an electronic shelf label; a plurality of electronic shelf labels, including the electronic shelf label; and a display terminal on which to display. Claim 9 recites the same additional elements as recited in claim 1.
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 9 specifying that the abstract idea of controlling the display of managing and displaying product-related information is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1 and 9 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1 and 9 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1 and 9 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, the instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of A center apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions; an external terminal; at least one display terminal; a storage device; wherein the at least one display terminal is an electronic shelf label; a plurality of electronic shelf labels, including the electronic shelf label; and a display terminal on which to display amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 11 and 13-16, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 11 and 13-16, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 9, and do not recite any additional elements other than what is disclosed in independent claims 1 and 9. Therefore, claims 2-3, 5-6, 11 and 13-16 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claim 7, the claim recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1 and 9, and additionally recites the following additional limitations:
a store apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions; and
The additional elements of a store apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions are all recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11 and 13-16 are ineligible.
Indication of Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, and 13-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office Action. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 11 and 13-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of the evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention as a whole, as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. The allowable features are as follows:
acquire, from an external terminal of a manufacturer… control information including display terminal specification information for specifying at least one display terminal installed in a store, content information for specifying a content… and display condition information for specifying a timing when the specified content is displayed;
wherein the at least one display terminal is an electronic shelf label;
a plurality of electronic shelf labels… are installed in association with each of a plurality of products;
identify, for each of the plurality of products, which of the plurality of electronic shelf labels that each of the plurality of products are, in the store, respectively associated;
determine, for each of the plurality of products, whether respective associations of each of the plurality of products to ones of the plurality of electronic shelf labels correspond to ones of different manufacturers specified for different ones of the plurality of electronic shelf labels; and
perform an error process in a case where any one of the respective associations does not correspond to a respective one of the different manufacturers specified for a corresponding one of the different ones of the plurality of electronic shelf labels.
The most relevant prior art made of record includes previously cited Unold et al. (US 20020055880 A1), hereinafter Unold, previously cited Kim (US 20160055562 A1), hereinafter Kim, previously cited Cho et al. (US 20200402429 A1), hereinafter Cho, newly cited Bonner et al. (US 20200050813 A1), hereinafter Bonner, and newly cited NPL Reference U (“Kahl, A plugin framework to control electronic shelf labels, September 2013, UbiComp ’13 Adjunct: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing adjunct publication, Pg. 1007-1014, https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2494091.2496014”).
Unold teaches a system enabling site owners of digital signs to establish and maintain seasons of operation for their signs having rates and promotions which may differ for each day and hour of the seasons (Unold: [abstract]). Advertisers are authorized via a username and password received from a user computing device (see at least [0083-0084]). Unold further teaches that advertisers can provide reservations for advertising spots (periods of time) using the digital signs for advertisements for products and services, where reservations include advertiser selections including names of the campaign and advertisement (see at least [0047-0049][0062-0064]). Unold further teaches that a base rate, or a multiple of a base rate is charged to an advertiser in response to a reservation being placed (see at least [0063][0078]). A digital sign interface application communicates the advertisement, time segment, and advertising spot data to the appropriate identified digital signs prior to the start time of the associated time segments of the reservations (see at least [0062-0064][0076]]). Yet Unold does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one display terminal is an electronic shelf label, a plurality of electronic shelf labels are installed in association with each of a plurality of products, determine, for each of the plurality of products, whether respective associations of each of the plurality of products to ones of the plurality of electronic shelf labels correspond to ones of different manufacturers specified for different ones of the plurality of electronic shelf labels, and perform an error process in a case where any one of the respective associations does not correspond to a respective one of the different manufacturers specified for a corresponding one of the different ones of the plurality of electronic shelf labels.
Kim teaches a product display management system for managing price and location information of products within a retail establishment (Kim: [title][abstract]). Kim further teaches that the product display management system links products to product display units, such as electronic shelf labels affixed to shelving, and maintains the location of each display unit (see at least [0025-0026][Fig. 5]). A display unit module associates a product with a display unit based on identifiers of each, and updates a correspondence data store to associate or link the display unit and a specific product placed next to the display unit (See at least [0044]). Yet Kim does not explicitly disclose the limitations regarding acquiring control information, content information, and display condition information, determining whether respective associations of products to electronic shelf labels correspond to manufacturers specified for the electronic shelf labels, and performing an error process in a case where any of the respective associations does not correspond to a respective manufacturer.
Cho teaches a system for controlling information display of an electronic shelf label connected to a management server (Cho: [abstract]). Cho further discloses that an electronic shelf label includes an arrangement error reporter that transmits an error report message to the management server upon determining that pieces of product identification do not match with identification information of the electronic shelf label, the report including identification of the display stand and the erroneous product (see at least [0058]). Yet Cho does not explicitly disclose the limitations regarding acquiring display condition information for specifying a timing when the specified content is displayed, determining whether respective associations of products to electronic shelf labels correspond to manufacturers specified for the electronic shelf labels, and a case where any of the respective associations does not correspond to a respective one of the different manufacturers specified for a corresponding one of the different ones of the plurality of electronic shelf labels.
Bonner teaches a system and method for verifying price and product information displayed on tags for products on a shelf in a retail store (Bonner: [abstract]). The system includes a data storage that maintains pricing information for products associated with brands of a manufacturer, where libraries are maintained for each of product pricing, brands, and manufacturers (see at least [0035-0036]). Bonner further teaches that shelf tags are associated with products of manufacturers (see at least [0049-0051]). Bonner further teaches that the system provides an alert from a hand-held terminal when the processor determines an inconsistency or error based on a comparison of a price associated with a tag and a stored price (see at least [0058-0059]). Yet Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose the limitations regarding acquiring display condition information for specifying a timing, wherein the at least one display terminal is an electronic shelf label, and determining respective associations of electronic shelf labels.
NPL Reference U (“A plugin framework to control electronic shelf labels”, UbiComp ’13 Adjunct: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing adjunct publication, Pg. 1007-1014, https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2494091.2496014) discloses a plugin approach for automatically generating display content for different display types, including electronic shelf labels located in supermarkets (see at least [Title][abstract][p. 1012, Paragraph 3]). An Event Broadcasting Service (EBS) is used to communicate information such as price changes and location information (see at least [p. 1009, Paragraph 1]). Application plugins are utilized in order to display advertisement at the ESLs (see at least [p. 1010, Paragraph 6]). Yet NPL Reference U does not explicitly disclose the limitations regarding acquiring, from an external terminal of a manufacturer, display condition information, identifying respective associations of the plurality of products and the plurality of shelf labels, and performing an error process.
While these references arguably teach the claimed limitations using a piecemeal analysis, these references would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e., hindsight reasoning). Accordingly, claims 1, and 9, taken as a whole, is indicated to be allowable over the cited prior art. The examiner emphasizes that it is the interrelationship of the limitations that renders these claims free from prior art. Claims 2-3, 5-7, 11 and 13-16 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively, and are therefore indicated as containing subject matter free from prior art.
Additionally, the Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and herby asserts the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed. That is, the Examiner emphasized the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims have subject matter free of prior art as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights