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 .
Status of Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 07/09/2025.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant Arguments /Remarks made in an amendment filled on 07/09/2025:
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101” in pages 9-12, that:
“Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Applicant respectfully traverses.
Independent claim 1, as amended, recites:
A display control apparatus comprising: … wherein the stock information indicates that a stock quantity is equal to or less than a reference value, and wherein the operations further comprise disabling a correspondence between the display apparatus identification information associated with the stock information and the product identification information in the storage, in a case where an arrival schedule for a next time is not included in the stock information, or in a case where information indicating that next-time arrival is not expected is included in the stock information.
Claim 1 is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test. In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the recited exception is integrated into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A … MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) provides that in "Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the 10
additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception." Without any admissions and solely in an effort to expedite prosecution of the present application, amended claim 1 recites "wherein the operations further comprise disabling a correspondence between the display apparatus identification information associated with the stock information and the product identification information in the storage, in a case where an arrival schedule for a next time is not included in the stock information, or in a case where information indicating that next-time arrival is not expected is included in the stock information." Accordingly, claim 1 integrates any possible judicial exception into a practical application of any alleged exception, and accordingly is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test.
Claim 1 is patent eligible of Step 2B of the Alice test Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that even if it is assumed the claim is directed to an abstract idea, which is not conceded, independent claim 1 recites significantly more than any allegedly abstract idea … Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, provides an "inventive concept," and does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities.
For at least these reasons discussed above, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 and similarly claims 7 and 13 are directed to patent eligible subject matter”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and emphasizes none of the acquiring, setting, disabling steps, whether taken individually or collectively, have not been shown to affect any form of technical change or improvement whatsoever, and are abstract idea. Applicant's claims have not been shown to modify, reconfigure, manipulate, or transform the computer, computer software, or any technical elements in any discernible manner, much less yield an improvement thereto. There is simply no showing of implementing any of the claim steps, individually or in combination, amounts to a technological improvement. The Examiner first notes that managing stock information (i.e., retail and stock management) is not reasonably understood as a technology, but instead involves organizing of human activity.
The data collection, recognition, and storage concept described in the claim is similar to the data collection and management concepts that were held to be abstract ideas in Content Extraction, TLI Communications, and Electric Power Group. Although the claim enumerates the type of information (i.e., the images, and location data) that is acquired, stored and analyzed, the Federal Circuit has explained in Electric Power Group and Digitech that the mere selection and manipulation of particular information by itself does not make an abstract concept any less abstract. Further, the claim is not made any less abstract by the invocation of a programmed computer. Unlike Enfish, where the claims were focused on a specific improvement in how the computer functioned, the claim here merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract concepts.
Furthermore, the recited “computer” and “display apparatus”, this recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
As the second step (Step 2B) in the analysis requires to determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1297. The examiner should examine the limitations of the claims to determine whether the claims contain an “inventive concept” to “transform” the claimed abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter “requires more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words ‘apply it.’ ” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294) (alterations in original). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features' to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’ ” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those “additional features” must be more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1298.
As for Step 2B requires an evaluation of whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception (e.g. well-understood, routine, conventional activity). The “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” recited by the applicant is not the only consideration that the examiner should consider. The procedure for evaluating Step 2B remains the same as in prior guidance:
First, the examiner identifies whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and
Second, the examiner evaluates those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they amount to significantly more, using the considerations.
None of these individual steps, viewed “both individually and ‘as an ordered combination,’” transform the nature of the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1297, 1298). The majority of those steps comprise the abstract concept of stock information (i.e., retail and stock management), while the additional limitations utilized by the claimed invention to execute the abstract idea is mere use of the computer connected through the Internet, which does not transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Instead, the claimed sequence of steps comprises only “conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” which is insufficient to supply an “inventive concept.” Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). In other words, 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 accordingly do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Regarding 35 USC § 103 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103” in pages 12-14, that;
“Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 as being unpatentable over Goodwin (US (20050125298) in view of Sano (US 20110225071) … Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. Without any admissions and solely in an effort to expedite prosecution of the present application, independent claim 1 is amended and recites: … wherein the operations further comprise disabling a correspondence between the display apparatus identification information associated with the stock information and the product identification information in the storage, in a case where an arrival schedule for a next time is not included in the stock information, or in a case where information indicating that next-time arrival is not expected is included in the stock information.
The Office Action, in the rejection of claim 5, cites paragraphs [0051] and [0078] and Fig. 22 of Shinji, for making up deficiency of Goodwin and Sano.
Shinji's paragraph [0051] may disclose that "the correspondence cancellation of the link data 513 when the ESL server 500 receives the invalidation signal" and refers to Figure 10 (a diagram illustrating a state where a correspondence regarding a part of the link data 513 is canceled) and Figure 11 (a diagram illustrating a state where a correspondence cancellation code is assigned to a part of the link data 513). However, Shinji's paragraph [0051] does not teach or suggest such correspondence cancellation occurs "in a case where an arrival schedule for a next time is not included in the stock information, or in a case where information indicating that next- time arrival is not expected is included in the stock information," as recited in claim 1 … Conclusion In view of the above, reconsideration and allowance of this application are now believed to be in order, and such actions are hereby solicited. If any points remain in issue which the Examiner feels may be best resolved through a personal or telephone interview, the Examiner is kindly requested to contact the undersigned at the telephone number listed below”.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response, the examiner respectfully first emphasizes that the newly amended limitations are narrower in scope than the features previously presented in claims (1, 7 and 13). Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended limitations has been considered, however the argument is primarily raised in support of the amendments to independent claims 1, 7 and 13, and therefore is believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth below, which incorporates a new reference, BSON et al. (US 20150170059 A1) to teach the new limitations of claims 1, 7 and 13. Accordingly, the amendment and supporting arguments are believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection set forth under §103 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 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-4 and 6 recite an apparatus, which is directed to a machine.
Claims 7, 9-10 and 12 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 13, 15-16 and 18 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is directed to a manufacture.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the abstract idea of retail and stock management. This idea is described by the steps of
acquiring product identification information and stock information, the stock information being information related to stock of a product associated with the product identification information in a facility;
acquiring display apparatus identification information for identifying a display provided on a product shelf within the facility and product identification information associated with the display in association with each other, the display identification information associated with the acquired product identification information; and
setting the display associated with the acquired display apparatus identification information to a display state associated with the acquired stock information,
wherein the stock information indicates that a stock quantity is equal to or less than a reference value, and
wherein the operations further comprise disabling a correspondence between the display apparatus identification information associated with the stock information and the product identification information, in a case where an arrival schedule for a next time is not included in the stock information, or in a case where information indicating that next- time arrival is not expected is included in the stock information
These claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims recite to a certain method of organizing human activity as the above abstract idea limitations are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The examiner finds the claims to simply recites steps of following rules or instructions to collect information and display results. The Examiner additionally finds the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity: a claim reciting social activities is Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQé2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue was the social activity of “providing information to a person without interfering with the person’s primary activity.” 896 F.3d at 1344, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (citing Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 193 F. Supp.3d 1184, 1188 (W.D. 2014)). The patentee claimed an attention manager for acquiring content from an information source, controlling the timing of the display of acquired content, displaying the content, and acquiring an updated version of the previously-acquired content when the information source updates its content. 896 F.3d at 1339-40, 127 USPQ2d at 1555. The Federal Circuit concluded that “[s]tanding alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract idea,” observing that the district court “pointed to the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed invention.” 896 F.3d at 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d at 1559.
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claims 3-4, 6: display apparatus,
Claims 9-10, 12: the computer, display control processing, apparatus,
Claim 15-16, 18: The non-transitory computer-readable medium, display apparatus,
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 15-16 and 18 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 7 and 13 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 3-4, 6, 9-10, 12, 15-16 and 18 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 7 and 13 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 3-4, 6: apparatus,
Claim 5: storage,
Claims 9-10, 12: the computer, display control processing, apparatus,
Claim 11: computer, apparatus information acquisition processing, storage,
Claim 14: The non-transitory computer-readable medium,
Claim 15-16, 18: The non-transitory computer-readable medium, apparatus,
Claim 17: The non-transitory computer-readable medium, storage,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of receiving input information from a user and presenting received information, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Goodwin, III et al. (US 20050125298 A1, hereinafter “Goodwin”) in view of Sano (US 20110225071 A1, hereinafter “Sano”) further in view of GIBSON et al. (US 20150170059 A1, hereinafter “GIBSON”).
Regarding Claims 1, 7 and 13. Goodwin discloses a display control apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations (Goodwin, [0006]; “The system further includes a computer for scheduling messages for transmission to the electronic price label”), the operations comprising:
acquiring product identification information and stock information, the stock information being information related to stock of a product associated with the product identification information in a facility (Goodwin, [0034-0037]; “Entry ITEM ID identifies a store item … Each line entry has at least an item identification entry (ITEM ID) and a business information entry (BUS INFO) … Business information may include inventory level information, sales dollars, on-order quantities, sales quantities, and other quantitative data used to manage the store”);
acquiring, from a storage that stores display apparatus identification information for identifying a display apparatus (Goodwin, [0001]; “electronic price label (EPL)”) provided on a product shelf within the facility and product identification information associated with the display apparatus in association with each other (Goodwin, [0031]; “EPL data file 32 includes a line entry for each EPL 22 in EPL system 16. Each line entry has an item identification entry (ITEM ID), an EPL identification entry (EPL ID) … and a business information entry (BUS DISPLAY)”), the display apparatus identification information associated with the acquired product identification information (Goodwin, [0032]; “Entry ITEM ID identifies a store item. Entry EPL ID identifies which EPL is assigned to the item”); and
wherein the stock information indicates that a stock quantity is equal to or less than a reference value, (Goodwin, [0040]; “Turning now to FIGS. 3A-3C, example records within threshold definition file 38 are shown in detail. Threshold definition file 38 includes a record for each type of business information in business information data file 50. Each record contains threshold information … a record containing on-order quantities and associated thresholds. EPL software 30 operates as illustrated above for FIG. 3A … If the current information exceeds threshold limits for the displayed information, then EPL software 30 sends a message to the associated EPL 22 to display the current business information”) and wherein
Goodwin substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Goodwin fails to explicitly disclose the “setting the display apparatus associated with the acquired display apparatus identification information to a display state associated with the acquired stock information”. However, Sano teaches:
setting the display apparatus associated with the acquired display apparatus identification information to a display state associated with the acquired stock information. (Sano, [0040]; “the electronic inventory tag terminals 48 are set near commodities associated therewith and present commodity information concerning the associated commodities to customers and store clerks. The commodity information includes display scheduled date and time information peculiar to this embodiment besides general commodity information such as commodity names, prices, contents, and barcodes”, also see [0026])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Goodwin to include setting the display apparatus associated with the acquired display apparatus identification information to a display state associated with the acquired stock information, as taught by Sano, where this would be performed in order to enable customers to know what time and date of the sold-out commodity will be available and display theses information and the customers can actually purchase the sold-out commodity. See Sano [0023].
The combination of Goodwin in view of Sano substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, the combination of Goodwin in view of Sano fail to explicitly disclose the “the operations further comprise disabling a correspondence between the display apparatus identification information associated with the stock information and the product identification information in the storage, in a case where an arrival schedule for a next time is not included in the stock information, or in a case where information indicating that next- time arrival is not expected is included in the stock information”. However, GIBSON teaches:
the operations further comprise disabling a correspondence between the display apparatus identification information associated with the stock information and the product identification information in the storage (GIBSON, [0038]; “A NFC wireless programmer 384 may be provided as a standalone unit or as a function of an associate wireless data communication device 386 to program the NFC 340 provide appropriate or updated identification information regarding the products contained in each individual package 350. The provided or updated information may include current pricing, promotional (e.g., instant e-coupons), shelf-life, nutritional or other beneficial information to consumers/customers. The information may be provided, updated or removed (i.e., the claimed “disabling”) according to a current date”), in a case where an arrival schedule for a next time is not included in the stock information, or in a case where information indicating that next- time arrival is not expected is included in the stock information (GIBSON, [0060-0062]; “In Step S5350, updated product identification and/or product inventory monitoring, management and control information may be received in the inventory monitoring, management and control server. Operation of the method proceeds to Step S5400 … In Step S5450, the wireless communication device may be used to reprogram the wireless data storage and communication capability in the carton packaging with the updated product identification and/or product inventory monitoring, management and control information”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goodwin to include the operations further comprise disabling a correspondence between the display apparatus identification information associated with the stock information and the product identification information in the storage, in a case where an arrival schedule for a next time is not included in the stock information, or in a case where information indicating that next- time arrival is not expected is included in the stock information, as taught by GIBSON, where this would be performed in order to improve efficiencies in inventory monitoring, management and control, including reducing labor costs associated with product placement, product inventorying, and shelf stocking/re-stocking in retail marketing scenarios, and advising consumers/customers regarding product pricing, promotional, nutritional and other information. See GIBSON [0002].
Regarding Claims 3, 9 and 15. The combination of Goodwin in view of Sano further in view of GIBSON discloses the display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reference value is 0 (as seen in Goodwin, Fig. 3A under “condition” = “to out of stock” -> “cause display ‘0’”), and the operations comprise causing the display apparatus not to perform display, or causing the display apparatus to display that there is no stock. (Goodwin, [0041]; a record containing threshold information for inventory levels. Threshold ranges are listed under the heading “condition” and corresponding display information is listed under the heading “display” … when EPL software 30 is causing an EPL 22 to display inventory information, an inventory level of forty-five for an associated item would cause EPL software 30 to display fifty. EPL software 30 would not send a message to EPL 22 to change its display information until the inventory level were outside the eleven-to-fifty threshold range”)
Regarding Claims 4, 10 and 16. The combination of Goodwin in view of Sano further in view of GIBSON discloses the display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reference value is 0 (as seen in Goodwin, Fig. 3A under “condition” = “to out of stock” -> “cause display ‘0’”), and,
Goodwin substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Goodwin fails to explicitly disclose the “the operations comprise causing, in a case where an arrival schedule for a next time is included in the stock information, the display apparatus to display a timing indicated by the arrival schedule”. However, Sano teaches:
the operations comprise causing, in a case where an arrival schedule for a next time is included in the stock information, the display apparatus to display a timing indicated by the arrival schedule. (Sano, [0023-0025]; “the price tag display … presents receipt date and time information and display date and time information of commodities to customers”, [0102]; “generates commodity information including the generated display scheduled date and time information and outputs the generated commodity information and the inventory tag ID to the information transmitting and receiving unit 430 a”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the retail management art before the effective filing date to modify Goodwin to include the operations comprise causing, in a case where an arrival schedule for a next time is included in the stock information, the display apparatus to display a timing indicated by the arrival schedule, as taught by Sano, where this would be performed in order to enable customers to know what time and date of the sold-out commodity will be available and display theses information and the customers can actually purchase the sold-out commodity. See Sano [0023].
Regarding Claims 6, 12 and 18. The combination of Goodwin in view of Sano further in view of GIBSON discloses the display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the stock information includes a stock quantity, and the operations comprise causing the display apparatus to display the stock quantity. (Goodwin, [0037]; “Business information may include inventory level information, sales dollars, on-order quantities, sales quantities, and other quantitative data used to manage the store”)
Conclusion
1. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
2. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nobutsugu et al. (US 20100225444 A1) for teaching erasing link information in which product identification information for identifying the product and hardware identification information for identifying the electronic shelf label correspond to each other.
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627