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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 02/06/2023 complies with the provision of CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 cites: “The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving data characterizing fourth parameter measurements recorded by the sensor in the central area for a fourth duration of time; determining a fourth average parameter recorded during the fourth duration of time; computing a calculated heating area parameter and a calculated ambient area temperature based on the first parameter difference, the second parameter difference and the fourth average parameter; and providing the calculated heating area parameter and the calculated ambient area parameter.”
There is no citation in the claim or the specification of a method of calculating a heating area parameter or ambient area parameter based on the first parameter difference, the second parameter difference and the fourth average parameter.
Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “computing a calculated heating area parameter”.
Furthermore, no reason is given by the applicant why the heating area parameter and the ambient area parameter need to be calculated, when they have previously been directly measured by the sensor cited in claim 1.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets this claim as receiving data characterizing parameter measurements in the ambient area and heating area.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 4-6 are rejected as depending on Claim 3.
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 1-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1:
As described in the flowchart of MPEP 2106, subsection III, step 1 asks: Is the Claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 cites a method, which is a process, and is one of the statutory categories of invention.
According to MPEP 2106.04 II, Step 2A, prong one is the next question to be answered: Does the Claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomena?
Claim 1 recites: determining a first average parameter recorded during the first duration of time, a second average parameter recorded during the second duration of time, and a third average parameter recorded during the third duration of time; computing a first parameter difference between the first average parameter in the heating area and the third average parameter in the central area, and a second parameter difference between second average parameter in the ambient area and the third average parameter of the central area; and providing the first parameter difference and the second parameter difference.
Determining and computing are abstract ideas, specifically mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Step 2A prong two asks the following question: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 1 recites: receiving data characterizing first parameter measurements recorded by a sensor in a heating area of an enclosure for a first duration of time, second parameter measurements recorded by the sensor in an ambient area of the enclosure for a second duration of time, and third parameter measurements recorded by the sensor in a central area, located between the heating area and the ambient area, for a third duration of time.
These cited elements are characterized as “mere data gathering”, which have been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do no more than provide data for the abstract ideas previously described.
Step 2B asks does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for depending on Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
Claim 2 cites additional element to Claim 1.
The element wherein the first parameter measurements, the second parameter measurements, and the third parameter measurements are temperature measurements constitutes mere data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
These cited elements are characterized as “mere data gathering”, which have been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do no more than provide data for the abstract ideas previously described.
Step 2B asks does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 2 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 cites a method, and cites determining a fourth average parameter recorded during the fourth duration of time; computing a calculated heating area parameter and a calculated ambient area temperature based on the first parameter difference, the second parameter difference and the fourth average parameter, Determining, computing and calculating are abstract ideas, specifically mathematical concepts.
The elements receiving data characterizing fourth parameter measurements recorded by the sensor in the central area for a fourth duration of time; and providing the calculated heating area parameter and the calculated ambient area parameter constitutes mere data gathering which have been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do no more than provide data for the abstract ideas previously described.
Step 2B asks does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Providing the calculated heating area parameter and the calculated ambient area parameter are outputting data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 IA).
Claim 3 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 4:
The element wherein the fourth parameter measurements are UV light level measurements constitutes mere data gathering which have been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do no more than provide data for the abstract ideas previously described.
Step 2B asks does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 4 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 cites computing, a day and/or night cycle based on the fourth average temperature.
Determining, computing and calculating are abstract ideas, specifically mathematical concepts.
The Claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 6:
The element wherein the fourth measurements include a humidity level constitutes mere data gathering which have been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do no more than provide data for the abstract ideas previously described.
Step 2B asks does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 7:
The element receiving data characterizing UV light level measurements recorded by the sensor in the central area constitutes mere data gathering which have been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do no more than provide data for the abstract ideas previously described.
Step 2B asks does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 7 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 cites computing a day and/or night cycle based on the recorded UV light level measurements. Determining, computing and calculating are abstract ideas, specifically mathematical concepts.
The Claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 9:
The element the UV light level measurements are type B ultraviolet light level measurements constitutes mere data gathering which have been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do no more than provide data for the abstract ideas previously described.
Step 2B asks does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 9 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 cites a method. Claim 10 further cites determining, by a predictive model, a first rule characterizing environmental requirements of an object in the artificial environment; generating an output data set based on the received data sets and the first rule. Determining, computing, generating and calculating are abstract ideas, specifically mathematical concepts.
Claim 10 further cites receiving, by a server, a temperature data set, a humidity data set, and an ultraviolet light level data set, characterizing measurements of a plurality of characteristic properties of an artificial environment by a sensor operatively arranged within the artificial environment, wherein an artificial environment monitoring system includes the server and the sensor; and transmitting the generated output data set.
This constitutes mere data gathering and outputting of data which have been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do no more than provide data for the abstract ideas previously described.
Step 2B asks does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 10 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under U.S.C. 101 as dependent directly or indirectly on Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 cites the first rule is based on information associated with the artificial environment provided by the user, previous measurements of the characteristic properties by the sensor, and the received data sets.
This constitutes mere data gathering and outputting of data and which have been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do no more than provide data for the abstract ideas previously described.
Step 2B asks does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 11 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 cites the output data set includes information and/or instructions associated with care of the artificial environment.
This constitutes outputting of data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 cites wherein the output data set includes an object replenishment recommendation associated with a consumable object within the artificial environment.
This constitutes outputting of data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 cites generating the output data set for the artificial environment is further based on one or more of environmental data associated with the artificial environment, usage of the artificial environment, location of the artificial environment, and a type associated with the artificial environment.
Determining, computing, generating and calculating are abstract ideas, specifically mathematical concepts.
The Claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 cites the artificial environment monitoring system further includes an application on a computing device associated with the user of the artificial environment, and the receiving of the data sets by the server is via the application.
This constitutes outputting of data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 cites the generated output data set is transmitted to the computing device.
This constitutes outputting of data and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The Claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 cites a system comprising at least one data processor and memory storing instructions which is a machine, one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
According to MPEP 2106.04 II, Step 2A, prong one is the next question to be answered: Does the Claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomena?
Claim 19 cites determining, by a predictive model, a first rule characterizing environmental requirements of an object in the artificial environment; generating an output data set based on the received data sets and the first rule.
Determining, generating and computing are abstract ideas, specifically mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 19 further cites the at least one data processor performs operations comprising: receiving, by a server, a temperature data set, a humidity data set, and an ultraviolet light level data set, characterizing measurements of a plurality of characteristic properties of an artificial environment by a sensor operatively arranged within the artificial environment, wherein an artificial environment monitoring system includes the server and the sensor; and transmitting the generated output data set.
These cited elements are characterized as “mere data gathering”, which have been found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations do no more than provide data for the abstract ideas previously described.
Step 2B asks does the Claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 19 is thereby rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as unpatentable as being anticipated by Gill (https://www.hackster.io/ryanjgill2/smart-terrarium-faeeb3) SmartTerrarium. Arduino Project Hub. 12 June 2019).
Regarding Claim 10:
Gill, cited by applicant, anticipates a method comprising: receiving, by a server (Backend: line 1, Express web server; Frontend: lines 1-4) a temperature data set (Hardware: lines 7-10), a humidity data set (Hardware: lines 7-9, 11), and an ultraviolet light level data set (Hardware: lines 7-9, 12), characterizing measurements of a plurality of characteristic properties (Hardware: lines 7-12) of an artificial environment (Intro: habitat) by a sensor (Intro) operatively arranged within the artificial environment (Intro), wherein an artificial environment monitoring system (Intro: Smart Terrarium) includes the server (Backend: line 1, Express web server; Frontend: lines 1-4) and the sensor (Hardware: lines 7-12); determining, by a predictive model a first rule characterizing environmental requirements of an object in the artificial environment (Backstory: third paragraph, UV threshold); generating an output data set based on the received data sets (Frontend: paragraphs 1-2) and transmitting the generated output data set (Frontend: paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 11:
Gill anticipates the method of Claim 10.
Gill further anticipates wherein the first rule is based on information associated with the artificial environment provided by the user (Backstory: third paragraph, UV threshold) previous measurements of the characteristic properties by the sensor (Backstory: third paragraph), and the received data sets (Backend first paragraph).
Regarding Claim 12:
Gill anticipates the method of Claim 10.
Gill further anticipates wherein the output data set (Frontend: paragraphs 1-3)
includes information and/or instructions associated with care of the artificial environment (Frontend: paragraphs 1-3).
Regarding Claim 13:
Gill anticipates the method of Claim 10.
Gill further anticipates wherein the output data set (Frontend: paragraphs 1-2) includes an object replenishment recommendation (water: Backstory paragraphs 1-2) associated with a consumable object within the artificial environment (Backstory paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 14:
Gill anticipates the method of Claim 10.
Gill further anticipates wherein the output data set (Frontend: paragraphs 1-3)
includes a control command associated with stabilization of the artificial environment (Intro).
Regarding Claim 15:
Gill anticipates the method of Claim 14.
Gill further anticipates wherein control command is associated with the control at least one of: a heating source; a humidifier, or a UV source (Intro; misting regulates the humidity).
Regarding Claim 16:
Gill anticipates the method of claim 10.
Gill further anticipates wherein generating the output data set for the artificial environment is further based on one or more of environmental data associated with the artificial environment (monitoring of the UV light: Backstory paragraph 3), usage of the artificial environment, location of the artificial environment, and a type associated with the artificial environment.
Regarding Claim 17:
Gill anticipates the method of Claim 10.
Gill further anticipates wherein the artificial environment monitoring system further includes an application on a computing device (Frontend paragraph 1) associated with the user of the artificial environment (Frontend paragraph 2), and the receiving of the data sets by the server is via the application (Frontend paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 18:
Gill anticipates the method of Claim 17.
Gill further anticipates wherein the generated output data set is transmitted to the computing device (Frontend paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 19:
Gill anticipates a system (Intro) comprising at least one data processor (computer: Frontend paragraph 1); memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one data processor (computer: Frontend paragraph 1), causes the at least one data processor to perform operations comprising: receiving (computer: Frontend paragraph 1), by a server Raspberry Pi: Frontend paragraph 1), a temperature data set (Hardware: lines 7-10), a humidity data set (Hardware: lines 7-9, 11), and an ultraviolet light level data set (Hardware: lines 7-9, 12), characterizing measurements of a plurality of characteristic properties (Hardware: lines 7-12) of an artificial environment (Intro: habitat) by a sensor (Intro) operatively arranged within the artificial environment (Intro), wherein an artificial environment monitoring system (Intro: Smart Terrarium) includes the server (Backend: line 1, Express web server; Frontend: lines 1-4) and the sensor (Hardware: lines 7-12); determining, by a predictive model a first rule characterizing environmental requirements of an object in the artificial environment (Backstory: third paragraph, UV threshold); generating an output data set based on the received data sets (Frontend: paragraphs 1-2) and transmitting the generated output data set (Frontend: paragraphs 1-2).
Regarding Claim 20:
Gill anticipates the system of Claim 19.
Gill further anticipates wherein the output data set (Frontend: paragraphs 1-2) includes at least of one of information and/or instructions associated with care of the artificial environment (water: Backstory paragraphs 1-2); an object replenishment recommendation (water: Backstory paragraphs 1-2) associated with a consumable object within the artificial environment (Backstory paragraphs 1-2); or a control command associated with stabilization of the artificial environment (Intro).
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Rosenbrock et al. (US-5197375) in view of Zong et al (CN-109883560).
Regarding Claim 1:
Rosenbrock discloses a method, comprising: receiving data (col 12 lines 52-53) characterizing first parameter measurements (fig 1: 172; col 12 lines 52-53) recorded by a sensor (fig 1: 172; col 12 lines 52-53) in a heating area (fig 1: 132; heating zone: col 6 lines 37-38) of an enclosure (fig 1: 130; heating chamber: col 6 lines 33-34) for a first duration of time (col 6 lines 37-41), second parameter measurements (fig 1: 178; col 6 lines 52-53) recorded by the sensor (fig 1: 178; col 6 lines 52-53) in an ambient area of the enclosure (fig 1: 138; col 6 lines 37-38) for a second duration of time (col 6 lines 37-41), and third parameter measurements (fig 1: 176; col 6 lines 52-53) recorded by the sensor (fig 1: 176; col 6 lines 52-53) in a central area (fig 1: 136; col 6 lines 52-53) located between the heating area and the ambient area (fig 1: 132,136,138), for a third duration of time (col 6 lines 37-41).
However, Rosenbrock does not disclose determining a first average parameter recorded during the first duration of time, a second average parameter recorded during the second duration of time, and a third average parameter recorded during the third duration of time; computing a first parameter difference between the first average parameter in the heating area and the third average parameter in the central area, and a second parameter difference between second average parameter in the ambient area and the third average parameter of the central area; and providing the first parameter difference and the second parameter difference.
Zong, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches determining a first average parameter recorded during the first duration of time (claim 1 lines 1-11), a second average parameter recorded during the second duration of time (claim 1 lines 1-11), computing a first parameter difference between the average parameter in one area and the average parameter in a different area (claim 1 lines 14-15) and providing the first parameter difference (claim 1 lines 16-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of Rosenbrock with the teachings of Zong because it manages the temperature values of different areas in groups, and enables analysis of the usage of each area (Zong: Abstract) as well as monitoring for unsafe operation of the device (Zong claim 1 lines 14-18).
Rosenbrock in view of Zong does not teach computing a second parameter difference between second average parameter in the ambient area and the third average parameter of the central area; and providing the second parameter difference.
Zong teaches the computing of temperature averages of two separate areas and finding their difference, in order to monitor the two areas’ temperatures, and to provide an alert for unsafe operating conditions (Abstract, claim 1 lines 14-18).
Zong’s device had only two areas that required monitoring (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of Rosenbrock with the teachings of Zong to additionally measure the temperature average of an additional area, and monitor the differences in temperature averages of the additional area and an adjacent area, in order to provide for safe operation and monitoring of all areas of a device.
Regarding Claim 2:
Rosenbrock in view of Zong teaches the method of Claim 1.
Rosenbrock further teaches wherein the first parameter measurements (fig 1: 172), the second parameter measurements (fig 1: 176), and the third parameter measurements (fig 1: 178) are temperature measurements (col 6 lines 55-57).
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 is interpreted by the examiner for the purpose of compact prosecution under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b).
Rosenbrock in view of Zong teaches the method of Claim 1.
Rosenbrock further teaches receiving data (col 12 lines 52-53) characterizing first parameter measurements (fig 1: 172; col 12 lines 52-53) recorded by a sensor (fig 1: 172; col 12 lines 52-53) in a heating area (fig 1: 132; heating zone: col 6 lines 37-38) and receiving second parameter measurements (fig 1: 178; col 6 lines 52-53) recorded by the sensor (fig 1: 178; col 6 lines 52-53) in an ambient area of the enclosure (fig 1: 138; col 6 lines 37-38).
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Rosenbrock in view of Zong and modified by Lakios et al. (US2017/0360011).
Regarding Claim 4:
Rosenbrock in view of Zong teaches the method of Claim 3.
Rosenbrock in view of Zong however does not teach wherein the fourth parameter measurements are UV light level measurements.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lakios teaches the fourth parameter measurements are UV light level measurements (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the invention of Rosenbrock in view of Zong with the teachings of Lakios by the addition of a UV sensor in order to add functionality of measuring UV radiation in addition to temperature. The addition of a readily available commercial UV sensor in order to monitor UV radiation can be used in a terrarium or similar environment ([0002, 0003, 0008]).
Regarding Claim 5:
Rosenbrock in view of Zong teaches the method of Claim 3.
Lakios further teaches computing, a day and/or night cycle based on the fourth average temperature ([0056]).
Regarding Claim 6:
Rosenbrock in view of Zong teaches the method of Claim 3.
Lakios further teaches wherein the fourth measurements include a humidity level ([0056]).
Regarding Claim 7:
Rosenbrock in view of Zong teaches the method of Claim 1.
Lakios further teaches receiving data characterizing UV light level measurements (Abstract) recorded by the sensor (Abstract) in the central area (fig 4: 300; [0050]).
Regarding Claim 8:
Rosenbrock in view of Zong and modified by Lakios teaches the method of Claim 7.
Lakios further teaches computing a day and/or night cycle based on the recorded UV light level measurements ([0009, 0037, 0038, 0041, 0042, 0050]).
Regarding Claim 9:
Rosenbrock in view of Zong and modified by Lakios teaches the method of Claim 8.
Lakios further teaches the UV light level measurements are type B ultraviolet light level measurements ([0054]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT SHUSTER whose telephone number is (571) 272-3170. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:30-5 ET. 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached on 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571- 272-1000.
/GILBERT SHUSTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
07/19/2025
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855