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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 19, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The effective filing date of the claimed invention is April 29, 2023.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to Claims 1, 10, and 19 are acknowledged.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories
As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.(Claims 1-9 are processes and Claims 10-20 are machines). Accordingly, step 1 is satisfied.
Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited
Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 1 and 11) recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea.” Any additional elements will be analyzed under Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B:
A system, comprising:
a processor configured to execute instructions; and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform steps comprising:
identifying a first item assortment and a second item assortment, the first and second item assortments describing a respective set of items and quantities thereof to stock a physical warehouse having a limited capacity for item storage (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), Commercial or Legal interaction as a Method of Organizing Human Activity, structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009));
stocking the physical warehouse with the first item assortment and the second item assortment based on an assortment split weight specifying a portion of the respective item quantities to stock for the first item assortment and the second item assortment (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), Commercial or Legal interaction as a Method of Organizing Human Activity, structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009));
assigning a first portion of a plurality of users to the first item assortment and assigning a second portion of the plurality of users to the second item assortment (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), Commercial or Legal interaction as a Method of Organizing Human Activity, structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009));
providing different user interface elements for display to respective devices of the plurality of users for placing an order at the physical warehouse, the user interface elements for each user of the plurality of users being based on whether a given user is in the first portion or the second portion of the plurality of users (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), Commercial or Legal interaction as a Method of Organizing Human Activity, structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009));
receiving orders from the plurality of users (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), Commercial or Legal interaction as a Method of Organizing Human Activity, structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009));
determining one or more comparative metrics between the first and second item assortment based on the received orders from the plurality of users and the respective assigned item assortment (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), Commercial or Legal interaction as a Method of Organizing Human Activity, structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009));
applying updates to at least one of the first assortment and the second assortment based on the comparative metrics, resulting in updates to the quantitates to stock for the first item assortment and the second item assortment (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), Commercial or Legal interaction as a Method of Organizing Human Activity, structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); and
updating the different user interface elements based on the applied updates to include items in the assigned item assortment and to exclude user interface elements for items that are stocked in the warehouse and were previously displayed, but are no longer displayed because they are no longer in the assigned item assortment notwithstanding that they are stocked in the warehouse (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), Commercial or Legal interaction as a Method of Organizing Human Activity, structuring a sales force or marketing company, which pertains to marketing or sales activities or behaviors, In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 1 and 11) is directed to a series of steps for determining an assortment split for a first item assortment and a second item assortment in a physical warehouse and providing user interfaces for placing orders at the physical warehouse, which is a commercial interaction and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The mere nominal recitation of a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a user interface element, and devices of a plurality of users, does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human interactions. Thus, Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 1 and 11) recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
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)
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The identified abstract idea of exemplary Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 1 and 11) is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are: a processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a user interface element, and devices of a plurality of users that implements the underlying abstract idea. These additional elements are broadly recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 1 and 11) is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis
Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 1 and 11) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination, steps a) identifying a first item assortment and a second item assortment, b) stocking the physical warehouse with the first item assortment and second item assortment, c) assigning a plurality of users to the first item assortment or the second item assortment, d) providing user interface elements for display to respective devices of the plurality of user for placing an order at the physical warehouse, e) receiving order from the plurality of users, f) determining one or more comparative metrics between the first and second item assortment, g) updating the quantities of stock for the first assortment and the second assortment, and h) updating user interface elements based on the applied updates to exclude items that are no longer in the assigned item assortment, do not add significantly more to the exception because they amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 19 (and similarly Claims 1 and 11) is ineligible.
Claim 2 (and similarly Claims 11 and 20) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity-commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 3 (and similarly Claim 12) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity-commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 4 (and similarly Claim 13) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity-commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 5 (and similarly Claim 14) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity-commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 6 (and similarly Claim 15) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity-commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim 7 (and similarly Claim 16) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity-commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). For the additional limitation of a trained computer model, the examiner refers to the "apply it" rationale of MPEP 2106.05(f) and PEG Example 47, Claim 2.
Claim 8 (and similarly Claim 17) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity-commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). For the additional limitation of a trained computer model, the examiner refers to the "apply it" rationale of MPEP 2106.05(f) and PEG Example 47, Claim 2.
Claim 9 (and similarly Claim 18) recites the abstract idea of organizing human activity-commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub 2019/0347607 “Shi”, in view of US Pat Pub 2023/0081051 “Brooks”, in view of US Pat Pub 2003/0171979 “Jenkins”, in view of US Pat Pub 2013/0275259 “Chidambaram”.
As per Claims 1, 10, and 19, Shi discloses a method, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and system, comprising:
identifying a first item assortment and a second item assortment, the first and second item assortments describing a respective set of items and quantities thereof to stock a physical warehouse having a limited capacity for item storage (Shi: [0062] For example, when the inventory control and order fulfillment related server 109 has fulfilled an order, the inventory control and order fulfillment related server 109 can add details of this order to the historical transaction information 201b. The details may include, for example, ID's of items included in this order, number of each of the items, order date, fulfillment date, delivery address, promotion information, or the like. [0066] In certain embodiments, the item selection model 203 is trained under a constraint of the capacity limit of the warehouse with an objective of maximizing a probability that the orders have their respective item(s) all stored in the same warehouse. [0103] Based on the ranking of the items and the storage limitation of the RDC, an optimal SKU subset is determined at 816. Then at 818, the Split-order Application compares the SKU subset 816 with the RDC SKU assortment 820.);
providing different user interface elements for display to respective devices of the plurality of users for placing an order at the physical warehouse, the user interface elements for each user of the plurality of users being based on whether a given user is in the first portion or the second portion of the plurality of users (Shi: [0054] Various users may use their respective terminal devices 105A, 105B to browse items and/or search for specific items. [0055] For convenience of explanation, it is assumed here that the server 107 supports order related services, such as item presenting and order making, and that the server 109 supports inventory control and order fulfillment related services, such as storage management and management of packaging and delivery);
receiving orders from the plurality of users (Shi: [0054] Various users may use their respective terminal devices 105A, 105B to browse items and/or search for specific items. [0055] For convenience of explanation, it is assumed here that the server 107 supports order related services, such as item presenting and order making, and that the server 109 supports inventory control and order fulfillment related services, such as storage management and management of packaging and delivery); and
determining one or more comparative metrics between the first and second item assortment based on the received orders from the plurality of users and the respective assigned item assortment (Shi: [0065] Based on the data collected from the various databases, especially the historical orders, the inventory control and order fulfillment related server 109 is configured to train the item selection model at 203. Pieces of item data for the respective items included in the historical orders can be inputted to the item selection model, resulting in the respective scores. A piece of item data for each item may comprise an ID of the item and a property of the item, and optionally, also sales information and/or promotion information of the item. Such scores can be converted into probabilities that the respective items are to be stored in the warehouse. For example, the higher is the score, the greater is the probability.).
Shi fails to disclose a method, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and system, comprising:
stocking the physical warehouse with the first item assortment and second item assortment based on an assortment split weight specifying a portion of the respective item quantities to stock for the first item assortment and the second item assortment;
assigning a first portion of a plurality of users to the first item assortment and assigning a second portion of the plurality of users to the second item assortment;
applying updates to at least one of the first assortment and the second assortment based on the comparative metrics, resulting in updates to the quantities to stock for the first item assortment and the second item assortment; and
updating the different user interface elements based on the applied updates to include items in the assigned item assortment and to exclude user interface elements for items that are stocked in the warehouse and were previously displayed, but are no longer displayed because they are no longer in the assigned item assortment notwithstanding that they are stocked in the warehouse.
Brooks teaches a method, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and system, comprising:
stocking the physical warehouse with the first item assortment and second item assortment based on an assortment split weight specifying a portion of the respective item quantities to stock for the first item assortment and the second item assortment (Brooks: [0014] designed as A/B tests (also known as bucket testing or split run testing). Such data gathering may consist of designing two different starting assortments and measuring the resulting consumer behavior);
assigning a plurality of users to the first item assortment or the second item assortment (Brooks: [0022] the methods described herein may use the data from automated inventory management systems, which are already employed by a retailer to monitor inventory available for purchase and to order new inventory. Even the best inventory systems cannot guarantee, however, that all products will be available at all times. In a single year for just a single product category, like household cleaning or air filtration products, across all PoPs of one retailer, there may be thousands of instances when products are temporarily unavailable, and during these instances, product unavailability effects can be measured. To date, product unavailability has been treated by retailers as a failure mode to be avoided. The methods described herein, however, recognize that product unavailability represents a real-time data stream of assortment change which, when considered with associated changes in customer behavior during such unavailability (a specific example of product unavailability effect), can lead to actionable insights about assortment optimization.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shi to include assigning users to a first item assortment or a second item assortment as taught by Brooks, when determining comparative metrics between the first item assortment and the second item assortment as taught by Shi with the motivation of correctly optimizing assortment across all points of purchase (PoPs—for example, individual physical stores, distribution centers, e-Commerce websites) to yield significant improvements in business performance (Brooks: [0012]).
Shi and Brooks fail to disclose a method, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and system, comprising:
applying updates to at least one of the first assortment and the second assortment based on the comparative metrics, resulting in updates to the quantities to stock for the first item assortment and the second item assortment; and
updating the different user interface elements based on the applied updates to include items in the assigned item assortment and to exclude user interface elements for items that are stocked in the warehouse and were previously displayed, but are no longer displayed because they are no longer in the assigned item assortment notwithstanding that they are stocked in the warehouse.
Jenkins teaches a method, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and system, comprising:
applying updates to at least one of the first assortment and the second assortment based on the comparative metrics, resulting in updates to the quantities to stock for the first item assortment and the second item assortment (Jenkins: [0065], Updated information is thereafter imported into the item assortment program at step 356, which may include, information relating to, for example, sales data and DOS information. Specific spreadsheets showing this updated information then may be generated at step 358 using the item assortment program and a determination thereafter made at step 360, based upon the updated information, whether products adds, retains or deletes are necessary based upon the plan analysis. [0066], Product changes (e.g., product adds, retains and deletes) are then exported at step 362 from the item assortment program into a shelf management program (e.g., Apollo) or spreadsheet as described herein and identified in FIG. 3 as steps 122, 124, 126, 128, 130, and 132. The product changes are identified in the interface 100 at step 364, identified as step 134 in FIG. 3, and as described herein. At step 366 product update information is imported into the shelf management program.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shi and Brooks to include updating product assortments as taught by Jenkins, when determining comparative metrics between the first item assortment and the second item assortment as taught by Shi and Brooks with the motivation to maximize sales potential of products displayed for retail sale (Jenkins: [0003]).
Shi, Brooks, and Jenkins fail to disclose a method, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and system, comprising:
updating the different user interface elements based on the applied updates to include items in the assigned item assortment and to exclude user interface elements for items that are stocked in the warehouse and were previously displayed, but are no longer displayed because they are no longer in the assigned item assortment notwithstanding that they are stocked in the warehouse.
Chidambaram teaches a method, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and system, comprising:
updating the different user interface elements based on the applied updates to include items in the assigned item assortment and to exclude user interface elements for items that are stocked in the warehouse and were previously displayed, but are no longer displayed because they are no longer in the assigned item assortment notwithstanding that they are stocked in the warehouse (Chidambaram: [0061] Some embodiments of the invention may provide a flexible method of customizing a display to a user. The method may provide for authoring and generating product catalogs on website, specific to a user based upon the user's current preferences, including country, language, region, targeted sales group, etc. Product catalog content may be authored at a generic level by content designers and marketers may customize atomic level content dynamically based on the preferences and sales history. The mechanism may also enable a marketing team to repurpose existing content for multiple groups in a dynamic fashion. In some further embodiments, an online catalog may change its display without hard-coding the changes. The changes may be made dynamically, rather than requiring a temporary shut-down.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shi, Brooks, and Jenkins to include updating an interface to reflect when an item is no longer included in an assortment as taught by Chidambaram, when determining comparative metrics between the first item assortment and the second item assortment as taught by Shi, Brooks, and Jenkins with the motivation to customize the display of information to a visitor to an online catalog (Chidambaram: [0028]).
As per Claims 2, 11, and 20, Shi discloses a method, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and system, wherein providing the user interface elements to each user in the plurality of users includes displaying only items to the user that are in the assigned item assortment (Shi: [0100]).
As per Claims 3 and 12, Shi fails to disclose but Brooks teaches a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein assigning the plurality of users to the first item assortment or the second item assortment assigns users to the respective item assortments at a ratio matching the assortment split weight (Brooks: [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shi to include assigning users to a first item assortment or a second item assortment as taught by Brooks, when determining comparative metrics between the first item assortment and the second item assortment as taught by Shi with the motivation of correctly optimizing assortment across all points of purchase (PoPs—for example, individual physical stores, distribution centers, e-Commerce websites) to yield significant improvements in business performance (Brooks: [0012]).
As per Claims 4 and 13, Shi fails to disclose but Brooks teaches a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein each user of the plurality of users is assigned to the first item assortment or the second item assortment responsive to receiving a request from the user to view items available for order at the physical warehouse (Brooks: [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shi to include assigning users to a first item assortment or a second item assortment as taught by Brooks, when determining comparative metrics between the first item assortment and the second item assortment as taught by Shi with the motivation of correctly optimizing assortment across all points of purchase (PoPs—for example, individual physical stores, distribution centers, e-Commerce websites) to yield significant improvements in business performance (Brooks: [0012]).
As per Claims 5 and 14, Shi fails to disclose but Brooks teaches a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the plurality of users is randomly assigned to the first item assortment or the second item assortment (Brooks: [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shi to include assigning users to a first item assortment or a second item assortment as taught by Brooks, when determining comparative metrics between the first item assortment and the second item assortment as taught by Shi with the motivation of correctly optimizing assortment across all points of purchase (PoPs—for example, individual physical stores, distribution centers, e-Commerce websites) to yield significant improvements in business performance (Brooks: [0012]).
As per Claims 6 and 15, Shi fails to disclose but Brooks teaches a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein providing the user interface elements includes providing search results for a search query based on the assigned item assortment (Brooks: [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shi to include assigning users to a first item assortment or a second item assortment as taught by Brooks, when determining comparative metrics between the first item assortment and the second item assortment as taught by Shi with the motivation of correctly optimizing assortment across all points of purchase (PoPs—for example, individual physical stores, distribution centers, e-Commerce websites) to yield significant improvements in business performance (Brooks: [0012]).
As per Claims 7 and 16, Shi discloses a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium, further comprising:
generating the second item assortment with a trained computer model applied to the first item assortment (Shi: [0048]).
As per Claims 8 and 17, Shi discloses a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium, further comprising:
training the computer model based on the received orders for the first item assortment and the received orders for the second item assortment (Shi: [0048]).
As per Claims 9 and 18, Shi discloses a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium, further comprising:
modifying the assortment split weight based on the comparative metrics (Shi: [0098]).
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed March 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Claims 1-20 are analogous to PEG Example 37, Claim 2, and that Claims 1-20 should be eligible based on the rationale provided for Example 37, Claim 2. Example 37 is to claims that automatically move icons within a GUI based on various parameters. This is not found to be analogous to the claims of this application. Instead, independent Claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to updating user interface elements based on tailoring catalog products to a particular user. Unlike the changes to the GUI of Example 37, Claim 2, the claimed updates to user interface elements are merely updating the information provided to a user, not the configuration of the GUI, which is a type of organizing human activity, and if the information weren’t specific to inventory, it would be considered mental processes as something that could be done with a pen and paper. Unlike PEG Example 37, the formatting of the user interface and icons is not claimed. Instead, the content of what is displayed is claimed. Therefore, the claims are not found to be directed to eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed March 19, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US Pat Pub 2019/0347607 “Shi”, in view of US Pat Pub 2023/0081051 “Brooks”, in view of US Pat Pub 2003/0171979 “Jenkins”, in view of US Pat Pub 2013/0275259 “Chidambaram”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REVA R MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-7942. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:00-6:00.
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.
/REVA R MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights